Intermediate- vs. Standard-Dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients With COVID-19 Admitted in Medical Ward: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Background: Microthrombosis and large-vessel thrombosis are the main triggers of COVID-19 worsening. The optimal anticoagulant regimen in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards remains unknown.Objectives: To evaluate the effects of intermediate-dose vs. standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (AC) among patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in medical wards.Methods and results: We used a large French multicentric retrospective study enrolling 2,878 COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards. After exclusion of patients who had an AC treatment before hospitalization, we generated a propensity-score-matched cohort of patients who were treated with intermediate-dose or standard-dose prophylactic AC between February 26 and April 20, 2020 (intermediate-dose, n = 261; standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, n = 763). The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality; this occurred in 23 of 261 (8.8%) patients in the intermediate-dose group and 74 of 783 (9.4%) patients in the standard-dose prophylactic AC group (p = 0.85); while time to death was also the same in both the treatment groups (11.5 and 11.6 days, respectively, p = 0.17). We did not observe any difference regarding venous and arterial thrombotic events between the intermediate dose and standard dose, respectively (venous thrombotic events: 2.3 vs. 2.4%, p=0.99; arterial thrombotic events: 2.7 vs. 1.2%, p = 0.25). The 30-day Kaplan–Meier curves for in-hospital mortality demonstrate no statistically significant difference in in-hospital mortality (HR: 0.99 (0.63–1.60); p = 0.99). Moreover, we found that no particular subgroup was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality.Conclusion: Among COVID-19 patients hospitalized in medical wards, intermediate-dose prophylactic AC compared with standard-dose prophylactic AC did not result in a significant difference in in-hospital mortality.

Download Full-text

Association of Health Insurance Status with Outcomes of Sepsis in Adult Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18115777 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (11) ◽

pp. 5777

Author(s):

Gaon-Sorae Wang ◽

Kyoung-Min You ◽

You-Hwan Jo ◽

Hui-Jai Lee ◽

Jong-Hwan Shin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Insurance ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Cohort Analysis ◽

Adult Patients ◽

Multivariate Logistic Regression Model ◽

Insurance Status ◽

Matched Cohort ◽

Health Insurance Status ◽

Significant Difference

(1) Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening disease, and various demographic and socioeconomic factors affect outcomes in sepsis. However, little is known regarding the potential association between health insurance status and outcomes of sepsis in Korea. We evaluated the association of health insurance and clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis. (2) Methods: Prospective cohort data of adult patients with sepsis and septic shock from March 2016 to December 2018 in three hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. We categorized patients into two groups according to their health insurance status: National Health Insurance (NHI) and Medical Aid (MA). The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. The multivariate logistic regression model and propensity score matching were used. (3) Results: Of a total of 2526 eligible patients, 2329 (92.2%) were covered by NHI, and 197 (7.8%) were covered by MA. The MA group had fewer males, more chronic kidney disease, more multiple sources of infection, and more patients with initial lactate > 2 mmol/L. In-hospital, 28-day, and 90-day mortality were not significantly different between the two groups and in-hospital mortality was not different in the subgroup analysis. Furthermore, health insurance status was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariate analysis and was not associated with survival outcomes in the propensity score-matched cohort. (4) Conclusion: Our propensity score-matched cohort analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality by health insurance status in patients with sepsis.

Download Full-text

Intermediate vs Standard-dose Prophylactic Anticoagulation in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to ICU: Ninety-day Results from the INSPIRATION Trial

Thrombosis and Haemostasis ◽

10.1055/a-1485-2372 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Behnood Bikdeli ◽

Azita H Talasaz ◽

Farid Rashidi ◽

Hooman Bakhshandeh ◽

Farnaz Rafiee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hospital Discharge ◽

Major Bleeding ◽

Arterial Thrombosis ◽

Dose Group ◽

Standard Dose ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Bleeding Events ◽

