Dataset Information

Liver transplantation in the critically ill: a multicenter Canadian retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Critically ill cirrhosis patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) often receive prioritization for organ allocation. Identification of patients most likely to benefit is essential. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score can predict 90-day mortality in critically ill recipients of LT and whether it can predict receipt of LT among critically ill cirrhosis listed awaiting LT.

Methods

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study consisting of two datasets: (a) all critically-ill cirrhosis patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission before LT at five transplant centers in Canada from 2000 through 2009 (one site, 1990 through 2009), and (b) critically ill cirrhosis patients receiving LT from ICU (n = 115) and those listed but not receiving LT before death (n = 106) from two centers where complete data were available.

Results

In the first dataset, 198 critically ill cirrhosis patients receiving LT (mean (SD) age 53 (10) years, 66% male, median (IQR) model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) 34 (26-39)) were included. Mean (SD) SOFA scores at ICU admission, at 48 hours, and at LT were 12.5 (4), 13.0 (5), and 14.0 (4). Survival at 90 days was 84% (n = 166). In multivariable analysis, only older age was independently associated with reduced 90-day survival (odds ratio (OR), 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.14; P = 0.013). SOFA score did not predict 90-day mortality at any time. In the second dataset, 47.9% (n = 106) of cirrhosis patients listed for LT died in the ICU waiting for LT. In multivariable analysis, higher SOFA at 48 hours after admission was independently associated with lower probability of receiving LT (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.97; P = 0.006). When including serum lactate and SOFA at 48 hours in the final model, elevated lactate (at 48 hours) was also significantly associated with lower likelihood of receiving LT (0.32; 0.17 to 0.61; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

SOFA appears poor at predicting 90-day survival in critically ill cirrhosis patients after LT, but higher SOFA score and elevated lactate 48 hours after ICU admission are associated with a lower probability receiving LT. Older critically ill cirrhosis patients (older than 60) receiving LT have worse 90-day survival and should be considered for LT with caution.

SUBMITTER: Karvellas CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4056692 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Liver transplantation in the critically ill: a multicenter Canadian retrospective cohort study.

Karvellas Constantine J CJ Lescot Thomas T Goldberg Peter P Sharpe Michael D MD Ronco Juan J JJ Renner Eberhard L EL Vahidy Hina H Poonja Zafrina Z Chaudhury Prosanto P Kneteman Norman M NM Selzner Markus M Cook Earl F EF Bagshaw Sean M SM

Critical care (London, England) 20130209 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Critically ill cirrhosis patients awaiting liver transplantation (LT) often receive prioritization for organ allocation. Identification of patients most likely to benefit is essential. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score can predict 90-day mortality in critically ill recipients of LT and whether it can predict receipt of LT among critically ill cirrhosis listed awaiting LT.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a multic ...[more]

PMID: 23394270

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Liver injury commonly occurs in patients with COVID-19. There is limited data describing the course of liver injury occurrence in patients with different disease severity, and the causes and risk factors are unknown. We aim to investigate the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of liver injury in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals (Zhejiang, China). From January 19, 2020 to February 20, 2020, patients confirmed with COVID-19 (≥18 years) and without liver injury were enrolled and divided into non-critically ill and critically ill groups. The incidence and characteristics of liver injury were compared between the two groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and treatment outcomes between patients with or without liver injury were compared within each group. The multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the risk factors for liver injury. Results: The mean age of 131 enrolled patients was 51.2 years (standard deviation [SD]: 16.1 years), and 70 (53.4%) patients were male. A total of 76 patients developed liver injury (mild, 40.5%; moderate, 15.3%; severe, 2.3%) with a median occurrence time of 10.0 days. Critically ill patients had higher and earlier occurrence (81.5 vs. 51.9%, 12.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001), greater injury severity (p < 0.001), and slower recovery (50.0 vs. 61.1%) of liver function than non-critically ill patients. Multivariable regression showed that the number of concomitant medications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.21) and the combination treatment of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol (OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.44-9.52) were risk factors for liver injury in non-critically ill patients. The metabolism of arbidol can be significantly inhibited by lopinavir/ritonavir in vitro (p < 0.005), which may be the underlying cause of drug-related liver injury. Liver injury was related to increased length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3-5.2) and viral shedding duration (MD: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.9). Conclusions: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered earlier occurrence, greater injury severity, and slower recovery from liver injury than non-critically ill patients. Drug factors were related to liver injury in non-critically ill patients. Liver injury was related to prolonged hospital stay and viral shedding duration in patients with COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ChiCTR2000030593. Registered March 8, 2020.

