RESUMO
The performance of glomerular filtration rate- (GFR-) estimating equations was studied against creatinine clearance measured by 24-hour urine collection (CrCl24h-urine) in critically ill patients. Methods. In this substudy of the PermiT trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ISRCTN68144998), patients from King Abdulaziz Medical City-Riyadh who had CrCl24h-urine were included. We estimated GFR using Cockroft-Gault (CG), modification of diet in renal disease study (MDRD), chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration (CKD-EPI), and Jelliffe equations. For the CG equation, we entered the actual weight in one calculation (CGactual-wt), and if BMI ≥30 kg/m2, we entered the ideal body weight (CGideal-wt) and the adjusted body weight (CGadjusted-wt) in two calculations. We calculated the MDRD equation based on 4 (MDRD-4) and 6 variables (MDRD-6). The performance of these equations was assessed by different ways including Spearman correlation, bias (difference between estimated GFR and CrCl24h-urine), precision (standard deviation of bias), and Bland-Altman plot analysis. Results. The cohort consisted of 237 patients (age 45 ± 20 years, males 75%, mechanically ventilated 99% with serum creatinine 101 ± 94 µmol/L and CrCl24h-urine 108 ± 69 ml/min/1.73 m2). The correlations between the different equations and CrCl24h-urine were modest (r: 0.62 to 0.79; p < 0.0001). Bias was statistically significant for CGactual-wt (21 ml/min), CGadjusted-wt (12 ml/min), and MDRD-6 (-10 ml/min) equations. Precision ranged from 46 to 54 ml/min. The sensitivity of equations to correctly classify CrCl24h-urine 30-59.9 ml/min/1.73 m2 was 17.2% for CGactual-wt, 30.0% for CGideal-wt, 31.0% for CGadjusted-wt, 31.0% for MDRD-4, 39.1% for MDRD-6, 13.8% for CKD-EPI, and 34.5% for Jelliffe equation. Conclusions. Commonly used GFR-estimating equations had limited ability to properly estimate CrCl24h-urine and to correctly classify GFR into clinically relevant ranges that usually determine dosing of medications.
RESUMO
Objectives: The study aimed to assess the mental health outcomes and associated factors among health care workers during COVID 19 in Saudi Arabia. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of health care workers from tertiary care and ministry of health Centers across the Central, Eastern, and Western regions of Saudi Arabia. There were 1,130 participants in the survey, and we collected demographic and mental health measurements from the participants. Primary Outcomes and Measures: The magnitude of symptoms of depression, anxiety, and insomnia was measured using the original version of 9-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7), and 7-item insomnia severity index (ISI). We use the multiple logistic regression analysis to identify the associated risk factors of individual outcomes. Results: The scores on the PHQ-9 showed that the largest proportion of health care workers (76.93%) experienced only normal to mild depression (50.83 and 26.1%, respectively). The scores on the GAD-7 showed that the largest proportion of health care workers (78.88%) experienced minimal to mild anxiety (50.41 and 28.47%, respectively). The scores on the ISI showed that the largest proportion of health care workers (85.83%) experienced absence to subthreshold insomnia (57.08 and 28.75%, respectively). The risk factors for depression in health care workers were Saudi, living with family, working from an isolated room at home and frontline worker. For anxiety, being female was risk factor and for insomnia, being frontline worker was risk factor. Conclusion: It was observed that the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and insomnia were reported in a lower proportion of health care workers in our study. The participants who were female, frontline workers, Saudi, living with family, and working from home in isolated rooms were predisposed to developing psychological disorders.
