Search

OBJECTIVES. To assess the prevalence and impact of cerebrovascular risk factors (CRF) on major cerebrovascular events in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA).METHODS.Analysis of the patients diagnosed with GCA identified in the Spanish Hospital Discharge Database between 2016 and 2018. Admissions due to cerebrovascular events (CVE, composed by stroke and transient ischemic attack) were compared to the admissions due to other causes. The factors related to cerebrovascular events were assessed by a multivariate logistic regression analysis.RESULTS.8,474 hospital admissions from patients diagnosed with GCA were identified. Mean age was 80.8 years and 36.4% were male. 67.2% were hypertense, 27.8% diabetic, 36.7% dyslipidemic, 14.2% smokers and 6.8% presented prior atherosclerosis diagnosis. Overall mortality rate was 6.5%. 3.4% of the admissions were motivated by CVE (stroke in 2.8% and TIA in 0.6%). When compared with the admissions due to other causes, the patients who suffered from CVE presented a higher rate of male sex (36.2 vs 43.5%, p=0.007), hypertension (66.9% vs 74.4%, p=0.004), diabetes (27.6% vs 33.7%, p=0.016) and atherosclerosis (6.6% vs 10.2%, p=0.0.017). After adjustment, male sex (OR= 1.35, 95% CI 1.06-1.72) and mainly hypertension (OR=1.44, 95% CI 1.11-1.90) were associated with a higher risk of CVE.CONCLUSION. Hypertension, along with male sex, was the strongest risk factor for cerebrovascular events in GCA patients. In these high-risk patients, antiplatelet therapy should be re-considered and evaluated in prospective studies.

Red blood cell distribution width (RDW) could reflect interleukin-6 (IL-6) systemic activity since anisocytosis represents the inhibition of erythropoiesis, leaded by the hyperinflammatory background. Our objective was to analyze RDW performance to predict outcome in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Retrospective observational study including 173 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Data was analyzed at hospital admission, inclusion in the TOCICOV Study (day 0), days 1, 3, 7 and 15 post-inclusion.Overall, 57% patients received tocilizumab. Overall mortality was 20.8%. RDW was higher in non-survivors compared to survivors at admission (13.53% vs. 14.35, P=0.0016), day 0 (13.60% vs. 14.42, P=0.026), day 3 (13.43% vs. 14.36, P0.001) and day 7 (13.41% vs. 14.31, P=0.046), presenting better discrimination ability for mortality than other prognostic markers [area under the curve-receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) =0.668 for admission RDW, 0.680 for day 0 RDW, 0.695 for day 3 RDW and 0.666 for day 7 RDW]. RDW values did not vary significantly according to tocilizumab treatment. When adjusted by hemoglobin and tocilizumab treatment, only RDW at admission, day 0, day 3 and C reactive protein (CRP) at day 0 and day 1 were associated with mortality (P0.05). Only in non-tocilizumab treated patients, IL-6 levels at day 0 were correlated with day 3 RDW (r=0.733, P=0.004) and with day 3 CRP (r=0.727, P=0.022). Both parameters showed significant statistical correlation (r=0.255 for day 1 RDW and CRP in the overall cohort and r=0.358 for day 3 RDW and CRP in patients not treated with tocilizumab, P0.015).RDW predicts COVID-19-associated ARDS mortality and reflects the hyperinflammatory background and the effects of cytokines such as IL-6, irrespective of tocilizumab treatment.

Resumen Introduccion y objetivos El uso de dispositivos cardiacos implantables (DCI) se ha expandido en los ultimos anos. La infeccion relacionada con estos dispositivos es una de las principales complicaciones y se asocia con grandes morbilidad, mortalidad y costes. El objetivo del estudio es construir una puntuacion predictiva del riesgo de infeccion del DCI. Metodos Se diseno un estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles anidado. Tanto los casos como los controles pertenecian a una cohorte que incluia a todos los pacientes sometidos a un procedimiento relacionado con un DCI entre enero de 2009 y diciembre de 2015. Los casos se definieron como pacientes con infeccion, y se selecciono aleatoriamente a 3 controles de la cohorte por cada caso incluido. Resultados Durante el periodo de estudio, se realizaron 2.323 procedimientos. Se identificaron en total 33 infecciones relacionadas con el DCI. Se selecciono como controles a 99 pacientes. Se identificaron como factores de riesgo independientes el indice de Charlson (OR = 1,33; IC95%, 1,07-1,67), la anticoagulacion oral (OR = 3,51; IC95%, 1,44-8,54), la revision o el reemplazo de un dispositivo anterior (OR = 2,75; IC95%, 1,12-6,71) y la presencia de mas de 2 cables (OR = 3,42; IC95%, 1,25-9,37). Se genero una escala de riesgo predictivo y se denomino CIED-AI (indice de Charlson, mas de 2 cables/electrodos, revision/reemplazo del dispositivo, anticoagulacion oral, infeccion previa). Esta puntuacion presento un area bajo la curva receiver operating characteristic de 0,79 (IC95%, 0,71-0,88). Conclusiones La puntuacion CIED-AI puede ayudar a identificar a los pacientes con mayor riesgo de infeccion que serian candidatos a medidas de prevencion intensivas.

