Calibration and validation of the Pneumonia Shock Score in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, a multicenter prospective cohort study.

Background: Prognostic tools developed to stratify critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), are critical to predict those with higher risk of mortality in the first hours of admission. This study aims to evaluate the performance of the pShock score in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Prospective observational analytical cohort study conducted between January 2020 and March 2021 in four general ICUs in Salvador, Brazil. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort and a logistic regression, followed by cross-validation, were performed to calibrate the score. A ROC curve analysis was used to assess accuracy of the models analyzed. Results: Six hundred five adult ICU patients were included in the study. The median age was 63 (IQR: 49-74) years with a mortality rate of 33.2% (201 patients). The calibrated pShock-CoV score performed well in prediction of ICU mortality (AUC of 0.80 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.77-0.83; p-value < 0.0001]). Conclusions: The pShock-CoV score demonstrated robust discriminatory capacity and may assist in targeting scarce ICU resources during the COVID-19 pandemic to those critically ill patients most likely to benefit.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Therapeutics of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients are currently limited, but numerous randomized controlled trials are being completed, and many are on the way. For COVID-19 patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we recommend against using remdesivir outside of a clinical trial. We recommend against using hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin or lopinavir-ritonavir. We suggest empiric antimicrobial treatment for likely coinfecting pathogens if an alternative infectious cause is likely. We suggest close monitoring without additional empiric antimicrobials if there are no clinical or laboratory signs of other infections. We recommend using oral or intravenous low-dose dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 disease who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation. We recommend against using dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen. We recommend using alternate equivalent doses of steroids in the event that dexamethasone is unavailable. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock requiring vasopressor support. We recommend against the use of convalescent plasma and interleukin-6 inhibitors, such as tocilizumab, for the treatment of COVID-19 in LMICs outside of clinical trials.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of COVID-19 Patients with Shock in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

As some patients infected with the novel coronavirus progress to critical illness, a subset will eventually develop shock. High-quality data on management of these patients are scarce, and further investigation will provide valuable information in the context of the pandemic. A group of experts identify a set of pragmatic recommendations for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and shock in resource-limited environments. We define shock as life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and cellular dysoxia/hypoxia, and suggest that it can be operationalized via clinical observations. We suggest a thorough evaluation for other potential causes of shock and suggest against indiscriminate testing for coinfections. We suggest the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a simple bedside prognostic score for COVID-19 patients and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to evaluate the etiology of shock. Regarding fluid therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with shock in low-middle-income countries, we favor balanced crystalloids and recommend using a conservative fluid strategy for resuscitation. Where available and not prohibited by cost, we recommend using norepinephrine, given its safety profile. We favor avoiding the routine use of central venous or arterial catheters, where availability and costs are strong considerations. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock. In addressing targets of resuscitation, we recommend the use of simple bedside parameters such as capillary refill time and suggest that POCUS be used to assess the need for further fluid resuscitation, if available.

Are prognostic tools losing accuracy? Development and performance of a novel age-calibrated severity scoring system for critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the performance of a commonly used ICU severity score (SAPS3) and determine whether an alternative scoring system may be more accurate across all age strata. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study in a general ICU in Brazil. A secondary analysis was performed with clinical and epidemiological data, present in the first 24 hours of unit admission. Then, a binary logistic regression, followed by cross-validation, was made to develop a novel prognostic tool. ICU mortality was the primary outcome evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3042 patients were included over the study period between August 2015 and July 2018 with a median age of 67 ± 18.4 years. SAPS3 performed fairly in prediction of ICU mortality, particularly in the 80 years or older subset. Multivariable regression identified variables independently associated with mortality that were used to develop the Age Calibrated ICU Score (ACIS) tool that performed similarly to SAPS3 across age categories, being slightly superior in the very elderly population (AUC 0.80 vs 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: The ACIS offers a robust and simple tool to predict ICU mortality, particularly in an increasingly elderly critical care population.