ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: We aimed to explore the impact of infection diagnosed upon admission and of other clinical baseline parameters on mortality of cirrhotic patients with emergency admissions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective observational monocentric study in a tertiary care center. The association of clinical parameters and established scoring systems with short-term mortality up to 90 days was assessed by univariate and multivariable Cox regression analysis. Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) was used for automated variable selection. Statistical interaction effects with infection were also taken into account. RESULTS: 218 patients were included. 71.2% were male, mean age was 61.1 ± 10.5 years. Mean MELD score was 16.2 ± 6.5, CLIF-consortium Acute on Chronic Liver Failure-score was 34 ± 11. At 28, 90 and 365 days, 9.6%, 26.0% and 40.6% of patients had died, respectively. In multivariable analysis, respiratory organ failure [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.15], albumin substitution (HR = 2.48), non-HCC-malignancy (HR = 4.93), CLIF-C-ACLF (HR = 1.10), HCC (HR = 3.70) and first episode of ascites (HR = 0.11) were significantly associated with 90-day mortality. Patients with infection had a significantly higher 90-day mortality (36.3 vs. 20.1%, p = 0.007). Cultures were positive in 32 patients with resistance to cephalosporins or quinolones in 10, to ampicillin/sulbactam in 14 and carbapenems in 6 patients. CONCLUSION: Infection is common in cirrhotic ED admissions and increases mortality. The proportion of resistant microorganisms is high. The predictive capacity of established scoring systems in this setting was low to moderate.
Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/therapy , Emergency Service, Hospital , Liver Cirrhosis/therapy , Patient Admission , Aged , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Bacterial Infections/microbiology , Bacterial Infections/mortality , Decision Support Techniques , Drug Resistance, Bacterial , Female , Germany , Health Status , Humans , Liver Cirrhosis/diagnosis , Liver Cirrhosis/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Tertiary Care Centers , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD) is used to derive cardiac output CO, global end-diastolic volume GEDV and extravascular lung water EVLW. To facilitate interpretation of these data, several ratios have been developed, including pulmonary vascular permeability index (defined as EVLW/(0.25*GEDV)) and global ejection fraction ((4*stroke volume)/GEDV). PVPI and GEF have been associated to the aetiology of pulmonary oedema and systolic cardiac function, respectively. Several studies demonstrated that the use of femoral venous access results in a marked overestimation of GEDV. This also falsely reduces PVPI and GEF. One of these studies suggested a correction formula for femoral venous access that markedly reduced the bias for GEDV. Consequently, the last PiCCO-algorithm requires information about the CVC, and correction for femoral access has been shown. However, two recent studies demonstrated inconsistencies of the last PiCCO algorithm using incorrected GEDV for PVPI, but corrected GEDV for GEF. Nevertheless, these studies were based on mathematical analyses of data displayed in a total of 15 patients equipped with only a femoral, but not with a jugular CVC. Therefore, this study compared PVPI_fem and GEF_fem derived from femoral TPTD to values derived from jugular indicator injection in 25 patients with both jugular and femoral CVCs. METHODS: 54 datasets in 25 patients were recorded. Each dataset consisted of three triplicate TPTDs using the jugular venous access as the gold standard and the femoral access with (PVPI_fem_cor) and without (PVPI_fem_uncor) information about the femoral indicator injection to evaluate, if correction for femoral GEDV pertains to PVPI_fem and GEF_fem. RESULTS: PVPI_fem_uncor was significantly lower than PVPI_jug (1.48±0.47 vs. 1.84±0.53; p<0.001). Similarly, PVPI_fem_cor was significantly lower than PVPI_jug (1.49±0.46 vs. 1.84±0.53; p<0.001). This is explained by the finding that PVPI_fem_uncor was not different to PVPI_fem_cor (1.48±0.47 vs. 1.49±0.46; n.s.). This clearly suggests that correction for femoral CVC does not pertain to PVPI. GEF_fem_uncor was significantly lower than GEF_jug (20.6±5.1% vs. 25.0±6.1%; p<0.001). By contrast, GEF_fem_cor was not different to GEF_jug (25.6±5.8% vs. 25.0±6.1%; n.s.). Furthermore, GEF_fem_cor was significantly higher than GEF_fem_uncor (25.6±5.8% vs. 20.6±5.1%; p<0.001). This finding emphasizes that an appropriate correction for femoral CVC is applied to GEF_fem_cor. The extent of the correction (25.5/20.6; 124%) for GEF and the relation of PVPI_jug/PVPI_fem_uncor (1.84/1.48; 124%) are in the same range as the ratio of GEDVI_fem_uncor/GEDVI_fem_cor (1056ml/m2/821mL/m2; 129%). This further emphasizes that GEF, but not PVPI is corrected in case of femoral indicator injection. CONCLUSIONS: Femoral indicator injection for TPTD results in significantly lower values for PVPI and GEF. While the last PiCCO algorithm appropriately corrects GEF, the correction is not applied to PVPI. Therefore, GEF-values can be used in case of femoral CVC, but PVPI-values are substantially underestimated.
Subject(s)
Capillary Permeability , Cardiac Output , Catheterization, Central Venous/methods , Contrast Media/pharmacokinetics , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Stroke Volume , Aged , Extravascular Lung Water , Female , Femoral Vein , Heart/physiopathology , Humans , Injections, Intravenous , Intensive Care Units , Jugular Veins , Liver Cirrhosis/diagnosis , Liver Cirrhosis/physiopathology , Liver Cirrhosis/therapy , Lung/blood supply , Lung/physiopathology , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic/instrumentation , Prospective Studies , Pulmonary Edema/diagnosis , Pulmonary Edema/physiopathology , Pulmonary Edema/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Sepsis/diagnosis , Sepsis/physiopathology , Sepsis/therapy , Thermodilution/methodsABSTRACT
The increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is mirrored by the increasing prevalence of Barrett esophagus, a precursor lesion resulting in a large number of individuals "at risk" for this lethal malignancy. Among patients with Barrett esophagus, only about 0.3% annually will develop EAC. Because large numbers of patients are followed in endoscopic surveillance, there is a need for risk prediction among a growing population of patients with Barrett esophagus. We identified four potential biomarkers from an inflammation (IL1ß)-dependent mouse model of Barrett esophagus and tested them in 189 patients with Barrett esophagus with and without high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/early cancer (T1). The primary goal was to distinguish patients with Barrett esophagus with no evidence of dysplasia from those with dysplasia. Increasing stem cell marker LGR5 and niche cell marker DCLK1 and decreasing differentiation marker (secretory mucus cells, TFF2+ cells) correlated with elevated tumor score in the mouse. Having outlined the origin of those markers in the Barrett esophagus mouse model, we showed the applicability for human Barrett esophagus. We compared 94 patients with nondysplastic Barrett esophagus tissue with 95 patients with Barrett esophagus and HGD or early cancer. Low levels of TFF2 (AUC 87.2%) provided the best discrimination between nondysplastic Barrett esophagus and Barrett esophagus with cancer, followed by high levels of DCLK1 (AUC 83.4%), low goblet cell ratio (AUC 79.4%), and high LGR5 (AUC 71.4%). The goblet cell ratio, rather than the presence of goblet cells per se, was found to be an important discriminator. These findings may be useful in developing future risk prediction models for patients with Barrett esophagus and ultimately to improve EAC surveillance. Cancer Prev Res; 10(1); 55-66. ©2016 AACR.
