RESUMEN
In the UK, a network of specialist centres has been set up to provide critical care for burn patients. However, some burn patients are admitted to general intensive care units. Little is known about the casemix of these patients and how it compares with patients in specialist burn centres. It is not known whether burn-specific or generic risk prediction models perform better when applied to patients managed in intensive care units. We examined admissions for burns in the Case Mix Programme Database from April 2010 to March 2016. The casemix, activity and outcome in general and specialist burn intensive care units were compared and the fit of two burn-specific risk prediction models (revised Baux and Belgian Outcome in Burn Injury models) and one generic model (Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre model) were compared. Patients in burn intensive care units had more extensive injuries compared with patients in general intensive care units (median (IQR [range]) burn surface area 16 (7-32 [0-98])% vs. 8 (1-18 [0-100])%, respectively) but in-hospital mortality was similar (22.8% vs. 19.0%, respectively). The discrimination and calibration of the generic Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre model was superior to the revised Baux and Belgian Outcome in Burn Injury burn-specific models for patients managed on both specialist burn and general intensive care units.
Asunto(s)
Unidades de Quemados/organización & administración , Quemaduras/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/organización & administración , Adulto , Anciano , Unidades de Quemados/estadística & datos numéricos , Quemaduras/mortalidad , Quemaduras/patología , Cuidados Críticos/estadística & datos numéricos , Bases de Datos Factuales , Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Puntaje de Gravedad del Traumatismo , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/organización & administración , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Auditoría Médica , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pronóstico , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Medicina Estatal/organización & administración , Medicina Estatal/estadística & datos numéricos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
The models used to predict outcome after adult general critical care may not be applicable to cardiothoracic critical care. Therefore, we analysed data from the Case Mix Programme to identify variables associated with hospital mortality after admission to cardiothoracic critical care units and to develop a risk-prediction model. We derived predictive models for hospital mortality from variables measured in 17,002 patients within 24 h of admission to five cardiothoracic critical care units. The final model included 10 variables: creatinine; white blood count; mean arterial blood pressure; functional dependency; platelet count; arterial pH; age; Glasgow Coma Score; arterial lactate; and route of admission. We included additional interaction terms between creatinine, lactate, platelet count and cardiac surgery as the admitting diagnosis. We validated this model against 10,238 other admissions, for which the c index (95% CI) was 0.904 (0.89-0.92) and the Brier score was 0.055, while the slope and intercept of the calibration plot were 0.961 and -0.183, respectively. The discrimination and calibration of our model suggest that it might be used to predict hospital mortality after admission to cardiothoracic critical care units.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos/mortalidad , Cuidados Críticos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Medición de Riesgo , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados , Femenino , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Admisión del PacienteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although association between Diabetes Mellitus (DM) type 2 and prevalence of infections is a frequently considered issue in current literature there is few evidence of it. The objective of this study has been to analyse the infection risk in DM type 2 patients according to their glycemic control level (Hb Aic%). PATIENTS AND METHOD: In this cohort-study of 740 patients, we evaluated the incidence rates of infectious episodes in DM2-type diabetic patients during a period of 5 years, from May, 1997 to May, 2002. RESULTS: The average period of follow-up was 4.26 years. We found no significant correlation (p=0.33) between higher levels of HbAic% and presentation of infections. Data clearly show a direct correlation between risk of infection and number of associated chronic diseases (p=0.035), age (p=0.007) and diabetes duration (0.012). We also found an unexplained association between more aggressive treatment and higher glycemic levels (Hb Aic%) (p=0.0001) and also higher infection risk (0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no association between risk of infection and glycemic control (Hb Aic%) among analysed patients, this study shows a clear correlation between risk of infection and number of complications or number of associated chronic diseases.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones/complicaciones , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Glucemia/análisis , Estudios de Cohortes , Comorbilidad , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiología , Femenino , Hemoglobina Glucada/análisis , Humanos , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Infecciones/epidemiología , Infecciones/terapia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevalencia , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Fundamento y objetivo: La asociación entre diabetes mellitus (DM) tipo 2 y la prevalencia de infecciones es una situación frecuente a considerar en la practica clínica. Sin embargo, la evidencia de esta mayor susceptibilidad en los diabéticos para contraer infecciones es escasa. El objetivo de este estudio ha sido analizar el riesgo de infección en pacientes DM tipo 2 según el grado de control glucémico (Hb Aic por ciento).Pacientes y método: Estudio de cohortes históricas sobre 740 pacientes. Se evaluaron las tasas de incidencia de episodios infecciosos en diabéticos tipo 2 durante un periodo de 5 años, desde mayo de 1997 hasta mayo de 2002.Resultados: La media de seguimiento en los diabéticos fue de 4,26 años. No se encontraron diferencias significativas en la presentación de infecciones en relación al control metabólico de los pacientes (p=0,33).Existe un mayor riesgo de infección en diabéticos con un número de procesos crónicos asociados elevado (p=0,035). Existe un mayor riesgo de infección cuanto más elevada es la edad del paciente (p=0,007) y a más años de evolución de la enfermedad (p=0,012). Se observó que los pacientes tratados con medidas higiénico-dietéticas sin otro tratamiento farmacológico tenían mejores controles de Hb Aic por ciento (p=0,0001), y menor riesgo de infecciones (p=0,038) que los tratados con insulina más ADO combinados. Conclusiones: No existe correlación entre el grado de control glucémico (Hb Aic por ciento) con la frecuencia de infecciones en los pacientes diabéticos estudiados. Sí aparece un mayor riesgo de infección en aquellos con un número de procesos crónicos asociados elevado (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Adulto , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Factores de Riesgo , Hipoglucemiantes , Infecciones , Prevalencia , Glucemia , Estudios de Cohortes , Comorbilidad , Hemoglobina Glucada , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Foods from the Rosaceae botanical family have been increasingly reported as causes of allergic reaction. Patients frequently have positive skin tests or radioallergosorbent test results for multiple members of this botanical family. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to investigate the clinical cross-reactivity assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) of Rosaceae foods (apricot, almond, plum, strawberry, apple, peach, and pear). METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive adult patients complaining of adverse reactions to Rosaceae were included in the study. Skin prick tests and CAP System (FEIA) were performed with Rosaceae foods in all patients. Clinical reactivity to Rosaceae was systematically evaluated by open food challenges (OFCs), unless there was a convincing history of a recent severe anaphylaxis. Positive reactions on OFCs were subsequently evaluated by DBPCFCs. RESULTS: Twenty-six and 24 patients had positive skin prick tests and CAP FEIA with Rosaceae, respectively; from these 88% and 100% had positive tests with >/=2. No evidence of clinical reactivity was found in 66% percent of positive skin prick tests and 63% of positive specific IgE determinations to fruits. A total of 226 food challenges (including OFC and DBPCFC) were performed in the 28 patients with positive skin prick tests or CAP System FEIA. Of 182 initial OFCs carried out, 26 (14%) reactions were confirmed by DBPCFCs. Overall, 40 reactions were considered positive in 22 patients with positive skin tests or CAP FEIA. Thirty-eight reactions had been previously reported, the remaining two were detected by systematic challenges. Most reactions were caused by peach (22 patients), apple (6), and apricot (5). Ten patients (46%) were clinically allergic to peach and other Rosaceae. CONCLUSION: Positive skin test and CAP System FEIA should not be taken as the only guide for multi-species dietary restrictions. Nevertheless, the potential clinical allergy to other Rosaceae should not be neglected. If the reported reaction is confirmed, current tolerance to other Rosaceae should be precisely established unless there has been ingestion without symptoms after the reaction.