Background: Early use of antimicrobials is a critical intervention in the treatment of patients with sepsis. The exact time of initiation is controversial and its early administration may be a difficult task in crowded emergency departments (ED). The aim of this study was to estimate, using a matched propensity score, the effect on hospital mortality of administration of antimicrobials within 1 or 3 hours, in patients admitted to the ED with sepsis. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort. Patients included in the study were older than 18 years, hospitalized between 2014 and 2016 with suspected sepsis, and admitted to ED of three tertiary care university hospitals in Medellín, Colombia. A propensity score analysis for administration of antimicrobials, both within 1 and 3 h of admission by the ED, was fitted with 28 variables related with clinical attention and physiological changes. As a sensitivity analysis, a logistic regression model was fitted for antimicrobial use adjusted both by propensity score and confounding variables. Results: The study cohort was composed of 2454 patients with a median age of 62 years (IQR = 46-74). Among them, 32% (n = 781) received antibiotics within 3 h and 14% (n = 340) within the first hour. The main diagnoses were urinary tract infection (28%, n = 682) and pneumonia (27%, n = 671). Blood cultures were obtained in 87% (n = 2140) and yielded positive in 29% (n = 629), mainly with Escherichia coli (37%, n = 230), Staphylococcus aureus (21%, n = 132), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (10.2%, n = 64). The hospital mortality rate was 11.5% (n = 283). There were no significant differences in mortality, after adjustment, using antimicrobials either in the first hour (OR 1.03; 95% CI = 0.63; 1.70) or 3 h (OR 0.85; 95% CI = 0.61; 1.20). There were no changes with different models for sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: Despite the obvious constraints given for sample size and residual confounding, our results suggest that we need a more comprehensive approach to sepsis and its treatment, considering early detection, multiple interventions, and goals beyond the simple time-to-antimicrobials.
BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced breast cancer, showing improvement in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates in patients achieving pathological complete response (pCR). The relationship between immunohistochemistry-based molecular subtyping (IMS), chemo sensitivity and survival is currently a matter of interest. We explore this relationship in a Hispanic cohort of breast cancer patients treated with NAC.MethodsA retrospective survival analysis was performed on Colombian females with breast cancer treated at Instituto de Cancerología-Clinica Las Américas between January 2009 and December 2011. Patients were classified according to immunohistochemistry-based subtyping into the following five groups: Luminal A, Luminal B, Luminal B/HER 2+, HER2-enriched, and triple-negative breast cancer. Demographic characteristics, recurrence pattern, and survival rate were reviewed by bivariate and multivariate analysis.ResultsA total of 328 patients fulfilled the study’s inclusion parameters and the distribution of subtypes were as follows: Luminal A: 73 (22.3%), Luminal B/HER2−: 110 (33.5%), Luminal B/HER2+: 75 (22.9%), HER2-enriched: 30 (9.1%), and triple-negative: 40 (12.2%). The median follow-up was 41 months (interquartile range: 31–52). Pathological response to NAC was as follows: complete pathological response (pCR) in 28 (8.5%) patients, partial 247 (75.3%); stable disease 47 (14.3%), and progression 6 (1.8%) patients. The presence of pCR had a significant DFS and OS in the entire group (p = 0.01) but subtypes had different DFS in Luminal B (p = 0.01) and triple negative (p = 0.02) and also OS in Luminal B (p = 0.01) and triple negative (p = 0.01).ConclusionspCR is associated with an improved overall survival and disease-free survival rates in this group of Hispanics patients. Advanced stages, Luminal B subtypes, triple-negative tumours and non-pCR showed lower DFS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.