Social and clinical predictors of perianal colonisation by multidrug-resistant bacteria for geriatric patients in the internal medicine service.

BACKGROUND: Colonisation by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria is a global health issue. The identification of patients with a higher risk of colonisation is essential. Patients admitted to internal medicine services might represent a vulnerable population with a high risk of colonisation. This study was the first to assess social and clinical variables associated with a higher risk of perianal colonisation by MDR bacteria in a Spanish cohort of patients admitted to internal medicine service. METHODS: Patients admitted to an internal medicine service during 12 months of recruitment (1 March 2022 to 1 March 2023) were included in the study. Perianal swabs were performed at admission to identify the presence of MDR bacteria. Social and clinical variables were collected following a directed acyclic graph. A cluster analysis was performed to identify clinical profiles of higher risk. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify potential predictors of MDR bacteria colonisation. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients, according to the required sample size, were included. Of them, 46 (18.8%) were colonised by MDR bacteria in perianal swabs. Female sex, age > 80 years, dependency on activities of daily living, cognitive deterioration and living in long-term care facilities constituted the highest risk clinical profile. After adjustments, living in long-term care facilities and malnutrition remained the main risk factors identified. CONCLUSION: Patients admitted to internal medicine services presented a high frequency of perianal colonisation by MDR bacteria. Social and clinical variables associated with bio-psycho-social susceptibility were associated with colonisation. Special surveillance is needed in internal medicine services to control the transmission.

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort.

Objectives: Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. Methods: Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. Results: From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS > 15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR = 1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR = 1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS > 15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS ≤ 7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS > 20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917). Conclusions: LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS ≤ 7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS > 15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.

Objetivos: Establecer diferentes puntos de corte basados en el Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) para clasificar la gravedad de la neumonía COVID-19. Métodos: Inicialmente, realizamos una revisión sistemática entre los puntos de corte LUS propuestos previamente. Estos resultados fueron validados por una cohorte prospectiva unicéntrica de pacientes adultos con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2. Las variables analizadas fueron la mala evolución y la mortalidad a los 28 días. Resultados: De 510 artículos, se incluyeron 11. Entre los puntos de corte propuestos en los artículos incluidos, solo LUS > 15 pudo ser validado para su objetivo original, demostrando también la relación más fuerte con mala evolución (odds ratio [OR] = 3,636, intervalo de confianza [IC] 1,411-9,374). Respecto a nuestra cohorte, se incluyeron 127 pacientes. En estos pacientes, el LUS se asoció estadísticamente con mala evolución (OR = 1,303, IC 1,137-1,493) y con mortalidad a los 28 días (OR = 1,024, IC 1,006-1,042). LUS > 15 mostró el mejor rendimiento diagnóstico al elegir un único punto de corte en nuestra cohorte (área bajo la curva 0,650). LUS ≤ 7 mostró una alta sensibilidad para descartar mal resultado (0,89, IC 0,695-0,955), mientras que LUS > 20 reveló gran especificidad para predecir mala evolución (0,86, IC 0,776-0,917). Conclusiones: LUS es un buen predictor de mala evolución y mortalidad a 28 días en COVID-19. LUS ≤ 7 se asocia con neumonía leve, LUS 8-20 con neumonía moderada y ≥ 20 con neumonía grave. Si se utilizara un único punto de corte, LUS > 15 sería el que mejor discriminaría la enfermedad leve de la grave.

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort / Puntos de corte de gravedad del Lung Ultrasound Score en la neumonía COVID-19. Revisión sistemática de la literatura y cohorte de validación

Objectives Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. Methods Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. Results From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS>15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR]=3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411–9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR=1.303, CI 1.137–1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR=1.024, CI 1.006–1.042). LUS>15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS≤7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695–0.955), while LUS>20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776–0.917). Conclusions LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS≤7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8–20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS>15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease (AU)

