Validation of Embolic and Bleeding Risk Scores in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer.

Little is known about the prediction of atrial fibrillation (AF) risk scores in patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the predictive ability of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores in patients with AF and cancer. Overall, 16,056 patients with AF diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 from a Spanish health area, including 1,137 patients with cancer, were observed during a median follow-up of 4.9 years. Although discrimination was similar between patients with cancer and patients without cancer who were treated with anticoagulation therapy (0.56 and 0.58), in patients with cancer who were not treated with anticoagulation therapy, c-statistic of CHA2DS2-VASc was poor and significantly lower than in the patients without cancer (0.42 vs 0.65). The overall precision of the CHA2DS2-VASc score was good throughout the follow-up (Brier score < 0.1), in patients with and without cancer. Regarding the HAS-BLED score, calibration and discrimination were poor in patients with cancer (c-statistic 0.51), similar to those in patients without cancer (c-statistic 0.53). In patients with cancer who were not treated with anticoagulation therapy, the embolic risk CHA2DS2-VASc score = 1 was similar to CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. Only patients with AF and cancer and CHA2DS2-VASc score = 0 presented a low risk of embolic events (negative predictive value 100%). A HAS-BLED score > 3 was not associated with higher bleeding risk in patients with cancer (p > 0.05). In summary, in patients with cancer and with AF, neither the CHA2DS2-VASc score nor the HAS-BLED score was useful for predicting embolic and hemorrhagic events, respectively. However, a CHA2DS2-VASc score 0 is useful to identify patients with AF and cancer who are at low embolic risk.

In-hospital incidence of and risk factors for influenza-associated respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure (RF) is the most important complication of influenza virus infection. Its definition and incidence are heterogeneous in the literature. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the incidence of and risk factors for RF in patients hospitalized with influenza. Electronic databases were searched for articles on RF in patients hospitalized for influenza infection up to December 2021 regardless of their geographical location. Observational and experimental studies were considered for inclusion, excluding case series. The Newcastle-Ottawa and Johanna Briggs scales were used for quality assessment. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, followed by subgroup analyses according to, among others, presence/absence of pneumonia, RF definition, serotype and time period. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this review. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. Overall, RF incidence was 24% (range 5%-85%, 95% confidence interval [95CI] 19%-31%). Significantly higher incidences of RF were found in patients with pneumonia (42%, 95CI 28%-57%, p = .006), when RF was defined as hypoxemia (58%, 95CI 31%-81%, p < .001), and during the 2009 pandemic (25%, 95CI 16%-36%) and postpandemic period (23%, 95CI 15%-34%, p = .01). No differences were found between human influenza serotypes. Assessment of risk factors associated with the development of RF was not possible due to their inconsistent and heterogeneous reporting. CONCLUSION: Respiratory failure is frequent in hospitalized influenza patients, especially in patients with pneumonia and since the 2009 pandemic, although its definition and reporting widely vary in the literature. This complicates its characterization and comparison between cohorts and with other respiratory viruses.