ABSTRACT
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar as práticas clínicas e a organização dos recursos hospitalares durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. Metódos: Foi realizado um estudo transversal multicêntrico. Um questionário on-line foi disponibilizado a médicos dos serviços de emergência e das unidades de terapia intensiva que atendiam pacientes com COVID-19. O questionário contemplava quatro aspectos: perfil dos participantes, práticas clínicas, protocolos de tratamento da COVID-19 e organização dos recursos hospitalares. Resultados: Entre maio e junho de 2020, 284 participantes (56,3% homens), com idade mediana de 39 (intervalo interquartil de 33 - 47), responderam ao questionário; 33% eram intensivistas e 9% eram especialistas em medicina de emergência. Metade dos respondentes trabalhava em hospitais públicos. Verificou-se que a ventilação não invasiva (89% versus 73%; p = 0,001) e a cânula nasal de alto fluxo (49% versus 32%; p = 0,005) encontravam-se mais frequentemente disponíveis em hospitais privados do que nos públicos. A ventilação mecânica foi mais frequentemente utilizada em hospitais públicos do que em privados (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). Nos serviços de emergência, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi mais frequentemente ajustada de acordo com a saturação de oxigênio, enquanto nas unidades de terapia intensiva, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi ajustada de acordo com a melhor complacência pulmonar. Nos serviços de emergência, 25% dos respondentes não sabiam como ajustar a pressão positiva expiratória final. Comparativamente aos hospitais privados, os hospitais públicos tiveram menor disponibilidade de protocolos para Equipamentos de Proteção Individual durante a intubação traqueal (82% versus 94%; p = 0,005), o manejo da ventilação mecânica (64% versus 75%; p = 0,006) e o desmame dos pacientes da ventilação mecânica (34% versus 54%; p = 0,002). Finalmente, os pacientes passaram menos tempo no serviço de emergência antes de serem transferidos à unidade de terapia intensiva em hospitais privados do que em hospitais públicos (idade mediana de 2 (1 - 3) versus idade mediana de 5 (2 - 24) horas; p < 0,001). Conclusão: Este estudo revelou heterogeneidade considerável entre os médicos em termos de organização dos recursos hospitalares, práticas clínicas e tratamentos durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.
ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. Results: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. Conclusion: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the intraoperative use of hydroxyethyl starch on the need for blood products in the perioperative period of oncologic surgery. The secondary end-points included the need for other blood products, the clotting profile, the intensive care unit mortality and length of stay. METHODS: Retrospective observational analysis in a tertiary oncologic ICU in Brazil including 894 patients submitted to oncologic surgery for a two-year period from September 2007. Patients were grouped according to whether hydroxyethyl starch was used during surgery (hydroxyethyl starch and No-hydroxyethyl starch groups) and compared using a propensity score analysis. A total of 385 propensity-matched patients remained in the analysis (97 in the No-hydroxyethyl starch group and 288 in the hydroxyethyl starch group). RESULTS: A higher percentage of patients in the hydroxyethyl starch group required red blood cell transfusion during surgery (26% vs. 14%; p = 0.016) and in the first 24 hours after surgery (5% vs. 0%; p = 0.015) but not in the 24- to 48-hour period after the procedure. There was no difference regarding the transfusion of other blood products, intensive care unit mortality or length of stay. CONCLUSION: Hydroxyethyl starch use in the intraoperative period of major oncologic surgery is associated with an increase in red blood cell transfusions. There are no differences in the need for other blood products, intensive care unit length of stay or mortality. .