Objetivos Establecer diferentes puntos de corte basados en el Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS) para clasificar la gravedad de la neumonía COVID-19. Métodos Inicialmente, realizamos una revisión sistemática entre los puntos de corte LUS propuestos previamente. Estos resultados fueron validados por una cohorte prospectiva unicéntrica de pacientes adultos con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2. Las variables analizadas fueron la mala evolución y la mortalidad a los 28 días. Resultados De 510 artículos, se incluyeron 11. Entre los puntos de corte propuestos en los artículos incluidos, solo LUS>15 pudo ser validado para su objetivo original, demostrando también la relación más fuerte con mala evolución (odds ratio [OR]=3,636, intervalo de confianza [IC] 1,411-9,374). Respecto a nuestra cohorte, se incluyeron 127 pacientes. En estos pacientes, el LUS se asoció estadísticamente con mala evolución (OR=1,303, IC 1,137-1,493) y con mortalidad a los 28 días (OR=1,024, IC 1,006-1,042). LUS>15 mostró el mejor rendimiento diagnóstico al elegir un único punto de corte en nuestra cohorte (área bajo la curva 0,650). LUS≤7 mostró una alta sensibilidad para descartar mal resultado (0,89, IC 0,695-0,955), mientras que LUS>20 reveló gran especificidad para predecir mala evolución (0,86, IC 0,776-0,917). Conclusiones LUS es un buen predictor de mala evolución y mortalidad a 28 días en COVID-19. LUS≤7 se asocia con neumonía leve, LUS 8-20 con neumonía moderada y ≥20 con neumonía grave. Si se utilizara un único punto de corte, LUS>15 sería el que mejor discriminaría la enfermedad leve de la grave (AU)

Lung ultrasound score severity cut-off points in COVID-19 pneumonia. A systematic review and validating cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to establish different cut-off points based on the lung ultrasound score (LUS) to classify COVID-19 pneumonia severity. METHODS: Initially, we conducted a systematic review among previously proposed LUS cut-off points. Then, these results were validated by a single-centre prospective cohort study of adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Studied variables were poor outcome (ventilation support, intensive care unit admission or 28-days mortality) and 28-days mortality. RESULTS: From 510 articles, 11 articles were included. Among the cut-off points proposed in the articles included, only the LUS>15 cut-off point could be validated for its original endpoint, demonstrating also the strongest relation with poor outcome (odds ratio [OR]=3.636, confidence interval [CI] 1.411-9.374). Regarding our cohort, 127 patients were admitted. In these patients, LUS was statistically associated with poor outcome (OR=1.303, CI 1.137-1.493), and with 28-days mortality (OR=1.024, CI 1.006-1.042). LUS>15 showed the best diagnostic performance when choosing a single cut-off point in our cohort (area under the curve 0.650). LUS≤7 showed high sensitivity to rule out poor outcome (0.89, CI 0.695-0.955), while LUS>20 revealed high specificity to predict poor outcome (0.86, CI 0.776-0.917). CONCLUSIONS: LUS is a good predictor of poor outcome and 28-days mortality in COVID-19. LUS≤7 cut-off point is associated with mild pneumonia, LUS 8-20 with moderate pneumonia and ≥20 with severe pneumonia. If a single cut-off point were used, LUS>15 would be the point which better discriminates mild from severe disease.

Ultrasound findings of lung ultrasonography in COVID-19: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To identify the defining lung ultrasound (LUS) findings of COVID-19, and establish its association to the initial severity of the disease and prognostic outcomes. METHOD: Systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database and Scopus using the terms ((coronavirus) OR (covid-19) OR (sars AND cov AND 2) OR (2019-nCoV)) AND (("lung ultrasound") OR (LUS)), from 31st of December 2019 to 31st of January 2021. PCR-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, obtained from original studies with at least 10 participants 18 years old or older, were included. Risk of bias and applicability was evaluated with QUADAS-2. RESULTS: We found 1333 articles, from which 66 articles were included, with a pooled population of 4687 patients. The most examined findings were at least 3 B-lines, confluent B-lines, subpleural consolidation, pleural effusion and bilateral or unilateral distribution. B-lines, its confluent presentation and pleural abnormalities are the most frequent findings. LUS score was higher in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and emergency department (ED), and it was associated with a higher risk of developing unfavorable outcomes (death, ICU admission or need for mechanical ventilation). LUS findings and/or the LUS score had a good negative predictive value in the diagnosis of COVID-19 compared to RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent ultrasound findings of COVID-19 are B-lines and pleural abnormalities. High LUS score is associated with developing unfavorable outcomes. The inclusion of pleural effusion in the LUS score and the standardisation of the imaging protocol in COVID-19 LUS remains to be defined.

