AKI in Low-Risk versus High-Risk Patients in Intensive Care

Abstract Introduction Guidelines recommend endoscopy with biopsies to stratify patients with gastric premalignant lesions (GPL) to high and low progression risk. High-risk patients are recommended to undergo surveillance. We aimed to assess the accuracy of guideline recommendations to identify low-risk patients, who can safely be discharged from surveillance. Methods This study includes patients with GPL. Patients underwent at least two endoscopies with an interval of 1–6 years. Patients were defined ‘low risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for discharge, and ‘high risk’ if they fulfilled requirements for surveillance, according to European guidelines (MAPS-2012, updated MAPS-2019, BSG). Patients defined ‘low risk’ with progression of disease during follow-up (FU) were considered ‘misclassified’ as low risk. Results 334 patients (median age 60 years IQR11; 48.7% male) were included and followed for a median of 48 months. At baseline, 181/334 (54%) patients were defined low risk. Of these, 32.6% were ‘misclassified’, showing progression of disease during FU. If MAPS-2019 were followed, 169/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.5% were ‘misclassified’. If BSG were followed, 174/334 (51%) patients were defined low risk, of which 32.2% were ‘misclassified’. Seven patients developed gastric cancer (GC) or dysplasia, four patients were ‘misclassified’ based on MAPS-2012 and three on MAPS-2019 and BSG. By performing one additional endoscopy 72.9% (95% CI 62.4–83.3) of high-risk patients and all patients who developed GC or dysplasia were identified. Conclusion One-third of patients that would have been discharged from GC surveillance, appeared to be ‘misclassified’ as low risk. One additional endoscopy will reduce this risk by 70%.

Download Full-text

A Novel Epigenetic Machine Learning Model to Define Risk of Progression for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

International Journal of Molecular Sciences ◽

10.3390/ijms22031075 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (3) ◽

pp. 1075

Author(s):

Luca Bedon ◽

Michele Dal Bo ◽

Monica Mossenta ◽

Davide Busato ◽

Giuseppe Toffoli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Machine Learning ◽

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

High Risk ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Low Risk ◽

Functional Enrichment ◽

Free Survival ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Of Progression ◽

Risk Patients

Although extensive advancements have been made in treatment against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the prognosis of HCC patients remains unsatisfied. It is now clearly established that extensive epigenetic changes act as a driver in human tumors. This study exploits HCC epigenetic deregulation to define a novel prognostic model for monitoring the progression of HCC. We analyzed the genome-wide DNA methylation profile of 374 primary tumor specimens using the Illumina 450 K array data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. We initially used a novel combination of Machine Learning algorithms (Recursive Features Selection, Boruta) to capture early tumor progression features. The subsets of probes obtained were used to train and validate Random Forest models to predict a Progression Free Survival greater or less than 6 months. The model based on 34 epigenetic probes showed the best performance, scoring 0.80 accuracy and 0.51 Matthews Correlation Coefficient on testset. Then, we generated and validated a progression signature based on 4 methylation probes capable of stratifying HCC patients at high and low risk of progression. Survival analysis showed that high risk patients are characterized by a poorer progression free survival compared to low risk patients. Moreover, decision curve analysis confirmed the strength of this predictive tool over conventional clinical parameters. Functional enrichment analysis highlighted that high risk patients differentiated themselves by the upregulation of proliferative pathways. Ultimately, we propose the oncogenic MCM2 gene as a methylation-driven gene of which the representative epigenetic markers could serve both as predictive and prognostic markers. Briefly, our work provides several potential HCC progression epigenetic biomarkers as well as a new signature that may enhance patients surveillance and advances in personalized treatment.

