13 research outputs found
Author response for "Influenza vaccination and prognosis of COVID ‐19 in hospitalized patients with diabetes: Results from the CORONADO study"
Intracranial Hemorrhage in the TST Trial
Background and Purpose:
Although statins are effective in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke, they are also associated with an increase risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in certain conditions. In the TST trial (Treat Stroke to Target), we prespecified an exploration of the predictors of incident ICH.
Methods:
Patients with ischemic stroke in the previous 3 months or transient ischemic attack within the previous 15 days and evidence of cerebrovascular or coronary artery atherosclerosis were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a target LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol of <70 mg/dL or 100±10 mg/dL, using statin or ezetimibe.
Results:
Among 2860 patients enrolled, 31 incident ICH occurred over a median follow-up of 3 years (18 and 13 in the lower and higher target group, 3.21/1000 patient-years [95% CI, 2.38–4.04] and 2.32/1000 patient-years [95% CI, 1.61–3.03], respectively). While there were no baseline predictors of ICH, uncontrolled hypertension (HR, 2.51 [95% CI, 1.01–6.31],
P
=0.041) and being on anticoagulant (HR, 2.36 [95% CI, 1.00–5.62],
P
=0.047)] during the trial were significant predictors. On-treatment low LDL cholesterol was not a predictor of ICH.
Conclusions:
Targeting an LDL cholesterol of <70 mg/dL compared with 100±10 mg/dL in patients with atherosclerotic ischemic stroke nonsignificantly increased the risk of ICH. Incident ICHs were not associated with low LDL cholesterol. Uncontrolled hypertension and anticoagulant therapy were associated with ICH which has important clinical implications.
Registration:
URL:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov
; Unique identifier: NCT01252875; EUDRACT identifier: 2009-A01280-57.
</jats:sec
Correction to: Characteristics and prognosis of bloodstream infection in patients with COVID‑19 admitted in the ICU: an ancillary study of the COVID‑ICU study
Sex Differences in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Importance: Homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) is a rare genetic condition characterized by extremely increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) is more common than HoFH, and women with HeFH are diagnosed later and undertreated compared to men; it is unknown whether these sex differences also apply to HoFH. Objective: To investigate sex differences in age at diagnosis, risk factors, lipid-lowering treatment, and ASCVD morbidity and mortality in patients with HoFH. Design, setting, and participants: Sex-specific analyses for this retrospective cohort study were performed using data from the HoFH International Clinical Collaborators (HICC) registry, the largest global dataset of patients with HoFH, spanning 88 institutions across 38 countries. Patients with HoFH who were alive during or after 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Data entry occurred between February 2016 and December 2020. Data were analyzed from June 2022 to June 2023. Main outcomes and measures: Comparison between women and men with HoFH regarding age at diagnosis, presence of risk factors, lipid-lowering treatment, prevalence, and onset and incidence of ASCVD morbidity (myocardial infarction [MI], aortic stenosis, and combined ASCVD outcomes) and mortality. Results: Data from 389 women and 362 men with HoFH from 38 countries were included. Women and men had similar age at diagnosis (median [IQR], 13 [6-26] years vs 11 [5-27] years, respectively), untreated LDL cholesterol levels (mean [SD], 579 [203] vs 596 [186] mg/dL, respectively), and cardiovascular risk factor prevalence, except smoking (38 of 266 women [14.3%] vs 59 of 217 men [27.2%], respectively). Prevalence of MI was lower in women (31 of 389 [8.0%]) than men (59 of 362 [16.3%]), but age at first MI was similar (mean [SD], 39 [13] years in women vs 38 [13] years in men). Treated LDL cholesterol levels and lipid-lowering therapy were similar in both sexes, in particular statins (248 of 276 women [89.9%] vs 235 of 258 men [91.1%]) and lipoprotein apheresis (115 of 317 women [36.3%] vs 118 of 304 men [38.8%]). Sixteen years after HoFH diagnosis, women had statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of MI (5.0% in women vs 13.7% in men; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66) and nonsignificantly lower all-cause mortality (3.0% in women vs 4.1% in men; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.40-1.45) and cardiovascular mortality (2.6% in women vs 4.1% in men; SHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.44-1.75). Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study of individuals with known HoFH, MI was higher in men compared with women yet age at diagnosis and at first ASCVD event were similar. These findings suggest that early diagnosis and treatment are important in attenuating the excessive cardiovascular risk in both sexes
Sex Differences in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Importance Homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) is a rare genetic condition characterized by extremely increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) is more common than HoFH, and women with HeFH are diagnosed later and undertreated compared to men; it is unknown whether these sex differences also apply to HoFH. Objective To investigate sex differences in age at diagnosis, risk factors, lipid-lowering treatment, and ASCVD morbidity and mortality in patients with HoFH. Design, Setting, and Participants Sex-specific analyses for this retrospective cohort study were performed using data from the HoFH International Clinical Collaborators (HICC) registry, the largest global dataset of patients with HoFH, spanning 88 institutions across 38 countries. Patients with HoFH who were alive during or after 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Data entry occurred between February 2016 and December 2020. Data were analyzed from June 2022 to June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures Comparison between women and men with HoFH regarding age at diagnosis, presence of risk factors, lipid-lowering treatment, prevalence, and onset and incidence of ASCVD morbidity (myocardial infarction [MI], aortic stenosis, and combined ASCVD outcomes) and mortality. Results Data from 389 women and 362 men with HoFH from 38 countries were included. Women and men had similar age at diagnosis (median [IQR], 13 [6-26] years vs 11 [5-27] years, respectively), untreated LDL cholesterol levels (mean [SD], 579 [203] vs 596 [186] mg/dL, respectively), and cardiovascular risk factor prevalence, except smoking (38 of 266 women [14.3%] vs 59 of 217 men [27.2%], respectively). Prevalence of MI was lower in women (31 of 389 [8.0%]) than men (59 of 362 [16.3%]), but age at first MI was similar (mean [SD], 39 [13] years in women vs 38 [13] years in men). Treated LDL cholesterol levels and lipid-lowering therapy were similar in both sexes, in particular statins (248 of 276 women [89.9%] vs 235 of 258 men [91.1%]) and lipoprotein apheresis (115 of 317 women [36.3%] vs 118 of 304 men [38.8%]). Sixteen years after HoFH diagnosis, women had statistically significant lower cumulative incidence of MI (5.0% in women vs 13.7% in men; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.37; 95% CI, 0.21-0.66) and nonsignificantly lower all-cause mortality (3.0% in women vs 4.1% in men; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.40-1.45) and cardiovascular mortality (2.6% in women vs 4.1% in men; SHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.44-1.75). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of individuals with known HoFH, MI was higher in men compared with women yet age at diagnosis and at first ASCVD event were similar. These findings suggest that early diagnosis and treatment are important in attenuating the excessive cardiovascular risk in both sexes
Type 1 Diabetes in People Hospitalized for COVID-19: New Insights From the CORONADO Study
Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals
Abstract
Rational
To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).
