Juan Felipe Lucena

Dr. Juan Felipe Lucena

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

15Years (2012-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
9 October 2013 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JLJuan Felipe Lucena
Juan Felipe Lucena
FAFélix Alegre
Félix Alegre
DMDiego Martínez
Diego Martínez
MAManuel F. Landecho Acha
Manuel F. Landecho Acha
AHAna Huerta
Ana Huerta
JQJorge Quiroga
Jorge Quiroga
The efficacy and reliability of prognostic scores has been described extensively for intensive care, but their role for predicting mortality in intermediate care patients is uncertain. To provide more information in this field, we have analyzed the performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II and SAPS 3 in a single center intermediate care unit (ImCU). Cohort study with prospectively collected data from all patients admitted to a single center ImCU in Pamplona, Spain, from April 2006 to April 2012. The SAPS II and SAPS 3 scores with respective predicted mortality rates were calculated according to standard coefficients. Discrimination was evaluated by calculating the area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test. Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated for each model. The study included 607 patients. The observed in-hospital mortality was 20.1% resulting in a SMR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.04) for SAPS II and 0.56 (95% CI 0.47-0.67) for SAPS 3. Both scores showed acceptable discrimination, with an AUROC of 0.76 (95% CI 0.71-0.80) for SAPS II and 0.75 (95% CI 0.71- 0.80) for SAPS 3. Calibration curves showed similar performance based on Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit C-test: (X2=12.9, p=0.113) for SAPS II and (X2=4.07, p=0.851) for SAPS 3. Although both scores overpredicted mortality, SAPS II showed better discrimination for patients admitted to ImCU in terms of SMR.

23 January 2012 in Journal of Hospital Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JLJuan Felipe Lucena
Juan Felipe Lucena
FAFélix Alegre
Félix Alegre
RRRaquel Rodil
Raquel Rodil
MAManuel F. Landecho Acha
Manuel F. Landecho Acha
AGAlberto García‐Mouriz
Alberto García‐Mouriz
JQJorge Quiroga
Jorge Quiroga

31 January 2019 in BMC Medical Education
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JHJose Ignacio Herrero
Jose Ignacio Herrero
JLJuan Felipe Lucena
Juan Felipe Lucena
JQJorge Quiroga
Jorge Quiroga
Writing multiple choice questions may be a valuable tool for medical education. We asked medical students to generate multiple choice questions and studied its effect on their exams. We hypothesized that students generating questions would improve their learning. We randomized students in their second and third years at the School of Medicine to write four multiple choice questions on two different sections of General Pathology (Immunopathology and Electrolyte and acid-base status; second year) and Pathophysiology (Blood and Respiratory system; third year). We analyzed whether students writing questions on a section had better results in the exam test in that section than the rest of the students. Seventy-five (38.2%) students wrote questions for General Pathology and 109 (47.6%) for Pathophysiology. Students that wrote questions obtained significantly better results in the exam than those who did not. In General Pathology, students who wrote questions about Immunopathology obtained better results in that section than those who wrote questions about the other section (5.13 versus 3.86 over 10; P = 0.03). In Pathophysiology, the differences between both groups were not significant, but students who wrote good questions about Respiratory system obtained better results in that section than those who wrote good questions about Blood (6.07 versus 4.28 over 10; P = 0.015). Male students wrote good questions in Pathophysiology more frequently than female students (28.1% versus 10.4%; P = 0.02). The writing of multiple choice questions by medical students may improve their learning. A gender effect may also influence this intervention. Future investigations should refine its potential role in teaching.

5 October 2015 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DMDiego Martínez
Diego Martínez
FAFélix Alegre
Félix Alegre
FCFrancisco Carmona-Torre
Francisco Carmona-Torre
AHAna Huerta
Ana Huerta
NFNerea Fernandez-Ros
Nerea Fernandez-Ros
JLJuan Felipe Lucena
Juan Felipe Lucena
Intermediate Care Units (ImCU) have become an alternative scenario to perform Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV). The limited number of prognostic studies in this population support the need of mortality prediction evaluation in this context. The objective of this study is to analyze the performance of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II and 3 in patients undergoing NIV in an ImCU. Additionally, we searched for new variables that could be useful to customize these scores, in order to improve mortality prediction. Cohort study with prospectively collected data from all patients admitted to a single center ImCU who received NIV. The SAPS II and 3 scores with their respective predicted mortality rates were calculated. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test for the models, respectively. Binary logistic regression was used to identify new variables to customize the scores for mortality prediction in this setting. The study included 241 patients consecutively admitted to an ImCU staffed by hospitalists from April 2006 to December 2013. The observed in-hospital mortality was 32.4% resulting in a Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) of 1.35 for SAPS II and 0.68 for SAPS 3. Mortality discrimination based on the AUC was 0.73 for SAPS II and 0.69 for SAPS 3. Customized models including immunosuppression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute pulmonary edema (APE), lactic acid, pCO2 and haemoglobin levels showed better discrimination than old scores with similar calibration power. These results suggest that SAPS II and 3 should be customized with additional patient-risk factors to improve mortality prediction in patients undergoing NIV in intermediate care.

22 May 2024 in Cells
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Silvia SpotoSilvia Spoto
Silvia Spoto
Stefania BasiliStefania Basili
Stefania Basili
Roberto CangemiRoberto Cangemi
Roberto Cangemi
JYJose Ramon Yuste
Jose Ramon Yuste
JLJuan Felipe Lucena
Juan Felipe Lucena
ASAngeletti Silvia
Angeletti Silvia
Adrenomedullin (ADM) is a peptide hormone produced primarily in the adrenal glands, playing a crucial role in various physiological processes. As well as improving vascular integrity and decreasing vascular permeability, ADM acts as a vasodilator, positive inotrope, diuretic, natriuretic and bronchodilator, antagonizing angiotensin II by inhibiting aldosterone secretion. ADM also has antihypertrophic, anti-apoptotic, antifibrotic, antioxidant, angiogenic and immunoregulatory effects and antimicrobial properties. ADM expression is upregulated by hypoxia, inflammation-inducing cytokines, viral or bacterial substances, strength of shear stress, and leakage of blood vessels. These pathological conditions are established during systemic inflammation that can result from infections, surgery, trauma/accidents or burns. The ability to rapidly identify infections and the prognostic, predictive power makes it a valuable tool in severe viral and bacterial infections burdened by high incidence and mortality. This review sheds light on the pathophysiological processes that in severe viral or bacterial infections cause endothelitis up to the development of organ damage, the resulting increase in ADM levels dosed through its more stable peptide mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), the most significant studies that attest to its diagnostic and prognostic accuracy in highlighting the severity of viral or bacterial infections and appropriate therapeutic insights.

19 May 2018 in Journal of Critical Care
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DHDavid N Hager
David N Hager
VTVarshitha Tanykonda
Varshitha Tanykonda
ZNZeba Noorain
Zeba Noorain
SSSarina K. Sahetya
Sarina K. Sahetya
CSCatherine E. Simpson
Catherine E. Simpson
DNDale M. Needham
Dale M. Needham