Increase in hospital care at the end of life: Retrospective analysis of the last 20 years of life of a cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing need for end-of-life care due to society's progressive aging. This study aimed to describe how hospitalizations evolve long-term and in the last months life of a cohort of deceased patients. METHODS: The study population were those who died in one year who lived in a district in southern Spain. The number of hospital stays over the previous 20 years and number of contacts with the emergency department, hospitalization, outpatient clinics, and medical day hospital in the last three months of life were determined. The analyses were stratified by age, sex, and pattern of functional decline. RESULTS: The study population included 1773 patients (82.5% of all who died in the district). The hospital stays during the last 20 years of life were concentrated in the last five years (66%) and specially in the last six months (32%). Eighty percent had contact with the hospital during their last three months of life. The older group had the minimun of stays over the last 20 years and contacts with the hospital in the last months of life. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of hospitalizations occur at the end of life and these admissions represent a significant part of an acute-care hospital's activity. The progressive prolongation of life does not have to go necessarily along with a proportional increase in hospital stays.

Nosocomial COVID-19: A Nationwide Spanish Study.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 is a highly contagious virus, and despite professionals' best efforts, nosocomial COVID-19 (NC) infections have been reported. This work aimed to describe differences in symptoms and outcomes between patients with NC and community-acquired COVID-19 (CAC) and to identify risk factors for severe outcomes among NC patients. METHODS: This is a nationwide, retrospective, multicenter, observational study that analyzed patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 in 150 Spanish hospitals (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry) from March 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. NC was defined as patients admitted for non-COVID-19 diseases with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test on the fifth day of hospitalization or later. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality (IHM). The secondary outcome was other COVID-19-related complications. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 23,219 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 1,104 (4.8%) were NC. Compared to CAC patients, NC patients were older (median 76 vs. 69 years; p < 0.001), had more comorbidities (median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 vs. 3; p < 0.001), were less symptomatic (p < 0.001), and had normal chest X-rays more frequently (30.8% vs. 12.5%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for sex, age, dependence, COVID-19 wave, and comorbidities, NC was associated with lower risk of moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87; p < 0.001) and higher risk of acute heart failure (aOR: 1.40; 1.12-1.72; p = 0.003), sepsis (aOR: 1.73; 1.33-2.54; p < 0.001), and readmission (aOR: 1.35; 1.03-1.83; p = 0.028). NC was associated with a higher case fatality rate (39.1% vs. 19.2%) in all age groups. IHM was significantly higher among NC patients (aOR: 2.07; 1.81-2.68; p < 0.001). Risk factors for increased IHM in NC patients were age, moderate/severe dependence, malignancy, dyspnea, moderate/severe ARDS, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and shock; odynophagia was associated with lower IHM. CONCLUSIONS: NC is associated with greater mortality and complications compared to CAC. Hospital strategies to prevent NC must be strengthened.

Remdesivir in Very Old Patients (≥80 Years) Hospitalized with COVID-19: Real World Data from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

(1) Background: Large cohort studies of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir have reported improved clinical outcomes, but data on older patients are scarce. Objective: This work aims to assess the potential benefit of remdesivir in unvaccinated very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (2) Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients ≥ 80 years hospitalized in Spain between 15 July and 31 December 2020 (SEMI-COVID-19 Registry). Differences in 30-day all-cause mortality were adjusted using a multivariable regression analysis. (3) Results: Of the 4331 patients admitted, 1312 (30.3%) were ≥80 years. Very old patients treated with remdesivir (n: 140, 10.7%) had a lower mortality rate than those not treated with remdesivir (OR (95% CI): 0.45 (0.29−0.69)). After multivariable adjustment by age, sex, and variables associated with lower mortality (place of COVID-19 acquisition; degree of dependence; comorbidities; dementia; duration of symptoms; admission qSOFA; chest X-ray; D-dimer; and treatment with corticosteroids, tocilizumab, beta-lactams, macrolides, and high-flow nasal canula oxygen), the use of remdesivir remained associated with a lower 30-day all-cause mortality rate (adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.40 (0.22−0.61) (p < 0.001)). (4) Conclusions: Remdesivir may reduce mortality in very old patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Development and evaluation of a machine learning-based in-hospital COVID-19 disease outcome predictor (CODOP): A multicontinental retrospective study.