BackgroundWe aimed to determine the impact of tocilizumab use in severe COVID-19 pneumonia mortality.MethodsWe performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study in 18 tertiary hospitals in Spain, from March to April 2020. Consecutive patients admitted with severe COVID-19 treated with tocilizumab were compared to patients not treated with tocilizumab, adjusting by Inverse Probability of the Treatment Weights (IPTW). Tocilizumab effect in patients receiving steroids during the 48h following inclusion was analyzed.ResultsDuring the study period, 506 patients with severe COVID-19 fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 268 were treated with tocilizumab and 238 patients were not. Median time to tocilizumab treatment from onset of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 8-14). Global mortality was 23.7%. Mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab than in controls (16.8% versus 31.5%, HR 0.514 [95CI 0.355-0.744], p< 0.001; weighted HR 0.741 [95CI 0.619-0.887], p = 0.001). Tocilizumab treatment reduced mortality by 14.7% relative to no tocilizumab treatment (RRR 46.7%). We calculated a number necessary to treat of 7. Among patients treated with steroids, mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab than in those treated with steroids alone (10.9% versus 40.2%, HR 0.511 [95CI 0.352-0.741], p = 0.036; weighted HR 0.6 [95CI 0.449-0.804], p< 0.001) (Interaction p = 0.094).ConclusionsThese results show that survival of patients with severe COVID-19 is higher in patients treated with tocilizumab than in those not treated, and that tocilizumab effect adds to that of steroids administered to non-intubated cases with COVID-19 during the first 48 hours of presenting with respiratory failure despite of oxygen therapy. Randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.SummaryWe investigated in-hospital mortality of patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a multicenter series of patients treated with tocilizumab compared to controls, and adjusted using IPTW. Our results show a beneficial impact of tocilizumab treatment in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, that adds to that of steroids.

Evidence to support the use of steroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use for COVID-19 pneumonia on hospital mortality. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a university hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March of 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, and we adjusted with a propensity score for patients on steroid treatment., Evidence to support the use of steroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is lacking. We aim to determine the impact of steroid use for COVID-19 pneumonia on hospital mortality. We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study in a university hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March of 2020. To determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, patients admitted with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia and treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids, and we adjusted with a propensity score for patients on steroid treatment. Survival times were compared using the log rank test. Different steroid regimens were compared and adjusted with a second propensity score. During the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were not. Global mortality was 15.1%. The median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8 to 13 days). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% confidence interval, 0.27 to 0.96]; P = 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to the mortality with no steroid treatment (relative risk reduction, 0.42 [95% confidence interval, 0.048 to 0.65]). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg of body weight/day of methylprednisolone versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86]; odds ratio [OR], 0.880 [95% confidence interval, 0.449 to 1.726]; P = 0.710). Our results show that the survival of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. Rates of in-hospital mortality were not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone and glucocorticoid pulses.

ObjectiveWe aim to determine the impact of steroid use in COVID-19 pneumonia in-hospital mortality.DesignWe performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study.SettingA University hospital in Madrid, Spain, during March 2020.ParticipantsPatients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.ExposuresPatients treated with steroids were compared to patients not treated with steroids. A propensity-score for steroid treatment was developed. Different steroid regimens were also compared, and adjusted with a second propensity score.Main Outcomes and MeasuresTo determine the role of steroids in in-hospital mortality, univariable and multivariable analyses were performed, and adjusted including the propensity score as a covariate. Survival times were compared using a log-rank test.ResultsDuring the study period, 463 out of 848 hospitalized patients with COVID19 pneumonia fulfilled inclusion criteria. Among them, 396 (46.7%) consecutive patients were treated with steroids and 67 patients were assigned to the control cohort. Global mortality was 15.1%. Median time to steroid treatment from symptom onset was 10 days (IQR 8 to13). In-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with steroids than in controls (13.9% [55/396] versus 23.9% [16/67], OR 0.51 [0.27 to 0.96], p= 0.044). Steroid treatment reduced mortality by 41.8% relative to no steroid treatment (RRR 0,42 [0.048 to 0.65). Initial treatment with 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone (or equivalent) versus steroid pulses was not associated with in-hospital mortality (13.5% [42/310] versus 15.1% [13/86], OR 0.880 [0.449-1.726], p=0.710).ConclusionsOur results show that survival of patients with SARS-CoV2 pneumonia is higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids than in those not treated. In-hospital mortality was not different between initial regimens of 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone or equivalent and glucocorticoid pulses. These results support the use of glucocorticoids in SARS-CoV2 infection.SummaryWe investigated in-hospital mortality of patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in a large series of patients treated with steroids compared to controls, and adjusted using a propensity score. Our results show a beneficial impact of steroid treatment in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Introduction and objectives The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has expanded in recent years. Infection related to these devices constitutes one of the main complications and is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and financial cost. The aim of this study was to construct a predictive risk score of acquiring CIED infection. Methods We designed a retrospective, nested case-control study. Both cases and controls belonged to a cohort that included all patients who underwent a CIED-related procedure between January 2009 and December 2015. Cases were defined as patients with infection, and 3 infection-free controls were randomly selected from the cohort for each case included. Results During the study period, 2323 procedures were performed. A total of 33 CIED-related infections were identified. Ninety-nine patients were selected as controls. Independent risk factors were the Charlson index (OR, 1.33; 95%CI, 1.07-1.67), oral anticoagulation (OR, 3.51; 95%CI, 1.44-8.54), revision or replacement of a previous device (OR, 2.75; 95%CI, 1.12-6.71) and the presence of more than 2 leads (OR, 3.42; 95%CI, 1.25-9.37). A predictive risk score was generated and denominated CIED-AI (Charlson Index, more than 2 leads/Electrodes, Device revision/replacement, oral Anticoagulation, previous Infection). This score had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95%CI, 0.71-0.88). Conclusions The CIED-AI score may help to identify patients at higher risk of infection, who could be candidates for intensive preventive measures.