Download Full-text

Does socioeconomic status make a difference? A register-based study on the extent to which cardiovascular screening in patients with inflammatory arthritis leads to recommended follow-up in general practice

RMD Open ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000940 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. e000940

Author(s):

Anette Hvenegaard Kjeldgaard ◽

Kim Hørslev-Petersen ◽

Sonja Wehberg ◽

Jens Soendergaard ◽

Jette Primdahl

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

Socioeconomic Status ◽

High Risk ◽

Secondary Care ◽

Inflammatory Arthritis ◽

Low Risk ◽

Risk Screening ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Eular Recommendations ◽

Risk Patients

ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) follow recommendations given in a secondary care nurse-led cardiovascular (CV) risk screening consultation to consult their general practitioner (GP) to reduce their CV risk and whether their socioeconomic status (SES) affects adherence.MethodsAdults with IA who had participated in a secondary care screening consultation from July 2012 to July 2015, based on the EULAR recommendations, were identified. Patients were considered to have high CV risk if they had risk Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) ≥5%, according to the European SCORE model or systolic blood pressure ≥145 mmHg, total cholesterol ≥8 mmol/L, LDL cholesterol ≥5 mmol/L, HbA1c ≥42 mmol/mol or fasting glucose ≥6 mmol/L. The primary outcome was a consultation with their GP and at least one action focusing on CV risk factors within 6 weeks after the screening consultation.ResultsThe study comprised 1265 patients, aged 18–85 years. Of these, 336/447 (75%) of the high-risk patients and 580/819 (71%) of the low-risk patients had a GP consultation. 127/336 (38%) of high-risk patients and 160/580 (28%) of low-risk patients received relevant actions related to their CV risk, for example, blood pressure home measurement or prescription for statins, antihypertensives or antidiabetics. Education ≥10 years increased the odds for non-adherence (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.0.37 to 0.92, p=0.02).Conclusions75% of the high-risk patients consulted their GP after the secondary care CV risk screening, and 38% of these received an action relevant for their CV risk. Higher education decreased adherence.

Download Full-text

Changes in patient activation following cardiac rehabilitation using the Active+me digital healthcare platform during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort evaluation

BMC Health Services Research ◽

10.1186/s12913-021-07363-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Gabbi Frith ◽

Kathryn Carver ◽

Sarah Curry ◽

Alan Darby ◽

Anna Sydes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Pressure ◽

High Risk ◽

Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽

Group Analysis ◽

Patient Activation ◽

Low Risk ◽

Smart Device ◽

Face To Face ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Background Restrictions on face-to-face contact, due to COVID-19, led to a rapid adoption of technology to remotely deliver cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Some technologies, including Active+me, were used without knowing their benefits. We assessed changes in patient activation measure (PAM) in patients participating in routine CR, using Active+me. We also investigated changes in PAM among low, moderate, and high risk patients, changes in cardiovascular risk factors, and explored patient and healthcare professional experiences of using Active+me. Methods Patients received standard CR education and an exercise prescription. Active+me was used to monitor patient health, progress towards goals, and provide additional lifestyle support. Patients accessed Active+me through a smart-device application which synchronised to telemetry enabled scales, blood pressure monitors, pulse oximeter, and activity trackers. Changes in PAM score following CR were calculated. Sub-group analysis was conducted on patients at high, moderate, and low risk of exercise induced cardiovascular events. Qualitative interviews explored the acceptability of Active+me. Results Forty-six patients were recruited (Age: 60.4 ± 10.9 years; BMI: 27.9 ± 5.0 kg.m2; 78.3% male). PAM scores increased from 65.5 (range: 51.0 to 100.0) to 70.2 (range: 40.7 to 100.0; P = 0.039). PAM scores of high risk patients increased from 61.9 (range: 53.0 to 91.0) to 75.0 (range: 58.1 to 100.0; P = 0.044). The PAM scores of moderate and low risk patients did not change. Resting systolic blood pressure decreased from 125 mmHg (95% CI: 120 to 130 mmHg) to 119 mmHg (95% CI: 115 to 122 mmHg; P = 0.023) and waist circumference measurements decreased from 92.8 cm (95% CI: 82.6 to 102.9 cm) to 85.3 cm (95% CI 79.1 to 96.2 cm; P = 0.026). Self-reported physical activity levels increased from 1557.5 MET-minutes (range: 245.0 to 5355.0 MET-minutes) to 3363.2 MET-minutes (range: 105.0 to 12,360.0 MET-minutes; P < 0.001). Active+me was acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. Conclusion Participation in standard CR, with Active+me, is associated with increased patient skill, knowledge, and confidence to manage their condition. Active+me may be an appropriate platform to support CR delivery when patients cannot be seen face-to-face. Trial registration As this was not a clinical trial, the study was not registered in a trial registry.