New SARS-CoV-2 variants, breakthrough infections, waning immunity, and sub-optimal vaccination rates account for surges of hospitalizations and deaths. There is an urgent need for clinically valuable and generalizable triage tools assisting the allocation of hospital resources, particularly in resource-limited countries. We developed and validate CODOP, a machine learning-based tool for predicting the clinical outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. CODOP was trained, tested and validated with six cohorts encompassing 29223 COVID-19 patients from more than 150 hospitals in Spain, the USA and Latin America during 2020-22. CODOP uses 12 clinical parameters commonly measured at hospital admission for reaching high discriminative ability up to 9 days before clinical resolution (AUROC: 0·90-0·96), it is well calibrated, and it enables an effective dynamic risk stratification during hospitalization. Furthermore, CODOP maintains its predictive ability independently of the virus variant and the vaccination status. To reckon with the fluctuating pressure levels in hospitals during the pandemic, we offer two online CODOP calculators, suited for undertriage or overtriage scenarios, validated with a cohort of patients from 42 hospitals in three Latin American countries (78-100% sensitivity and 89-97% specificity). The performance of CODOP in heterogeneous and geographically disperse patient cohorts and the easiness of use strongly suggest its clinical utility, particularly in resource-limited countries.

While COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, new variants, waxing immunity, unequal rollout and relaxation of mitigation strategies mean that the pandemic will keep on sending shockwaves across healthcare systems. In this context, it is crucial to equip clinicians with tools to triage COVID-19 patients and forecast who will experience the worst forms of the disease. Prediction models based on artificial intelligence could help in this effort, but the task is not straightforward. Indeed, the pandemic is defined by ever-changing factors which artificial intelligence needs to cope with. To be useful in the clinic, a prediction model should make accurate prediction regardless of hospital location, viral variants or vaccination and immunity statuses. It should also be able to adapt its output to the level of resources available in a hospital at any given time. Finally, these tools need to seamlessly integrate into clinical workflows to not burden clinicians. In response, Klén et al. built CODOP, a freely available prediction algorithm that calculates the death risk of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (https://gomezvarelalab.em.mpg.de/codop/). This model was designed based on biochemical data from routine blood analyses of COVID-19 patients. Crucially, the dataset included 30,000 individuals from 150 hospitals in Spain, the United States, Honduras, Bolivia and Argentina, sampled between March 2020 and February 2022 and carrying most of the main COVID-19 variants (from the original Wuhan version to Omicron). CODOP can predict the death or survival of hospitalized patients with high accuracy up to nine days before the clinical outcome occurs. These forecasting abilities are preserved independently of vaccination status or viral variant. The next step is to tailor the model to the current pandemic situation, which features increasing numbers of infected people as well as accumulating immune protection in the overall population. Further development will refine CODOP so that the algorithm can detect who will need hospitalisation in the next 24 hours, and who will need admission in intensive care in the next two days. Equipping primary care settings and hospitals with these tools will help to restore previous standards of health care during the upcoming waves of infections, particularly in countries with limited resources.

Coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalization outcomes in persons with and without HIV in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization outcomes between persons with and without HIV. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study in 150 hospitals in Spain. METHODS: Patients admitted from 1 March to 8 October 2020 with COVID-19 diagnosis confirmed by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 positive) PCR test in respiratory tract samples. The primary data source was the COVID-19 Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna's registry (SEMI-COVID-19). Demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory parameters, and clinical severity as well as treatments received during admission, treatment duration, ICU admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, and death were recorded. Factors associated with mortality and the composite of ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and death, were analyzed. RESULTS: Data from 16 563 admissions were collected, 98 (0.59%) of which were of persons with HIV infection. These patients were younger, the percentage of male patients was higher, and their Charlson comorbidity index was also higher. Rates of mortality and composite outcome of ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation or death were lower among patients with HIV infection. In the logistic regression analysis, HIV infection was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.53 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.96] for the composite outcome. CONCLUSION: HIV infection was associated with a lower probability of ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death.

