Guillermo Ortiz

Dr. Guillermo Ortiz


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2016 in Medicina Intensiva (English Edition)
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GOGuillermo Ortiz
Guillermo Ortiz
JOJ. Osorio
J. Osorio
SVS. Valderrama
S. Valderrama
DÁD. Álvarez
D. Álvarez
RDR. Elías Díaz
R. Elías Díaz
AFA. Franco
A. Franco

24 July 2013 in BMC Infectious Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AAAlba León Alvarez
Alba León Alvarez
NHNatalia Andrea Hoyos
Natalia Andrea Hoyos
LBLena Barrera
Lena Barrera
GEGisela Del Carmen De La Rosa Echavez
Gisela Del Carmen De La Rosa Echavez
RDRodolfo Dennis
Rodolfo Dennis
FJFabián Alberto Jaimes
Fabián Alberto Jaimes
Background: Sepsis has several clinical stages, and mortality rates are different for each stage. Our goal was to establish the evolution and the determinants of the progression of clinical stages, from infection to septic shock, over the first week, as well as their relationship to 7-day and 28-day mortality. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort of inpatients hospitalized in general wards or intensive care units (ICUs). The general estimating equations (GEE) model was used to estimate the risk of progression and the determinants of stages of infection over the first week. Cox regression with time-dependent covariates and fixed covariates was used to determine the factors related with 7-day and 28-day mortality, respectively. Results: In 2681 patients we show that progression to severe sepsis and septic shock increases with intraabdominal and respiratory sources of infection [OR = 1,32; 95%IC = 1,20-1,46 and OR = 1.21, 95%CI = 1,11-1,33 respectively], as well as according to Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) [OR = 1,03; 95%CI = 1,02-1,03] and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) [OR = 1,16; 95%CI = 1,14-1,17] scores. The variables related with first-week mortality were progression to severe sepsis [HR = 2,13; 95%CI = 1,13-4,03] and septic shock [HR = 3,00; 95%CI = 1,50-5.98], respiratory source of infection [HR = 1,76; 95%IC = 1,12-2,77], APACHE II [HR = 1,07; 95% CI = 1,04-1,10] and SOFA [HR = 1,09; 95%IC = 1,04-1,15] scores. Conclusions: Intraabdominal and respiratory sources of infection, independently of SOFA and APACHE II scores, increase the risk of clinical progression to more severe stages of sepsis; and these factors, together with progression of the infection itself, are the main determinants of 7-day and 28-day mortality.

1 April 2019 in Medicina Intensiva (English Edition)
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GOGuillermo Ortiz
Guillermo Ortiz
MGM. Garay
M. Garay
DMD. Mendoza
D. Mendoza
PCP. Cardinal-Fernández
P. Cardinal-Fernández

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PCPablo Cardinal
Pablo Cardinal
GOGuillermo Ortiz
Guillermo Ortiz
CCChih-Hao Chang
Chih-Hao Chang
KKKuo-Chin Kao
Kuo-Chin Kao
EBEmmanuelle Bertreau
Emmanuelle Bertreau
CGClaude Guerin
Claude Guerin
The aim of this retrospective and international study is to identify those clinical variables associated with diffuse alveolar damage (DAD), and to explore the impact of DAD on hospital mortality risk. Inclusion criteria were: adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) undergoing open lung biopsy (OLB) during their intensive care unit (ICU) management. The main end-points were: DAD and hospital mortality. In the training (n = 193) and validation cohorts (n = 65), the respiratory rate (odd ratio (OR) 0.956; confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.918; 0.995) and coronary ischemia (OR 5.974; CI95% 1.668; 21.399) on the day of ARDS had an average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.660 (CI95% 0.585; 0.736) and 0.562 (0.417; 0.706), respectively. PEEP (OR 1.131; CI95% 1.051; 1.218) and coronary ischemia (OR 6.820; CI95% 1.856; 25.061) on the day of OLB had an average AUROC of 0.696 (CI95% 0.621; 0.769) and 0.534 (CI95% 0.391; 0.678), respectively, to predict DAD. DAD (OR 2.296; CI95% 1.228; 4.294), diabetes mellitus requiring insulin (OR 0.081; CI95% 0.009; 0.710) and the respiratory rate (OR 1.045; CI95% 1.001; 1.091) on the day of ARDS had an average AUROC of 0.659 (CI95% 0.583; 0.737) and 0.513 (CI95% 0.361; 0.664) to predict hospital mortality and DAD (OR 2.081; CI95% 1.053; 4.114), diabetes mellitus requiring insulin (OR 0.093; CI95% 0.009; 0.956), PaCO2 (OR 1.051; CI95% 1.019; 1.084), and platelets count (OR 0.999; CI95% 0.999; 0.999) the day of OLB had an average AUROC of 0.778 (CI95% 0.710; 0.843) and 0.634 (CI95%0.481; 0.787) to predict hospital mortalty in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. In conclusion, DAD could not to be predicted clinically and was significantly associated with hospital mortality.

1 January 2016 in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
GOGuillermo Ortiz
Guillermo Ortiz
CDCarmelo Dueñas-Castell
Carmelo Dueñas-Castell

29 February 2024 in Antibiotics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CACarlos Alvarez-Moreno
Carlos Alvarez-Moreno
LBLaura Cristina Nocua Baez
Laura Cristina Nocua Baez
GOGuillermo Ortiz
Guillermo Ortiz
JTJuan Carlos Torres
Juan Carlos Torres
GMGabriel Montenegro
Gabriel Montenegro
AGAlonso Gómez
Alonso Gómez
Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare the continuous infusion of cefepime with the intermittent infusion in patients with sepsis caused by Gram-negative bacilli (GNB). Methods: Randomized 1:1 multicenter double-blinded placebo-controlled study with allocation concealment; multicenter study in the intensive care units of Colombia. Patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock, and GNB-suspected bacteremia. Cefepime was administered for 7 to 14 days over 30 m intermittently every 8 h over 24 h plus continuous saline solution (0.9%) (G1) or 3 g administered continuously plus saline solution every 8 h (0.9%) (G2). The percentage of clinical response at 3, 7, and 14 days, relapse at 28 days, and mortality at discharge were measured. Results: The recruitment was stopped at the suggestion of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) following an FDA alert about cefepime. Thirty-two patients were randomized; 25 received the intervention, and GNB bacteremia was confirmed in 16 (9 G1 and 7 G2). Favorable clinical response in days 3, 7, and 14 was 88.8%, 88.8%, and 77.8% (G1) and was similar for G2 (85.7%). There were no relapses or deaths in G2, while in G1, one relapse and two deaths were observed. Conclusions: The results of this study support the use of cefepime for the treatment of Gram-negative infections in critically ill patients, but we could not demonstrate differences between continuous or intermittent administration because of the small sample size, given the early suspension of the study.