Background Mortality in acute respiratory failure remains high despite the use of lung-protective ventilation. Recent studies have shown an association between baseline ventilation parameters (driving pressure or mechanical power) and outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Strategies focused on limiting these parameters have been proposed to further improve outcomes. However, it remains unknown whether driving pressure and mechanical power should be limited over the entire duration of mechanical ventilation and in all patients with acute respiratory failure. We aimed to estimate the association between exposure to different intensities of mechanical ventilation over time and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure.Methods In this registry-based, prospective cohort study, we obtained data from the Toronto Intensive Care Observational Registry, which includes all patients receiving mechanical ventilation for 4 h or more in nine ICUs that are affiliated with the University of Toronto (Toronto, ON, Canada). We included all adult (≥18 years) patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation between April 11, 2014, and June 5, 2019. Patients were excluded if they received treatment with extracorporeal life support. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Bayesian joint models were used to estimate the strength of associations, accounting for informative censoring due to death during follow-up.Findings Of 13 939 patients recorded in the registry, 13 408 (96•2%) were eligible for descriptive analysis. The primary analysis comprised 7876 (58•7%) patients with complete baseline characteristics, and a secondary analysis included all 13 408 patients after multiple imputation in the joint model analysis. 2409 (18•0%) of 13 408 patients died in the ICU. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, including age and severity of illness, a significant increase in the hazard of death was found to be associated with each daily increment in driving pressure (hazard ratio 1•064, 95% credible interval 1•057-1•071) or mechanical power (hazard ratio 1•060, 95% credible interval 1•053-1•066). These associations persisted over the duration of mechanical ventilation.Interpretation Cumulative exposure to higher intensities of mechanical ventilation was harmful, even for short durations. Limiting exposure to driving pressure or mechanical power should be evaluated in further studies as promising ventilation strategies to reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure.
All men who underwent a transrectal prostate biopsy in a European tertiary care centre between 2004 and 2012 were retrospectively identified. The probability of detecting prostate cancer and significant cancer (Gleason score ≥7) was calculated for each man using the novel versions of the ERSPC-RC (DRE-based version 3/4) and the PCPT-RC (version 2.0) and compared with biopsy results. Calibration and discrimination were assessed using the calibration slope method and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), respectively. Additionally, decision curve analyses were performed. ResultsOf 1 996 men, 483 (24%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 226 (11%) with significant prostate cancer.Calibration of the two RCs was comparable, although the PCPT-RC was slightly superior in the higher risk prediction range for any and significant prostate cancer. Discrimination of the ERSPC-and PCPT-RC was comparable for any prostate cancer (AUCs 0.65 vs 0.66), while the ERSPC-RC was somewhat better for significant prostate cancer (AUCs 0.73 vs 0.70). Decision curve analyses revealed a comparable net benefit for any prostate cancer and a slightly greater net benefit for significant prostate cancer using the ERSPC-RC. ConclusionsIn our independent external validation, both updated RCs showed less optimistic performance compared with their original reports, particularly for the prediction of any prostate cancer. Risk prediction of significant prostate cancer, which is important to avoid unnecessary biopsies and reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, was better for both RCs and slightly superior using the ERSPC-RC.
Background:We sought to determine which parsimonious combination of complete blood count (CBC)-based biomarkers most efficiently predicts oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BC).Methods:Using our institutional RC database (1992–2012), nine CBC-based markers (including both absolute cell counts and ratios) were evaluated based on pre-treatment measurements. The outcome measures were recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Time-dependent receiver-operating characteristics curves were used to characterise each biomarker. The CBC-based biomarkers, along with several clinical predictors, were then considered for inclusion in predictive multivariable Cox models based on the Akaike Information Criterion.Results:Our cohort included 418 patients. Neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was the only biomarker satisfying criteria for inclusion into all models, independently predicting RFS (HR per 1-log unit=1.52, 95% CI=1.17–1.98, P=0.002), CSS (HR=1.47, 95% CI=1.20–1.80, P<0.001), and OS (HR=1.56, 95% CI=1.16–2.10, P=0.004). Haemoglobin was also independently predictive of CSS (HR per 1 g/dl=0.91, 95% CI=0.86–0.95, P<0.001) and OS (HR=0.90, 95% CI=0.88–0.93, P<0.001), but not RFS.Conclusions:Among CBC biomarkers studied, NLR was the most efficient marker for predicting RFS, whereas NLR and haemoglobin were most efficient in predicting CSS and OS. NLR and haemoglobin are promising, cost-effective, independent biomarkers for predicting oncologic BC outcomes following RC.Condensed abstract:Various CBC-based biomarkers have separately been shown to be predictive of oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing cystectomy for BC. Our study evaluated these biomarkers, and determined that NLR is the best CBC-based biomarker for predicting RFS, whereas NLR and haemoglobin are most efficient for predicting CSS and OS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.