Project description:BackgroundVery old patients (≥ 80 years-old, VOP) are increasingly admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common reason for admission and the best strategy of support for respiratory failure in this scenario is not fully known. We evaluated whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial compared to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) regarding hospital mortality.MethodsMulticenter cohort study of VOPs admitted with CAP in need of IMV or NIV to 11 Brazilian ICUs from 2009 through 2012. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the association between the initial ventilatory strategy (NIV vs. IMV) and hospital mortality adjusting for confounding factors. We evaluated effect modification with interaction terms in pre-specified sub-groups.ResultsOf 369 VOPs admitted for CAP with respiratory failure, 232 (63%) received NIV and 137 (37%) received IMV as initial ventilatory strategy. IMV patients were sicker at baseline (median SOFA 8 vs. 4). Hospital mortality was 114/232 (49%) for NIV and 90/137 (66%) for IMV. For the comparison NIV vs. IMV (reference), the crude odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.33-0.78, p = 0.002). This association was largely confounded by antecedent characteristics and non-respiratory SOFA (adjOR = 0.70, 95% CI, 0.41-1.20, p = 0.196). The fully adjusted model, additionally including Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH and Paco2, yielded an adjOR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.46-1.41, p = 0.452). There was no strong evidence of effect modification among relevant subgroups, such as Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≤ 150 (p = 0.30), acute respiratory acidosis (p = 0.42) and non-respiratory SOFA ≥ 4 (p = 0.53).ConclusionsNIV was not associated with lower hospital mortality when compared to IMV in critically ill VOP admitted with CAP, but there was no strong signal of harm from its use. The main confounders of this association were both the severity of respiratory dysfunction and of extra-respiratory organ failures.

Project description:BackgroundBoth sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are common severe diseases in the intensive care unit (ICU). There is no large-scale multicenter study to clarify the attributable mortality of ARDS among septic patients. This study aimed to evaluate the excess mortality of ARDS in critically ill patients with sepsis.MethodsThe data were obtained from a multicenter, prospective cohort study in 18 Chinese ICUs between January 2014 and August 2015. The study population was septic patients after ICU admission. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who developed ARDS (ARDS group) within seven days following a sepsis diagnosis and those who did not develop ARDS (non-ARDS group). Applying propensity score matching (PSM), patients were matched 1:1 as ARDS and non-ARDS groups. Mortality attributed to ARDS was calculated. Subsequently, we conducted a survival analysis to estimate the impact of ARDS on mortality. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality after sepsis diagnosis.Results2323 septic patients were eligible, 67.8% developed ARDS. After PSM, 737 patients with ARDS were matched 1:1 with 737 non-ARDS patients. ARDS's overall 30-day attributable mortality was 11.9% (95% CI 7.5-16.3%, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that the 30-day attributable mortality of mild, moderate, and severe ARDS was 10.5% (95% CI 4.0-16.8%, p < 0.001), 11.6% (95% CI 4.7-18.4%, p < 0.001) and 18.1% (95% CI 4.5-30.9%, p = 0.006), respectively. ARDS was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.30 (95% CI 1.03-1.64, p = 0.027), 1.49 (95% CI 1.20-1.85, p < 0.001), and 1.95 (95% CI 1.51-2.52, p < 0.001) for mild, moderate, and severe ARDS, respectively.ConclusionsThe overall 30-day attributable mortality of ARDS among critically ill patients with sepsis was 11.9%. Compared with mild and moderate ARDS, severe ARDS contributed more to death. ARDS was significantly associated with an increase in the 30-day mortality.

Project description:BackgroundSepsis and acute kidney injury (AKI) are common severe diseases in the intensive care unit (ICU). This study aimed to estimate the attributable mortality of AKI among critically ill patients with sepsis and to assess whether AKI was an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality.MethodsThe information we used was derived from a multicenter prospective cohort study conducted in 18 Chinese ICUs, focusing on septic patients post ICU admission. The patients were categorized into two groups: those who developed AKI (AKI group) within seven days following a sepsis diagnosis and those who did not develop AKI (non-AKI group). Using propensity score matching (PSM), patients were matched 1:1 as AKI and non-AKI groups. We then calculated the mortality rate attributable to AKI in septic patients. Furthermore, a survival analysis was conducted comparing the matched AKI and non-AKI septic patients. The primary outcome of interest was the 30-day mortality rate following the diagnosis of sepsis.ResultsOut of the 2175 eligible septic patients, 61.7% developed AKI. After the application of PSM, a total of 784 septic patients who developed AKI were matched in a 1:1 ratio with 784 septic patients who did not develop AKI. The overall 30-day attributable mortality of AKI was 6.6% (95% CI 2.3 ∼ 10.9%, p = 0.002). A subgroup analysis revealed that the 30-day attributable mortality rates for stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3 AKI were 0.6% (95% CI -5.9 ∼ 7.2%, p = 0.846), 4.7% (95% CI -3.1 ∼ 12.4%, p = 0.221) and 16.8% (95% CI 8.1 ∼ 25.2%, p < 0.001), respectively. Particularly noteworthy was that stage 3 AKI emerged as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality, possessing an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.80 (95% CI 1.31 ∼ 2.47, p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe overall 30-day attributable mortality of AKI among critically ill patients with sepsis was 6.6%. Stage 3 AKI had the most significant contribution to 30-day mortality, while stage 1 and stage 2 AKI did not increase excess mortality.