Download Full-text

Does the implementation of a novel intensive care discharge risk score and nurse-led inpatient review tool improve outcome? A prospective cohort study in two intensive care units in the UK

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018322 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (12) ◽

pp. e018322

Author(s):

Jez Fabes ◽

William Seligman ◽

Carolyn Barrett ◽

Stuart McKechnie ◽

John Griffiths

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care ◽

High Risk ◽

Risk Score ◽

Prospective Cohort ◽

Data Set ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Poor Outcome ◽

Icu Discharge ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Risk Scoring

ObjectiveTo develop a clinical prediction model for poor outcome after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in a large observational data set and couple this to an acute post-ICU ward-based review tool (PIRT) to identify high-risk patients at the time of ICU discharge and improve their acute ward-based review and outcome.DesignRetrospective patient cohort of index ICU admissions between June 2006 and October 2011 receiving routine inpatient review. Prospective cohort between March 2012 and March 2013 underwent risk scoring (PIRT) which subsequently guided inpatient ward-based review.SettingTwo UK adult ICUs.Participants4212 eligible discharges from ICU in the retrospective development cohort and 1028 patients included in the prospective intervention cohort.InterventionsMultivariate analysis was performed to determine factors associated with poor outcome in the retrospective cohort and used to generate a discharge risk score. A discharge and daily ward-based review tool incorporating an adjusted risk score was introduced. The prospective cohort underwent risk scoring at ICU discharge and inpatient review using the PIRT.OutcomesThe primary outcome was the composite of death or readmission to ICU within 14 days of ICU discharge following the index ICU admission.ResultsPIRT review was achieved for 67.3% of all eligible discharges and improved the targeting of acute post-ICU review to high-risk patients. The presence of ward-based PIRT review in the prospective cohort did not correlate with a reduction in poor outcome overall (P=0.876) or overall readmission but did reduce early readmission (within the first 48 hours) from 4.5% to 3.6% (P=0.039), while increasing the rate of late readmission (48 hours to 14 days) from 2.7% to 5.8% (P=0.046).ConclusionPIRT facilitates the appropriate targeting of nurse-led inpatient review acutely after ICU discharge but does not reduce hospital mortality or overall readmission rates to ICU.

Download Full-text

P3609Temporal trends of the management and outcomes of patients after myocardial infarction according to the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0468 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

T Grinberg ◽

T Bental ◽

Y Hammer ◽

A R Assali ◽

H Vaknin-Assa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Myocardial Infarction ◽

High Risk ◽

Cardiovascular Events ◽

Risk Group ◽

Temporal Trends ◽

High Risk Group ◽

Low Risk ◽

Intermediate Risk ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Background Following Myocardial Infarction (MI), patients are at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events, particularly during the immediate period. Yet some patients are at higher risk than others, owing to their clinical characteristics and comorbidities, these high-risk patients are less often treated with guideline-recommended therapies. Aim To examine temporal trends in treatment and outcomes of patients with MI according to the TIMI risk score for secondary prevention (TRS2°P), a recently validated risk stratification tool. Methods A retrospective cohort study of patients with an acute MI, who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were discharged alive between 2004–2016. Temporal trends were examined in the early (2004–2010) and late (2011–2016) time-periods. Patients were stratified by the TRS2°P to a low (≤1), intermediate (2) or high-risk group (≥3). Clinical outcomes included 30-day MACE (death, MI, target vessel revascularization, coronary artery bypass grafting, unstable angina or stroke) and 1-year mortality. Results Among 4921 patients, 31% were low-risk, 27% intermediate-risk and 42% high-risk. Compared to low and intermediate-risk patients, high-risk patients were older, more commonly female, and had more comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. They presented more often with non ST elevation MI and 3-vessel disease. High-risk patients were less likely to receive drug eluting stents and potent anti-platelet drugs, among other guideline-recommended therapies. Evidently, they experienced higher 30-day MACE (8.1% vs. 3.9% and 2.1% in intermediate and low-risk, respectively, P<0.001) and 1-year mortality (10.4% vs. 3.9% and 1.1% in intermediate and low-risk, respectively, P<0.001). During time, comparing the early to the late-period, the use of potent antiplatelets and statins increased among the entire cohort (P<0.001). However, only the high-risk group demonstrated a significantly lower 30-day MACE (P=0.001). During time, there were no differences in 1-year mortality rate among all risk categories. Temporal trends in 30-day MACE by TRS2°P Conclusion Despite a better application of guideline-recommended therapies, high-risk patients after MI are still relatively undertreated. Nevertheless, they demonstrated the most notable improvement in outcomes over time.

Download Full-text

Semiautomated Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score helps direct bed placement for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BMJ Open Gastroenterology ◽

10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000479 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. e000479

Author(s):

Drew B Schembre ◽

Robson E Ely ◽

Janice M Connolly ◽

Kunjali T Padhya ◽

Rohit Sharda ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care ◽

High Risk ◽

Length Of Stay ◽

Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽

Transfusion Requirement ◽

Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽

Low Risk ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Bleeding Score ◽

Upper Gastrointestinal

ObjectiveThe Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) was designed to identify patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who do not require hospitalisation. It may also help stratify patients unlikely to benefit from intensive care.DesignWe reviewed patients assigned a GBS in the emergency room (ER) via a semiautomated calculator. Patients with a score ≤7 (low risk) were directed to an unmonitored bed (UMB), while those with a score of ≥8 (high risk) were considered for MB placement. Conformity with guidelines and subsequent transfers to MB were reviewed, along with transfusion requirement, rebleeding, length of stay, need for intervention and death.ResultsOver 34 months, 1037 patients received a GBS in the ER. 745 had an UGIB. 235 (32%) of these patients had a GBS ≤7. 29 (12%) low-risk patients were admitted to MBs. Four low-risk patients admitted to UMB required transfer to MB within the first 48 hours. Low-risk patients admitted to UMBs were no more likely to die, rebleed, need transfusion or require more endoscopic, radiographic or surgical procedures than those admitted to MBs. No low-risk patient died from GIB. Patients with GBS ≥8 were more likely to rebleed, require transfusion and interventions to control bleeding but not to die.ConclusionA semiautomated GBS calculator can be incorporated into an ER workflow. Patients with a GBS ≤7 are unlikely to need MB care for UGIB. Further studies are warranted to determine an ideal scoring system for MB admission.

Download Full-text

Impact of the Beta-Glucan Test on Management of Intensive Care Unit Patients at Risk for Invasive Candidiasis

Journal of Clinical Microbiology ◽

10.1128/jcm.01996-19 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 58 (6) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Antonios Kritikos ◽

Julien Poissy ◽

Antony Croxatto ◽

Pierre-Yves Bochud ◽

Jean-Luc Pagani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care ◽

High Risk ◽

Invasive Candidiasis ◽

Test Results ◽

Beta Glucan ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Therapeutic Decisions ◽

Risk Patients ◽

The Impact ◽

Test Result

ABSTRACT The 1,3-beta-d-glucan (BDG) test is used for the diagnosis of invasive candidiasis (IC) in intensive care units (ICUs). However, its utility for patient management is unclear. This study assessed the impact of BDG test results on therapeutic decisions. This was a single-center observational study conducted in an ICU over two 6-month periods. All BDG test requests for the diagnosis of IC were analyzed. Before the second period, the ICU physicians received a pocket card instruction (algorithm) for targeted BDG testing in high-risk patients. The performance of the BDG test for IC diagnosis was assessed, as well as its impact on antifungal (AF) prescription. Overall, 72 patients had ≥1 BDG test, and 14 (19%) patients had an IC diagnosis. The BDG test results influenced therapeutic decisions in 41 (57%) cases. The impact of the BDG test was positive in 30 (73%) of them, as follows: AF abstention/interruption following a negative BDG result (n = 27), and AF initiation/continuation triggered by a positive BDG test result and subsequently confirmed IC (n = 3). In 10 (24%) cases, a positive BDG test result resulted in AF initiation/continuation with no further evidence of IC. A negative BDG result and AF abstention with subsequent IC diagnosis were observed in one case. The positive predictive value (PPV) of BDG was improved if testing was restricted to the algorithm’s indications (80% versus 36%, respectively). However, adherence to the algorithm was low (26%), and no benefit of the intervention was observed. The BDG result had an impact on therapeutic decisions in more than half of the cases, which consisted mainly of safe AF interruption/abstention. Targeted BDG testing in high-risk patients improves PPV but is difficult to achieve in ICU.

Download Full-text