Risk Categories in COVID-19 Based on Degrees of Inflammation: Data on More Than 17,000 Patients from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

(1) Background: The inflammation or cytokine storm that accompanies COVID-19 marks the prognosis. This study aimed to identify three risk categories based on inflammatory parameters on admission. (2) Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with COVID-19, collected and followed-up from 1 March to 31 July 2020, from the nationwide Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry. The three categories of low, intermediate, and high risk were determined by taking into consideration the terciles of the total lymphocyte count and the values of C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, and D-dimer taken at the time of admission. (3) Results: A total of 17,122 patients were included in the study. The high-risk group was older (57.9 vs. 64.2 vs. 70.4 years; p < 0.001) and predominantly male (37.5% vs. 46.9% vs. 60.1%; p < 0.001). They had a higher degree of dependence in daily tasks prior to admission (moderate-severe dependency in 10.8% vs. 14.1% vs. 17%; p < 0.001), arterial hypertension (36.9% vs. 45.2% vs. 52.8%; p < 0.001), dyslipidemia (28.4% vs. 37% vs. 40.6%; p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (11.9% vs. 17.1% vs. 20.5%; p < 0.001), ischemic heart disease (3.7% vs. 6.5% vs. 8.4%; p < 0.001), heart failure (3.4% vs. 5.2% vs. 7.6%; p < 0.001), liver disease (1.1% vs. 3% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.002), chronic renal failure (2.3% vs. 3.6% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001), cancer (6.5% vs. 7.2% vs. 11.1%; p < 0.001), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (5.7% vs. 5.4% vs. 7.1%; p < 0.001). They presented more frequently with fever, dyspnea, and vomiting. These patients more frequently required high flow nasal cannula (3.1% vs. 4.4% vs. 9.7%; p < 0.001), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (0.9% vs. 3% vs. 6.3%; p < 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (0.6% vs. 2.7% vs. 8.7%; p < 0.001), and ICU admission (0.9% vs. 3.6% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.001), and had a higher percentage of in-hospital mortality (2.3% vs. 6.2% vs. 23.9%; p < 0.001). The three risk categories proved to be an independent risk factor in multivariate analyses. (4) Conclusion: The present study identifies three risk categories for the requirement of high flow nasal cannula, mechanical ventilation, ICU admission, and in-hospital mortality based on lymphopenia and inflammatory parameters.

Inappropriate antibiotic use in the COVID-19 era: Factors associated with inappropriate prescribing and secondary complications. Analysis of the registry SEMI-COVID.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with COVID-19 receive antibiotics despite the fact that bacterial co-infections are rare. This can lead to increased complications, including antibacterial resistance. We aim to analyze risk factors for inappropriate antibiotic prescription in these patients and describe possible complications arising from their use. METHODS: The SEMI-COVID-19 Registry is a multicenter, retrospective patient cohort. Patients with antibiotic were divided into two groups according to appropriate or inappropriate prescription, depending on whether the patient fulfill any criteria for its use. Comparison was made by means of multilevel logistic regression analysis. Possible complications of antibiotic use were also identified. RESULTS: Out of 13,932 patients, 3047 (21.6%) were prescribed no antibiotics, 6116 (43.9%) were appropriately prescribed antibiotics, and 4769 (34.2%) were inappropriately prescribed antibiotics. The following were independent factors of inappropriate prescription: February-March 2020 admission (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.18-2.00), age (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.97-0.99), absence of comorbidity (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.05-1.94), dry cough (OR 2.51, 95%CI 1.94-3.26), fever (OR 1.33, 95%CI 1.13-1.56), dyspnea (OR 1.31, 95%CI 1.04-1.69), flu-like symptoms (OR 2.70, 95%CI 1.75-4.17), and elevated C-reactive protein levels (OR 1.01 for each mg/L increase, 95% CI 1.00-1.01). Adverse drug reactions were more frequent in patients who received ANTIBIOTIC (4.9% vs 2.7%, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The inappropriate use of antibiotics was very frequent in COVID-19 patients and entailed an increased risk of adverse reactions. It is crucial to define criteria for their use in these patients. Knowledge of the factors associated with inappropriate prescribing can be helpful.

Healthcare workers hospitalized due to COVID-19 have no higher risk of death than general population. Data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry.