Project description:BackgroundMobilisation and exercise intervention in general are safe and feasible in critically ill patients. For patients requiring catecholamines, however, doses of norepinephrine safe for mobilisation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are not defined. This study aimed to describe mobilisation practice in our hospital and identify doses of norepinephrine that allowed a safe mobilisation.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective single-centre cohort study of 16 ICUs at a university hospital in Germany with patients admitted between March 2018 and November 2021. Data were collected from our patient data management system. We analysed the effect of norepinephrine on level (ICU Mobility Scale) and frequency (units per day) of mobilisation, early mobilisation (within 72 h of ICU admission), mortality, and rate of adverse events. Data were extracted from free-text mobilisation entries using supervised machine learning (support vector machine). Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear (mixed-effect) models, as well as chi-square tests and ANOVAs.ResultsA total of 12,462 patients were analysed in this study. They received a total of 59,415 mobilisation units. Of these patients, 842 (6.8%) received mobilisation under continuous norepinephrine administration. Norepinephrine administration was negatively associated with the frequency of mobilisation (adjusted difference -0.07 mobilisations per day; 95% CI - 0.09, - 0.05; p ≤ 0.001) and early mobilisation (adjusted OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.76, 0.90; p ≤ 0.001), while a higher norepinephrine dose corresponded to a lower chance to be mobilised out-of-bed (adjusted OR 0.01; 95% CI 0.00, 0.04; p ≤ 0.001). Mobilisation with norepinephrine did not significantly affect mortality (p > 0.1). Higher compared to lower doses of norepinephrine did not lead to a significant increase in adverse events in our practice (p > 0.1). We identified that mobilisation was safe with up to 0.20 µg/kg/min norepinephrine for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation.ConclusionsMobilisation with norepinephrine can be done safely when considering the status of the patient and safety guidelines. We demonstrated that safe mobilisation was possible with norepinephrine doses up to 0.20 µg/kg/min for out-of-bed (IMS ≥ 2) and 0.33 µg/kg/min for in-bed (IMS 0-1) mobilisation.

Project description:BackgroundCorticoid therapy has been recommended in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19, yet its efficacy is currently still under evaluation. We investigated the effect of corticosteroid treatment on 90-day mortality and SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance in severe patients with COVID-19.Methods294 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were recruited between December 30, 2019 and February 19, 2020. Logistic regression, Cox proportional-hazards model and marginal structural modeling (MSM) were applied to evaluate the associations between corticosteroid use and corresponding outcome variables.ResultsOut of the 294 critically ill patients affected by COVID-19, 183 (62.2%) received corticosteroids, with methylprednisolone as the most frequently administered corticosteroid (175 accounting for 96%). Of those treated with corticosteroids, 69.4% received corticosteroid prior to ICU admission. When adjustments and subgroup analysis were not performed, no significant associations between corticosteroids use and 90-day mortality or SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance were found. However, when stratified analysis based on corticosteroid initiation time was performed, there was a significant correlation between corticosteroid use (≤ 3 day after ICU admission) and 90-day mortality (logistic regression adjusted for baseline: OR 4.49, 95% CI 1.17-17.25, p = 0.025; Cox adjusted for baseline and time varying variables: HR 3.89, 95% CI 1.94-7.82, p < 0.001; MSM adjusted for baseline and time-dependent variants: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.16-4.65, p = 0.017). No association was found between corticosteroid use and SARS-CoV-2 RNA clearance even after stratification by initiation time of corticosteroids and adjustments for confounding factors (corticosteroids use ≤ 3 days initiation vs no corticosteroids use) using MSM were performed.ConclusionsEarly initiation of corticosteroid use (≤ 3 days after ICU admission) was associated with an increased 90-day mortality. Early use of methylprednisolone in the ICU is therefore not recommended in patients with severe COVID-19.

Dataset Information

Liver transplantation in the critically ill: a multicenter Canadian retrospective cohort study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Liver transplantation in the critically ill: a multicenter Canadian retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets