Background The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. MethodsIn this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. Findings Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2•5% (95% CI 1•4-4•3) for patients with phenotype A, 30•5% (28•5-32•6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60•7% (53•7-67•2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0•0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5•3% [95% CI 3•4-8•1] for phenotype A, 31•3% [28•5-34•2] for phenotype B, and 59•5% [48•8-69•3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3•7% [2•0-6•4] for phenotype A, 23•7% [21•8-25•7] for phenotype B, and 51•4% [41•9-60•7] for phenotype C).Interpretation Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three...
Several immunomodulatory agents are used in the treatment of epidermal necrolysis, but evidence of their efficacy is limited. The Autonomous Community of Madrid has two reference burn units to which all patients with epidermal necrolysis are referred. One burn unit has mostly used cyclosporine (CsA), and the other has used non-CsA therapies (mainly high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin). The allocation of patients to one or the other burn unit was mainly based on proximity, resembling a random assignment. Thus, we took advantage of this "natural experiment" to estimate the mortality risk ratio (MRR) of CsA (n = 26) compared with non-CsA (n = 16) treatment using hospital as an instrumental variable over the period from 2001 to 2015. We also computed the observed versus expected (O/E) MRR in a case series of 49 CsA-treated patients (including 23 patients from other regions treated in Madrid), and using the Score for Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (i.e., SCORTEN) scale to estimate the expected values. The instrumental variable-based MRR of CsA versus non-CsA was 0.09 (95% confidence interval = 0.00-0.49). The O/E analysis also showed a reduction in mortality risk (MRR = 0.42; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.99). We identified five other case series of CsA-treated patients providing MRR and meta-analyzed their results. The pooled MRR (including from this study) was 0.41 (95% confidence interval = 0.21-0.80). All three approaches consistently show that CsA reduces the mortality in epidermal necrolysis patients.
Toxic epidermal necrolysis is an adverse immunological skin reaction secondary in most cases to the administration of a drug. Toxic epidermal necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and multiform exudative erythema are part of the same disease spectrum. The mortality rate from toxic epidermal necrolysis is approximately 30%. The pathophysiology of toxic epidermal necrolysis is similar in many respects to that of superficial skin burns. Mucosal involvement of the ocular and genital epithelium is associated with serious sequelae if the condition is not treated early. It is generally accepted that patients with toxic epidermal necrolysis are better treated in burn units, which are experienced in the management of patients with extensive skin loss. Treatment includes support, elimination, and coverage with biosynthetic derivatives of the skin in affected areas, treatment of mucosal involvement, and specific immunosuppressive treatment. Of the treatments tested, only immunoglobulin G and cyclosporin A are currently used in most centers, even though there is no solid evidence to recommend any specific treatment. The particular aspects of the treatment of this disease include the prevention of sequelae related to the formation of synechiae, eye care to prevent serious sequelae that can lead to blindness, and specific immunosuppressive treatment. Better knowledge of the management principles of toxic epidermal necrolysis will lead to better disease management, higher survival rates, and lower prevalence of sequelae.
IntroductionThe use of urinary output and vital signs to guide initial burn resuscitation may lead to suboptimal resuscitation. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring may result in over-resuscitation. This study aimed to evaluate the results of a goal-directed burn resuscitation protocol that used standard measures of mean arterial pressure (MAP) and urine output, plus transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) and lactate levels to adjust fluid therapy to achieve a minimum level of preload to allow for sufficient vital organ perfusion.MethodsWe conducted a three-year prospective cohort study of 132 consecutive critically burned patients. These patients underwent resuscitation guided by MAP (>65 mmHg), urinary output (0.5 to 1 ml/kg), TPTD and lactate levels. Fluid therapy was adjusted to achieve a cardiac index (CI) >2.5 L/minute/m2 and an intrathoracic blood volume index (ITBVI) >600 ml/m2, and to optimize lactate levels. Statistical analysis was performed using mixed models. We also used Pearson or Spearman methods and the Mann-Whitney U-test.ResultsA total of 98 men and 34 women (mean age, 48 ± 18 years) was studied. The mean total body surface area (TBSA) burned was 35% ± 22%. During the early resuscitation phase, lactate levels were elevated (2.58 ± 2.05 mmol/L) and TPTD showed initial hypovolemia by the CI (2.68 ± 1.06 L/minute/m2) and the ITBVI (709 ± 254 mL/m2). At 24 to 32 hours, the CI and lactic levels were normalized, although the ITBVI remained below the normal range (744 ± 276 ml/m2). The mean fluid rate required to achieve protocol targets in the first 8 hours was 4.05 ml/kg/TBSA burned, which slightly increased in the next 16 hours. Patients with a urine output greater than or less than 0.5 ml/kg/hour did not show differences in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, CI, ITBVI or lactate levels.ConclusionsInitial hypovolemia may be detected by TPTD monitoring during the early resuscitation phase. This hypovolemia might not be reflected by blood pressure and hourly urine output. An adequate CI and tissue perfusion can be achieved with below-normal levels of preload. Early resuscitation guided by lactate levels and below-normal preload volume targets appears safe and avoids unnecessary fluid input.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.