Psychological Impact and Risk of Suicide in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients, During the Initial Stage of the Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the psychological impact and risk of suicide in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a representative sample of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at the "San Cecilio" University Hospital (Granada, Spain) between March and May 2020. Sociodemographic and clinical variables were collected. All participants were evaluated using the Gijon's Social-Familial Evaluation Scale to assess social problems, the Impact of Event Scale-6 and the Hospital Anxiety-Depression Scale to assess psychological impact, the Columbia Suicide Severity and Beck Hopelessness scales to assess risk of suicide, and the List of Threatening Experiences questionnaire to control for confounding bias. RESULTS: Thirty-six COVID-19 patients were evaluated. Of them, 33.3% had a significant psychological impact; 13.9% showed symptoms of anxiety, 13.9% showed symptoms of depression, and 47.2% showed symptoms of anxiety-depression. Moderate and severe risk of suicide were found in 75% and 2.8% of the patients, respectively. Suicidal ideation was observed in 16.7% and suicide behaviors in 5.6% of the patients. Psychological impact was associated with previous psychological treatment, a greater degree of functional dependency, and increased social-familial risk. In addition, the risk of suicide was mainly associated with active treatment of a psychiatric illness and active smoking. No significant correlation was found between psychological impact and risk of suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological impact and risk of suicide were significant in patients admitted for COVID-19. Although the risk of suicide was not associated with increased psychological impact, both should be assessed, especially in patients at higher risk based on significantly associated factors.

Lung Ultrasound, Clinical and Analytic Scoring Systems as Prognostic Tools in SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: A Validating Cohort.

At the moment, several COVID-19 scoring systems have been developed. It is necessary to determine which one better predicts a poor outcome of the disease. We conducted a single-center prospective cohort study to validate four COVID-19 prognosis scores in adult patients with confirmed infection at ward. These are National Early Warning Score (NEWS) 2, Lung Ultrasound Score (LUS), COVID-19 Worsening Score (COWS), and Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology score (SEIMC Score). Our outcomes were the combined variable "poor outcome" (non-invasive mechanical ventilation, intubation, intensive care unit admission, and death at 28 days) and death at 28 days. Scores were analysed using univariate logistic regression models, receiver operating characteristic curves, and areas under the curve. Eighty-one patients were included, from which 21 had a poor outcome, and 9 died. We found a statistically significant correlation between poor outcome and NEWS2, LUS > 15, and COWS. Death at 28 days was statistically correlated with NEWS2 and SEIMC Score although COWS also performs well. NEWS2, LUS, and COWS accurately predict poor outcome; and NEWS2, SEIMC Score, and COWS are useful for anticipating death at 28 days. Lung ultrasound is a diagnostic tool that should be included in COVID-19 patients evaluation.

Prevalence of Multi-Resistant Microorganisms and Antibiotic Stewardship among Hospitalized Patients Living in Residential Care Homes in Spain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing global health problem. Patients living in care homes are a vulnerable high-risk population colonized by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). We identified a case series of 116 residents of care homes from a cohort of 540 consecutive patients admitted to the internal medicine service of our hospital. We performed early diagnostic tests of MDRO through anal exudates in our sample. The prevalence of MDRO colonization was 34.5% of residents and 70% of them had not been previously identified in the clinical records. Previous hospitalizations and in-hospital antibiotic administration were significantly associated with the presence of MDRO. Our results emphasize the need to consider care homes in the planning of regional and national infection control measures and for implementing surveillance systems that monitor the spread of antimicrobial resistance in Spain. Systematic early testing upon admission to hospital services with a high prevalence of patients with MDRO colonization (e.g., internal medicine) could contribute to the adoption of adequate prevention measures. Specific educational programs for care home staff should also be implemented to address this increasing problem.

El síndrome de fuga capilar: el gran olvidado en el diagnóstico diferencial / Capillary leak syndrome: often forgotten in differential diagnosis

No disponible

Ascitis eosinofílica: a propósito de un caso / Eosinophilic ascites: A case report

No disponible