Methods
Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression.
Results
From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36–0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78–3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79–4.21, P < 0.001).
Conclusion
In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed.
</jats:sec
Early prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19: a propensity score analysis from the multicentric cohort COVID-ICU network—the ProneCOVID study
Abstract
Background
Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19.
Methods
All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score.
Results
Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay and 491 (23%) during the first 24 h following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio > 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% versus 39.3% in the early PP group (p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies was more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96–1.68], p = 0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998–1.412], p = 0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively).
Conclusions
In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, our data failed to show a survival benefit associated with early PP started within 24 h after ICU admission compared to PP after day-1 for all COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of their severity.
</jats:sec
Predicting 90-day survival of patients with COVID-19: Survival of Severely Ill COVID (SOSIC) scores
Abstract
Background
Predicting outcomes of critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients with coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is a major challenge to avoid futile, and prolonged ICU stays.
Methods
The objective was to develop predictive survival models for patients with COVID-19 after 1-to-2 weeks in ICU. Based on the COVID–ICU cohort, which prospectively collected characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Machine learning was used to develop dynamic, clinically useful models able to predict 90-day mortality using ICU data collected on day (D) 1, D7 or D14.
Results
Survival of Severely Ill COVID (SOSIC)-1, SOSIC-7, and SOSIC-14 scores were constructed with 4244, 2877, and 1349 patients, respectively, randomly assigned to development or test datasets. The three models selected 15 ICU-entry variables recorded on D1, D7, or D14. Cardiovascular, renal, and pulmonary functions on prediction D7 or D14 were among the most heavily weighted inputs for both models. For the test dataset, SOSIC-7’s area under the ROC curve was slightly higher (0.80 [0.74–0.86]) than those for SOSIC-1 (0.76 [0.71–0.81]) and SOSIC-14 (0.76 [0.68–0.83]). Similarly, SOSIC-1 and SOSIC-7 had excellent calibration curves, with similar Brier scores for the three models.
Conclusion
The SOSIC scores showed that entering 15 to 27 baseline and dynamic clinical parameters into an automatable XGBoost algorithm can potentially accurately predict the likely 90-day mortality post-ICU admission (sosic.shinyapps.io/shiny). Although external SOSIC-score validation is still needed, it is an additional tool to strengthen decisions about life-sustaining treatments and informing family members of likely prognosis.
</jats:sec
Characteristics and prognosis of bloodstream infection in patients with COVID-19 admitted in the ICU: an ancillary study of the COVID-ICU study
Abstract
Background
Patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV 2) and requiring intensive care unit (ICU) have a high incidence of hospital-acquired infections; however, data regarding hospital acquired bloodstream infections (BSI) are scarce. We aimed to investigate risk factors and outcome of BSI in critically ill coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) patients.
Patients and methods
We performed an ancillary analysis of a multicenter prospective international cohort study (COVID-ICU study) that included 4010 COVID-19 ICU patients. For the present analysis, only those with data regarding primary outcome (death within 90 days from admission) or BSI status were included. Risk factors for BSI were analyzed using Fine and Gray competing risk model. Then, for outcome comparison, 537 BSI-patients were matched with 537 controls using propensity score matching.
Results
Among 4010 included patients, 780 (19.5%) acquired a total of 1066 BSI (10.3 BSI per 1000 patients days at risk) of whom 92% were acquired in the ICU. Higher SAPS II, male gender, longer time from hospital to ICU admission and antiviral drug before admission were independently associated with an increased risk of BSI, and interestingly, this risk decreased over time. BSI was independently associated with a shorter time to death in the overall population (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.05–1.56) and, in the propensity score matched data set, patients with BSI had a higher mortality rate (39% vs 33% p = 0.036). BSI accounted for 3.6% of the death of the overall population.
Conclusion
COVID-19 ICU patients have a high risk of BSI, especially early after ICU admission, risk that increases with severity but not with corticosteroids use. BSI is associated with an increased mortality rate.
</jats:sec
