Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion ; 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2259051

ABSTRACT

Introduction COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. Metohds We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. Results Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = 0.819 and p = 0.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3–18] and 12 [6–19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. Conclusion We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

2.
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim (Engl Ed) ; 70(3): 129-139, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2259050

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. METHODS: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. RESULTS: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. CONCLUSION: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Critical Illness , Prospective Studies , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/prevention & control
3.
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim (Engl Ed) ; 67(8): 425-437, 2020 Oct.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-724420

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of COVID-19 critically ill patients, during their admission in the intensive care unit (UCI), including medical and infectious complications and support therapies, as well as their association with in-ICU mortality has not been fully reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe clinical characteristics and clinical course of ICU COVID-19 patients, and to determine risk factors for ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted into 30 ICUs from Spain and Andorra. Consecutive patients from March 12th to May 26th, 2020 were enrolled if they had died or were discharged from ICU during the study period. Demographics, symptoms, vital signs, laboratory markers, supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments, medical and infectious complications were reported and compared between deceased and discharged patients. RESULTS: A total of 663 patients were included. Overall ICU mortality was 31% (203 patients). At ICU admission non-survivors were more hypoxemic [SpO2 with non-rebreather mask, 90 (IQR 83 to 93) vs. 91 (IQR 87 to 94); P<.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5 to 9) vs. 4 (IQR 3 to 7); P<.001]. Complications were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs. 89%; P=.009), acute kidney injury (AKI) (58% vs. 24%; P<10-16), shock (42% vs. 14%; P<10-13), and arrhythmias (24% vs. 11%; P<10-4). Respiratory super-infection, bloodstream infection and septic shock were higher in non-survivors (33% vs. 25%; P=.03, 33% vs. 23%; P=.01 and 15% vs. 3%, P=10-7), respectively. The multivariable regression model showed that age was associated with mortality, with every year increasing risk-of-death by 1% (95%CI: 1 to 10, P=.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), P=.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), P<10-4)], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), P=.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), P=.002] had an increased risk-of-death. CONCLUSIONS: Older COVID-19 patients with higher APACHE II scores on admission, those who developed AKI grades ii or iii and/or septic shock during ICU stay had an increased risk-of-death. ICU mortality was 31%.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , APACHE , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , Andorra/epidemiology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/epidemiology , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prospective Studies , Regression Analysis , Respiratory Therapy/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Shock/epidemiology , Spain/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL