Predicting Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Cancer Patients according to Acute Kidney Injury Severity

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication in hospitalized patients, especially in those in intensive care units (ICU). The RIFLE classification might be a valid prognostic factor for critically ill cancer patients. The present study aims to evaluate the discriminatory capacity of RIFLE versus other general prognostic scores in predicting hospital mortality in critically ill cancer patients. Methods: This is a single-center study conducted in a cancer-specialized ICU in Brazil. All of the 288 patients hospitalized from May 2006 to June 2008 were included. RIFLE classification, APACHE II, SOFA, and SAPS II scores were calculated and the area under receiver operating characteristic (AROC) curves and logistic multiple regression were performed using hospital mortality as the outcome. Results: AKI, defined by RIFLE criteria, was observed in 156 (54.2%) patients. The distribution of patients with any degree of AKI was: risk, n = 96 (33.3%); injury, n = 30 (10.4%), and failure, n = 30 (10.4%). Mortality was 13.6% for non-AKI patients, 49% for RIFLE `R` patients, 62.3% for RIFLE `I` patients, and 86.8% for RIFLE `F` patients (p = 0.0006). Logistic regression analysis showed that RIFLE criteria, APACHE II, SOFA, and SAPS II were independent factors for mortality in this population. The discrimination of RIFLE was good (AROC 0.801, 95% CI 0.748-0.854) but inferior compared to those of APACHE II (AROC 0.940, 95% CI 0.915-0.966), SOFA (AROC 0.910, 95% CI 0.876-0.943), and SAPS II (AROC 0.869, 95% CI 0.827-0.912). Conclusion: AKI is a frequent complication in ICU patients with cancer. RIFLE was inferior to commonly used prognostic scores for predicting mortality in this cohort of patients. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

The success of endosseous implants in human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy A pilot study

Background. In a pilot study, the authors aimed to determine the success rate of dental implants placed in patients who were positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and were receiving different regimens of highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). They considered patients` levels of cluster of differentiation (CD) 4(+) cells and viral load, and they attempted to verify whether patients with baseline biochemical signs of bone mineral density loss could experience osseointegration impairment. Materials and Methods. One of the authors, a dentist, placed dental implants in the posterior mandibles of 40 volunteers, divided into three groups: one composed of HIV-positive patients receiving protease inhibitor (PI)-based HAART; a second composed of HIV-positive patients receiving nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor based HAART (without PI); and a control group composed of HIV-negative participants. The authors assessed pen-implant health six and 12 months after implant loading. They analyzed the success of the implants in relation to CD4(+) cell counts, viral load and baseline pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline values. Results. The authors followed 59 implants for 12 months after loading. Higher baseline levels of pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline found in HIV-positive participants did not interfere with osseointegration after 12 months of follow-up. Average pen-implant bone loss after 12 months was 0.49 millimeters in group 1, 0.47 mm in group 2, and 0.55 mm in the control group. Conclusions. The placement of dental implants in HIV-positive patients is a reasonable treatment option, regardless of CD4(+) cell count, viral load levels and type of antiretroviral therapy. Longer, follow-up periods are necessary to ascertain the predictability of the long-term success of dental implants in these patients. Clinical Implications. Limited published scientific evidence is available to guide clinicians in regard to possible increased risks associated with dental implant placement in HIV-positive patients.

Influence of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and bond strength

Statement of the Problem: Adhesive systems can spread differently onto a substrate and, consequently, influence bonding. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on adhesive layer thickness and microtensile bond strength (MTBS). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four molars were sectioned mesiodistally to expose flat buccal and lingual halves. Standardized drop volumes of adhesive systems (Single Bond [SB] and Prime & Bond 2.1 [PB2.1]) were applied to dentin according to the manufacturer`s instructions. Teeth halves were randomly divided into groups: 1A-SB/parallel to gravity; 1B-SB/perpendicular to gravity; 2A-PB2.1/parallel to gravity; and 2B-PB2.1/perpendicular to gravity. The bonded assemblies were stored in 37 degrees C distilled water for 24 hours and then sectioned to obtain dentin sticks (0.8 mm(2)). The adhesive layer thickness was determined in a light microscope (x200), and after 48 hours the specimens were subjected to MTBS test. Data were analyzed by one-way and two-way analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests. Results: Mean values (MPa +/- SD) of MTBS were: 39.1 +/- 12.9 (1A); 32.9 +/- 12.4 (1B); 52.9 +/- 15.2 (2A); and 52.3 +/- 16.5 (2B). The adhesive systems` thicknesses (mu m +/- SD) were: 11.2 +/- 2.9 (1A); 18.1 +/- 7.3 (1B); 4.2 +/- 1.8 (2A); and 3.9 +/- 1.3 (2B). No correlation between bond strength and adhesive layer thickness for both SB and PB2.1 (r = -0.224, p = 0.112 and r = 0.099, p = 0.491, respectively) was observed. Conclusions: The differently oriented dentin surfaces and the regional variation of specimens on the adhesive layer thickness are material-dependent. These variables do not influence the adhesive systems` bond strength to dentin. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Adhesive systems have different viscosities and spread differently onto a substrate, influencing the bond strength and also the adhesive layer thickness. Adhesive thickness does not influence dentin bond strength, but it may impair adequate solvent evaporation, polymer conversion, and may also determine water sorption and adhesive degradation over time. In the literature, many studies have shown that the adhesive layer is a permeable membrane and can fail over timebecause ofits continuous plasticizing and degradation when in contact with water. Therefore, avoiding thick adhesive layers may minimize these problems and provide long-term success for adhesive restorations.