AIM: To determine whether healthcare workers (HCW) hospitalized in Spain due to COVID-19 have a worse prognosis than non-healthcare workers (NHCW). METHODS: Observational cohort study based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a nationwide registry that collects sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain. Patients aged 20-65 years were selected. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to identify factors associated with mortality. RESULTS: As of 22 May 2020, 4393 patients were included, of whom 419 (9.5%) were HCW. Median (interquartile range) age of HCW was 52 (15) years and 62.4% were women. Prevalence of comorbidities and severe radiological findings upon admission were less frequent in HCW. There were no difference in need of respiratory support and admission to intensive care unit, but occurrence of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was lower in HCW (1.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.024 and 0.7% vs. 4.8%; p<0.001 respectively). Age, male sex and comorbidity, were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and healthcare working with lower mortality (OR 0.211, 95%CI 0.067-0.667, p = 0.008). 30-days survival was higher in HCW (0.968 vs. 0.851 p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized COVID-19 HCW had fewer comorbidities and a better prognosis than NHCW. Our results suggest that professional exposure to COVID-19 in HCW does not carry more clinical severity nor mortality.

Severity Scores in COVID-19 Pneumonia: a Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients on admission to hospital with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes has not yet been comprehensively assessed. OBJECTIVE: To compare severity scores used for community-acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN: PSI, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), or use of mechanical ventilation. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC was compared among them. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network. KEY RESULTS: We examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were as follows: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and 0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%. CONCLUSIONS: PSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA at predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.

Association of Hypertension with All-Cause Mortality among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19.

It is unclear to which extent the higher mortality associated with hypertension in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is due to its increased prevalence among older patients or to specific mechanisms. Cross-sectional, observational, retrospective multicenter study, analyzing 12226 patients who required hospital admission in 150 Spanish centers included in the nationwide SEMI-COVID-19 Network. We compared the clinical characteristics of survivors versus non-survivors. The mean age of the study population was 67.5 ± 16.1 years, 42.6% were women. Overall, 2630 (21.5%) subjects died. The most common comorbidity was hypertension (50.9%) followed by diabetes (19.1%), and atrial fibrillation (11.2%). Multivariate analysis showed that after adjusting for gender (males, OR: 1.5, p = 0.0001), age tertiles (second and third tertiles, OR: 2.0 and 4.7, p = 0.0001), and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (second and third tertiles, OR: 4.7 and 8.1, p = 0.0001), hypertension was significantly predictive of all-cause mortality when this comorbidity was treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR: 1.6, p = 0.002) or other than renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockers (OR: 1.3, p = 0.001) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR: 1.2, p = 0.035). The preexisting condition of hypertension had an independent prognostic value for all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalization. ARBs showed a lower risk of lethality in hypertensive patients than other antihypertensive drugs.

Shock cardiogénico y embolia de pulmón / Cardiogenic Shock and Pulmonary Embolism

No disponible

Factores pronósticos y supervivencia a largo plazo tras el diagnóstico inicial de insuficiencia cardiaca / Prognostic factors and long-term survival after initial diagnosis of heart failure

Fundamento y objetivo: Los objetivos de este estudio fueron evaluar los factores pronósticos y la mortalidad a largo plazo en pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca (IC) tras su primer diagnóstico, analizar las diferencias en función de la fracción de eyección del ventrículo izquierdo (FEVI) preservada (ICFEP) frente a la disfunción sistólica (ICDS), y, por último, comparar los resultados con los descritos en las principales series de casos incidentes de IC publicadas.Pacientes y método: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivo en el que se incluyeron pacientes con primer ingreso por IC (criterios de Framingham) entre el 1-01-1997 y el 31-12-2001, clasificados en función de la FEVI mayor (ICFEP) o menor (ICDS) del 50%, seguidos durante un período máximo de 10 años. Resultados: Se incluyeron 400 casos incidentes, 231 pacientes (57,7%) tuvieron ICFEP. A los 10 años la mortalidad fue mayor en la ICDS (64,5 frente a 55,4%, p=0,04). Las variables relacionadas con la mortalidad en ICFEP incluyeron edad, diabetes mellitus, cardiopatía isquémica e insuficiencia renal crónica. El tratamiento con estatinas y betabloqueantes se asoció a un mejor pronóstico. En ICDS los predictores de mortalidad fueron similares, aunque las estatinas no mejoraron la supervivencia. Respecto a otras series de casos incidentes, hubo diferencias en cuanto a las variables relacionadas con el pronóstico y la mortalidad de los pacientes. Conclusiones: Tras el diagnóstico inicial de la IC, más de la mitad de los pacientes fallecen a los 10 años de seguimiento. La edad, la diabetes mellitus, la cardiopatía isquémica y la insuficiencia renal crónica se asocian a un peor pronóstico en estos pacientes, mientras que el uso de betabloqueantes se asocia a un mejor pronóstico (AU)

Background and objective: To assess long-term mortality and prognostic factors after initial diagnosis of heart failure (HF), to analyze the differences in function of the left ventricular ejection fraction (preserved [HFPEF] vs. systolic dysfunction [HFSD]) and to compare the results with the main series of incident cases of HF published.Patients and methods: Retrospective cohort study including patients first diagnosed of heart failure (Framingham criteria), between 1-01-1997 and 31-12-2001, classified according to a left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) above or equal to 50% (HFPEF) or below 50% (HFSD). Follow-up of patients was conducted during ten years.Results: Out of 400 incident cases of heart failure, 231 patients (57,7%) presented with HFPEF. At 10 years, mortality rates were higher in the HFSD group (64,5 vs. 55,4%, p=0,04). Following a multi-variant analysis, HFPEF mortality was related with age, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and chronic renal failure. Treatment with statins and beta-blockers was associated with improved prognosis. Among patients with HFSD, mortality predictors were similar, although patients treated with statins did not show higher survival rates. For other series of incident cases, there were differences in variables related to prognosis and mortality of patients. Conclusions: After an initial diagnosis of HF, more than half of patients die within 10 years of monitoring. Age, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease and chronic renal failure are all associated with worse prognosis in these patients, whereas the use of beta-blockers and statins is associated with a better prognosis (AU)

[Prognostic factors and long-term survival after initial diagnosis of heart failure]. / Factores pronósticos y supervivencia a largo plazo tras el diagnóstico inicial de insuficiencia cardiaca.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term mortality and prognostic factors after initial diagnosis of heart failure (HF), to analyze the differences in function of the left ventricular ejection fraction (preserved [HFPEF] vs. systolic dysfunction [HFSD]) and to compare the results with the main series of incident cases of HF published. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including patients first diagnosed of heart failure (Framingham criteria), between 1-01-1997 and 31-12-2001, classified according to a left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) above or equal to 50% (HFPEF) or below 50% (HFSD). Follow-up of patients was conducted during ten years. RESULTS: Out of 400 incident cases of heart failure, 231 patients (57,7%) presented with HFPEF. At 10 years, mortality rates were higher in the HFSD group (64,5 vs. 55,4%, p=0,04). Following a multi-variant analysis, HFPEF mortality was related with age, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and chronic renal failure. Treatment with statins and beta-blockers was associated with improved prognosis. Among patients with HFSD, mortality predictors were similar, although patients treated with statins did not show higher survival rates. For other series of incident cases, there were differences in variables related to prognosis and mortality of patients. CONCLUSIONS: After an initial diagnosis of HF, more than half of patients die within 10 years of monitoring. Age, diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease and chronic renal failure are all associated with worse prognosis in these patients, whereas the use of beta-blockers and statins is associated with a better prognosis.

Factores asociados a ingresos inadecuados en un servicio de medicina interna / Factors associated with an inapropriate hospitalization in an internal medicine departament

FUNDAMENTO: Conocer los factores que pueden influir en los ingresos inadecuados en un servicio de medicina interna. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Analizamos 1.993 ingresos, evaluando su adecuación utilizando el Protocolo de Evaluación de la Adecuación. RESULTADO: Un total de 187 ingresos se consideraron inadecuados (9,4 por ciento). La probabilidad de ingreso inadecuado era mayor si el paciente tenía menos de 65 años (OR, 1,94; IC del 95 por ciento, 1,32-2,85) o si el ingreso era programado desde consultas externas (OR, 10,58. IC del 95 por ciento, 2,79-40,1). Además, el diagnóstico clínico influía en dicha inadecuación. CONCLUSIONES: La edad, el diagnóstico y la procedencia del ingreso influyen en la inadecuación de los ingresos producidos en nuestro servicio (AU)