3 resultados para Three-hybrid system
Resumo:
OBJECTIVE: To empirically test, based on a large multicenter, multinational database, whether a modified PIRO (predisposition, insult, response, and organ dysfunction) concept could be applied to predict mortality in patients with infection and sepsis. DESIGN: Substudy of a multicenter multinational cohort study (SAPS 3). PATIENTS: A total of 2,628 patients with signs of infection or sepsis who stayed in the ICU for >48 h. Three boxes of variables were defined, according to the PIRO concept. Box 1 (Predisposition) contained information about the patient's condition before ICU admission. Box 2 (Injury) contained information about the infection at ICU admission. Box 3 (Response) was defined as the response to the infection, expressed as a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score after 48 h. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Most of the infections were community acquired (59.6%); 32.5% were hospital acquired. The median age of the patients was 65 (50-75) years, and 41.1% were female. About 22% (n=576) of the patients presented with infection only, 36.3% (n=953) with signs of sepsis, 23.6% (n=619) with severe sepsis, and 18.3% (n=480) with septic shock. Hospital mortality was 40.6% overall, greater in those with septic shock (52.5%) than in those with infection (34.7%). Several factors related to predisposition, infection and response were associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: The proposed three-level system, by using objectively defined criteria for risk of mortality in sepsis, could be used by physicians to stratify patients at ICU admission or shortly thereafter, contributing to a better selection of management according to the risk of death.
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: Hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) is a major cause of cardiac death during the first week of life. The hybrid approach is a reliable, reproducible treatment option for patients with HLHS. Herein we report our results using this approach, focusing on its efficacy, safety and late outcome. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data on patients treated for HLHS using a hybrid approach between July 2007 and September 2014. RESULTS: Nine patients had a stage 1 hybrid procedure, with seven undergoing a comprehensive stage 2 procedure. One patient completed the Fontan procedure. Five patients underwent balloon atrial septostomy after the hybrid procedure; in three patients, a stent was placed across the atrial septum. There were three deaths: two early after the hybrid procedure and one early after stage two palliation. Overall survival was 66%. CONCLUSIONS: In our single-center series, the hybrid approach for HLHS yields intermediate results comparable to those of the Norwood strategy. The existence of dedicated teams for the diagnosis and management of these patients, preferably in high-volume centers, is of major importance in this condition.
Resumo:
Infancy and early childhood are characterized by a dynamic and ever changing process. Since the beginning of their clinical work at the Infancy Unit, the authors were concerned with individual assessment and the questions about the role played by parents as well as by babies in pathology and intervention.In this article, the authors begin with a description of the path that led them to the selection of DC 0–3 as a diagnostic classification system and how this has been instrumental in helping them to better define infant psychopathology and guide them in treatment orientations. Next, they present the results of the applicationof Axis I and II of DC: 0–3 in their clinical population in the years 1997, 1998, and 1999. The objectives of this study were to learn more about the distribution of mental disorders in a clinical population up tofour years of age. The authors attempted to separate infants at risk for developing psychic disorders from those presenting current psychopathology as well as the possible influence of demographic features on this distribution, to define a target population and design adapted therapeutic measures. The identification of these objectives provides the rationale for the use of a diagnostic tool, like DC: 0–3, which is essential to plan clinical activity, to evaluate therapeutic efficacy, and to develop specific programs.