Major Bleeding Events ◽

Prophylactic Anticoagulation ◽

Intermediate Dose

Background: Thrombotic complications are considered among the main extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. The optimal type and duration of prophylactic antithrombotic therapy in these patients remain unknown. Methods: This manuscript reports the final (90-day) results of the Intermediate versus Standard-dose Prophylactic anticoagulation In cRitically-ill pATIents with COVID-19: An opeN label randomized controlled trial (INSPIRATION) study. Patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care were randomized to intermediate-dose versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation for 30 days, irrespective of hospital discharge status. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of adjudicated venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or all-cause death. The main safety outcome was major bleeding. Results: Of 600 randomized patients, 562 entered the modified intention-to-treat analysis (median age [Q1, Q3]; 62 (50, 71) years; 237 (42.2%) women), of whom 336 (59.8%) survived to hospital discharge. The primary outcome occurred in 132 (47.8%) of patients assigned to intermediate-dose and 130 (45.4%) patients assigned to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95-1.55, P=0.11). No significant differences were observed between the two groups for other efficacy outcomes, or in the landmark analysis from days 31-90. Overall, there were 7 (2.5%) major bleeding events in the intermediate-dose group (including 3 fatal events) and 4 (1.4%) major bleeding events in the standard-dose group (none fatal) (HR: 1.82, 95% CI: 0.53-6.24, P=0.33). Conclusion: Intermediate-dose compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation did not reduce a composite of death, treatment with ECMO, or venous or arterial thrombosis at 90-day follow-up.

Download Full-text

OP0211 TIME TO DISCONTINUATION OF TOFACITINIB AND TNF INHIBITORS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENTS WITH AND WITHOUT METHOTREXATE: DATA FROM A RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS COHORT

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.1745 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 131.2-132

Author(s):

M. Movahedi ◽

A. Cesta ◽

X. LI ◽

E. Keystone ◽

C. Bombardier

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Best Practice ◽

Practice Research ◽

Research Support ◽

Real World Data ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

Rheumatoid Arthritis Cohort ◽

Research Initiative ◽

Significant Difference

Background:Tofacitinib (TOFA) is an oral, small molecule drug used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment and is prescribed alone or with methotrexate (MTX). Tofa can be used as an alternative to biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).Objectives:We aimed to evaluate the discontinuation rate of this drug, with and without concurrent MTX in comparison with TNFi, in patients with RA in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI).Methods:RA patients enrolled in the OBRI initiating their TOFA or TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etancercept, golimumab, and infliximab) within 30 days prior to or any time after enrolment between 1stJune 2014 (TOFA approval date in Canada) and 31stDec 2018 were included. Time to discontinuation (due to any reason) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival (adjusted for propensity score using inverse probability of treatment weight) to compare patients with and without MTX use at initiation of TOFA or TNFi.Results:A total of 565 patients initiated TOFA (n=208) or TNFi (n=357). Of those, 106 (51%) and 222 (62%) were treated with MTX in the TOFA and TNFi group, respectively and mean (SD) disease duration were 13.1 (9.4) and 9.5 (9.4) years. In the TOFA group, 86% were female and mean (SD) age at treatment initation was 60.4 (10.6) years. In the TNFi group 82% were female and mean age (SD) at treatment initation was 57.0 (12.6) years. The TOFA group was more likely to have prior biologic use (61.5%) compared with the TNFi group (31%). At treatment initiation, the mean (SD) clinical disease activcity index was 24.8 (12.1) in the TOFA group and 21.8 (12.0) in the TNFi group.Over a mean of 17.3 month follow-up, discontinuation was reported in 75 (36%) and 103 (29%) of all TOFA and TNFi patients, respectively. After adjusting for propensity score, patients treated with TNFi and MTX remained on treatment longer than those treated without MTX (Logrank p=0.002) while there was no significant difference in TOFA discontinuation in patients with and without MTX (Logrank p=0.31).Conclusion:In this real world data study, we found that TOFA retention is similar in patients with and without MTX, while patients treated with TNFi and MTX remained on treatment longer than those treated without MTX. Merging data with other RA registries in Canada is proposed to increase study power and to provide more robust results.Disclosure of Interests:Mohammad Movahedi Consultant of: Allergan, Angela Cesta: None declared, Xiuying Li: None declared, Edward Keystone Grant/research support from: AbbVie; Amgen; Gilead Sciences, Inc; Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; PuraPharm; Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie; Amgen; AstraZeneca Pharma; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Celltrion; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.; Genentech, Inc; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen, Inc; Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Merck; Myriad Autoimmune; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis., Speakers bureau: AbbVie; Amgen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celltrion; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, Janssen, Inc; Merck; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; Sanofi-Genzyme; UCB, Claire Bombardier Grant/research support from: Dr Bombardier reports sources of funding for Ontario Best Practice Research Initiative Research grants from Abbvie, Janssen, Amgen, Medexus, Merck, Pfizer, and Novartis outside of the submitted work. Consulting Agreements: Abbvie, Covance, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Novartis outside of the submitted work. Advisory Board Membership: Hospira, Sandoz, Merck, Pfizer and Novartis outside of the submitted work.

Download Full-text

The prognosis of hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach: a propensity score-based analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-19206/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kai Zhou ◽

Anqiang Wang ◽

Sheng Ao ◽

Jiahui Chen ◽

Ke Ji ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Propensity Score ◽

Cox Regression ◽

Radical Surgery ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Cancer Type ◽

Radical Gastrectomy ◽

Hepatoid Adenocarcinoma ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Propensity Matching

Abstract Background : To investigate whether there is a distinct difference in prognosis between hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach ( HAS) and non-hepatoid adenocarcinoma of the stomach (non-HAS) and whether HAS can benefit from radical surgery. Methods : We retrospectively reviewed 722 patients with non-HAS and 75 patients with HAS who underwent radical gastrectomy between 3 November 2009 and 17 December 2018. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to eliminate the bias among the patients in our study. The relationships between gastric cancer type and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression. Results : Our data demonstrate that there was no statistically significant difference in the OS between HAS and non-HAS {K-M, P=log rank (Mantel-Cox), (before PSM P=0.397); (1:1 PSM P=0.345); (1:2 PSM P=0.195)}. Moreover, there were no significant differences in the 1-, 2-, or 3-year survival rates between patients with non-HAS and patients with HAS (before propensity matching, after 1:1 propensity matching, and after 1:2 propensity matching). Conclusion : HAS was generally considered to be an aggressive gastric neoplasm, but its prognosis may not be as unsatisfactory as previously believed.

Download Full-text

Surgical outcomes of DeBakey type I and type II acute aortic dissection: a propensity score-matched analysis in 599 patients

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery ◽

10.1186/s13019-021-01594-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Chun-Yu Lin ◽

Tao-Hsin Tung ◽

Meng-Yu Wu ◽

Chi-Nan Tseng ◽

Feng-Chun Tsai

Keyword(s):

Propensity Score ◽

Aortic Dissection ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Acute Aortic Dissection ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Type I ◽

Acute Type ◽

Type Ii ◽

Matched Cohort ◽

Reoperation Rates

Abstract Background The DeBakey classification divides Stanford acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) into DeBakey type I (D1) and type II (D2) according to the extent of acute aortic dissection (AAD). This retrospective study aimed to compare the early and late outcomes of D1-AAD and D2-AAD through a propensity score-matched analysis. Methods Between January 2009 and April 2020, 599 consecutive patients underwent ATAAD repair at our institution, and were dichotomized into D1 (n = 543; 90.7%) and D2 (n = 56; 9.3%) groups. Propensity scoring was performed with a 1:1 ratio, resulting in a matched cohort of 56 patients per group. The clinical features, postoperative complications, 5-year cumulative survival and freedom from reoperation rates were compared. Results In the overall cohort, the D1 group had a lower rate of preoperative shock and more aortic arch replacement with longer cardiopulmonary bypass time. The D1 group had a higher in-hospital mortality rate than the D2 group in overall (15.8% vs 5.4%; P = 0.036) and matched cohorts (19.6% vs 5.4%; P = 0.022). For patients that survived to discharge, the D1 and D2 groups demonstrated similar 5-year survival rates in overall (77.0% vs 85.2%; P = 0.378) and matched cohorts (79.1% vs 85.2%; P = 0.425). The 5-year freedom from reoperation rates for D1 and D2 groups were 80.0% and 97.1% in overall cohort (P = 0.011), and 93.6% and 97.1% in matched cohort (P = 0.474), respectively. Conclusions Patients with D1-AAD had a higher risk of in-hospital mortality than those with D2-AAD. However, for patients who survived to discharge, the 5-year survival rates were comparable between both groups.

Download Full-text

Clinical Effect of the Acrylonitrile-Co-Methallyl Sulfonate Surface-Treated Membrane as a Cytokine Adsorption Therapy for Sepsis due to Acute Panperitonitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Blood Purification ◽

10.1159/000504560 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 49 (3) ◽

pp. 364-371

Author(s):

Kentarou Hayashi ◽

Yusuke Sasabuchi ◽

Hiroki Matsui ◽

Mikio Nakajima ◽

Hiroyuki Ohbe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Propensity Score ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Propensity Score Matching ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Clinical Effect ◽

Primary Outcome Measure ◽

Gastrointestinal Perforation ◽

Disease Mechanism ◽

Diagnosis Procedure Combination ◽

Significant Difference

Introduction: Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response syndrome caused by infectious diseases, with cytokines possibly having an important role in the disease mechanism. Acrylonitrile-co-methallyl sulfonate surface-treated (AN69ST) membrane is expected to improve the outcomes of patients with sepsis through cytokine adsorption. Objective: This study aimed to investigate the clinical effect of the AN69ST membrane in comparison to standard continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) membranes for panperitonitis due to lower gastrointestinal perforation. Methods: Using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, we identified adult patients with sepsis due to panperitonitis receiving any CRRT. Propensity score matching was used to compare patients who received CRRT with the AN69ST membrane (AN69ST group) and those who received CRRT with other membranes (non-AN69ST group). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 528 and 1,445 patients were included in the AN69ST group and in the non-AN69ST group, respectively. Propensity score matching resulted in 521 pairs. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (32.1 vs. 35.5%; p = 0.265) and 30-day mortality (41.3 vs. 42.8%, p = 0.074) between the AN69ST group and the non-AN69ST group. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in-hospital mortality between CRRT with the AN69ST membrane and CRRT with standard CRRT membranes for panperitonitis due to lower gastrointestinal perforation. These results indicate that the AN69ST membrane is not superior to the standard CRRT membrane.

Download Full-text

Long-Term Oncological Outcome Comparison between Intermediate- and High-Dose Radioactive Iodine Ablation in Patients with Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Study

International Journal of Endocrinology ◽

10.1155/2021/6642971 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-10

Author(s):

Kwangsoon Kim ◽

Ja Seong Bae ◽

Jeong Soo Kim

Keyword(s):

Propensity Score ◽

Thyroid Carcinoma ◽

Propensity Score Matching ◽

Radioactive Iodine ◽

Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma ◽

High Dose ◽

Preoperative Serum ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Intermediate Dose

Background. Radioactive iodine (RAI) ablation is recommended for most patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC) after total thyroidectomy (TT). We aimed to compare long-term outcomes between intermediate-dose (100 mCi) and high-dose (150 mCi) RAI ablation therapy in patients with DTC using propensity score matching analysis. Methods. This was a retrospective study of 1448 patients with DTC who underwent RAI ablation after TT. Propensity score matching was performed using the extent of operation, tumor size, extrathyroidal extension, multifocality, lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, perineural invasion, number of positive lymph nodes (LNs), ATA risk stratification system, T stage, N stage, TNM stage, preoperative serum Tg and TgAb levels, and post-RAI serum Tg and TgAb levels. Results. Recurrence rates in the intermediate- and high-dose groups were 3.1% and 5.6%, respectively. After propensity score matching, LN ratio >0.22 (HR, 2.915; 95% CI, 1.228–6.918; p = 0.015 ) and serum Tg >10 ng/mL after RAI (HR, 3.976; 95% CI, 1.839–8.595; p < 0.001 ) were significant predictors of recurrence. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed no significant difference in DFS before or after propensity score matching ( p = 0.074 and p = 0.378 , respectively). Conclusions. Intermediate-dose RAI ablation for the adjuvant treatment of DTC is sufficient as compared to high-dose RAI ablation. Further prospective or multicenter studies should be conducted to clarify the prognosis of intermediate-dose RAI ablation.

Download Full-text

Assessing survival and re-hospitalisation following transvenous lead extraction in cardiac resynchronisation therapy devices depending on reimplantation timing: a propensity score matched analysis

EP Europace ◽

10.1093/europace/euab116.463 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽

Author(s):

VS Mehta ◽

MK Elliott ◽

BS Sidhu ◽

H O"brien ◽

J Gould ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Propensity Score ◽

Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy ◽

Left Ventricular Ejection ◽

Lead Extraction ◽

Matched Cohort ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

Cardiac Resynchronisation ◽

Resynchronisation Therapy ◽

Long Term Mortality

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Among patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction (TLE), differences in complication rate and 1-year mortality has been explored in patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) devices. Longer term outcomes and the influence of timing of reimplantation of device, with respect to rehospitalisation and longer-term mortality is poorly understood. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether early reimplantation following TLE in patients with CRT devices influenced survival and rehospitalisation. Methods Clinical data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE in the reference centre between the years 2000 to 2019 were prospectively collected. Patients surviving to discharge who were re-implanted with the same device were included. The cohort was split depending on whether or not they had a CRT device at time of explant. The association between TLE in CRT patients and all-cause mortality and re-hospitalisation was assessed by Kaplan Meier estimates in a 1:1 propensity-score matched cohort, with a calliper of 0.10. Early reimplantation was defined as reimplantation within 7 days of TLE, and late reimplantation as reimplantation after greater than 7 days of TLE. Results Of 1005 patients included in the analysis, 285 (25%) had a CRT device. After matching, 192 CRT patients were compared with 192 non-CRT patients. Propensity scores were calculated using 39 baseline characteristics, including age, gender, co-morbidities, TLE indication, left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline creatinine and technical extraction data. Mean follow up was 53.5 ± 38.3 months, mean age at explant was 67.7 ± 12.1 years, 83.3% were male and 54.4% had an infective indication for TLE. In the matched cohort, there was no significant difference between the CRT and non-CRT group with respect to long-term mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.74-1.39], p = 0.093) or rehospitalisation (HR = 1.2 [0.87-1.66], p = 0.265). A similar proportion of patients were reimplanted within 7 days in the CRT and non-CRT groups (59.4% vs 61.5%, p = 0.754). In the matched non-CRT group, late reimplantation was associated with similar mortality to early reimplantation (HR = 1.33 [0.86-2.05], p = 0.208) and rehospitalisation (HR = 0.88 [0.53-1.45], p = 0.603). In the matched CRT group, late reimplantation was associated with higher mortality (HR = 1.64 [1.04-2.57], p = 0.032) and rehospitalisation (HR = 1.57 [1.00-2.46], p = 0.049] (see figure). Conclusion In this closely matched population, TLE in CRT patients resulted in similar long-term outcomes compared with non-CRT patients. Early reimplantation post CRT explant was associated with reduced long-term mortality and rehospitalisation. This suggests a longer duration without biventricular pacing post TLE may induce negative reverse-remodelling and should be avoided in a CRT population. Abstract Figure. Kaplan-Meier survival curves

Download Full-text

Comparative Effectiveness of Midazolam, Propofol, and Dexmedetomidine in Patients With or at Risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.614465 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

An-Min Hu ◽

Xiong-Xiong Zhong ◽

Zhen Li ◽

Zhong-Jun Zhang ◽

Hui-Ping Li

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Hospital Mortality ◽

Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽

Respiratory Distress ◽

Distress Syndrome ◽

Research Database ◽

Matched Cohort

Background: Sedatives are commonly used in patients with or at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during mechanical ventilation. To systematically compare the outcomes of sedation with midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine in patients with or at risk for ARDS.Methods: We developed a dataset of real-world data to enable the comparison of the effectiveness and safety of sedatives and the associated outcomes from the MIMIC-III database and the eICU Collaborative Research database. We performed a systematic study with six cohorts to estimate the relative risks of outcomes among patients administered different sedatives. Propensity score matching was performed to generate a balanced 1:1 matched cohort and to identify potential prognostic factors. The outcomes included hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospitalization, and likelihood of being discharged home.Results: We performed 60 calibrated analyses among all groups and outcomes with 17,410 eligible patients. Sedation with dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate than sedation with midazolam and propofol or sedation without dexmedetomidine (p < 0.001). When compared with no sedation, the use of midazolam, propofol or dexmedetomidine was associated with a longer ICU stay and longer hospitalization duration (p < 0.01). Patients treated with midazolam were relatively less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Patients treated with dexmedetomidine had a reduced risk of mortality. These data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be the preferred sedative in patients with or at risk for ARDS.

Download Full-text

The Efficacy of Chemotherapy in Survival of Esophageal Cancer With Bone Metastasis: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of The SEER Database

10.21203/rs.3.rs-821003/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

junyuan chen ◽

Jieruo Li ◽

Tsz-Ngai Mok ◽

Jiaquan Zhong ◽

Guorong She ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Bone Metastasis ◽

Propensity Score ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Cox Regression ◽

National Database ◽

Cancer Specific Survival ◽

Chemotherapy Group ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background The esophageal cancer patients with bone metastasis present with an extremely poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to establish a comprehensive insight into whether chemotherapy is justifiably being prescribed to esophageal cancer patients with bone metastasis. Methods A population-based retrospective study was conducted with data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) national database. By performing 1:1 paired match propensity score matching (PSM), we minimized the baseline discrepancies between groups. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with survival. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to assess the effects of chemotherapy on survival. Results The final PSM cohort consisted of 730 patients, including 365 patients in the chemotherapy group and 365 patients in the non-chemotherapy group. There was a significant difference in overall survival (OS, p < 0.001) and cancer-specific survival (CSS, p < 0.001) between the two groups. The median OS time for the chemotherapy group was 9.8 (95% CI: 8.5–11.2) months, and it was decreased to 2.3 (95% CI 1.9–2.7) months in the non-chemotherapy group. Multivariate analysis confirmed that chemotherapy was an independent prognostic factor for OS (p < 0.001) and CSS (p < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis suggested that chemotherapy could significantly improve OS (p < 0.001) and CSS (p < 0.001) both in squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma subgroup. However, there was no significant difference in both OS (p = 0.291) and CSS (p = 0.651) between the two groups for stage Ⅰ esophageal carcinoma. Conclusion Chemotherapy significantly improved OS and CSS in esophageal cancer patients with bone metastasis. However, chemotherapy might not improve the prognosis of grade I esophageal cancer.

Download Full-text