Influence of socioeconomic status on functional recovery after ARDS caused by SARS-CoV-2: a multicentre, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Prognosis of patients with COVID-19 depends on the severity of the pulmonary affection. The most severe cases may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with a risk of long-term repercussions on respiratory function and neuromuscular outcomes. The functional repercussions of severe forms of COVID-19 may have a major impact on quality of life, and impair the ability to return to work or exercise. Social inequalities in healthcare may influence prognosis, with socially vulnerable individuals more likely to develop severe forms of disease. We describe here the protocol for a prospective, multicentre study that aims to investigate the influence of social vulnerability on functional recovery in patients who were hospitalised in intensive care for ARDS caused by COVID-19. This study will also include an embedded qualitative study that aims to describe facilitators and barriers to compliance with rehabilitation, describe patients' health practices and identify social representations of health, disease and care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The "Functional Recovery From Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Due to COVID-19: Influence of Socio-Economic Status" (RECOVIDS) study is a mixed-methods, observational, multicentre cohort study performed during the routine follow-up of post-intensive care unit (ICU) functional recovery after ARDS. All patients admitted to a participating ICU for PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and who underwent chest CT scan at the initial phase AND who received respiratory support (mechanical or not) or high-flow nasal oxygen, AND had ARDS diagnosed by the Berlin criteria will be eligible. The primary outcome is the presence of lung sequelae at 6 months after ICU discharge, defined either by alterations on pulmonary function tests, oxygen desaturation during a standardised 6 min walk test or fibrosis-like pulmonary findings on chest CT. Patients will be considered to be socially disadvantaged if they have an "Evaluation de la Précarité et des Inégalités de santé dans les Centres d'Examen de Santé" (EPICES) score ≥30.17 at inclusion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol and the informed consent form were approved by an independent ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Méditerranée II) on 10 July 2020 (2020-A02014-35). All patients will provide informed consent before participation. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04556513.

Role of Non-Invasive Respiratory Supports in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure Patients with Do Not Intubate Orders.

The current gold-standard treatment for COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure is invasive mechanical ventilation. However, do not intubate orders (DNI), prevent the use of this treatment in some cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate if non-invasive ventilatory supports can provide a good therapeutic alternative to invasive ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and a DNI. Data were collected from four centres in three European countries. Patients with severe COVID-19 infection were included. We emulated a hypothetical target trial in which outcomes were compared in patients with a DNI order treated exclusively by non-invasive respiratory support with patients who could be intubated if necessary. We set up a propensity score and an inverse probability of treatment weighting to remove confounding by indication. Four-hundred patients were included: 270 were eligible for intubation and 130 had a DNI order. The adjusted risk ratio for death among patients eligible for intubation was 0.81 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.42). The median length of stay in acute care for survivors was similar between groups (18 (10-31) vs. (19 (13-23.5); p = 0.76). The use of non-invasive respiratory support is a good compromise for patients with severe COVID-19 and a do not intubate order.

Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing to Assess Persistent Symptoms at 6 Months in People With COVID-19 Who Survived Hospitalization: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to assess physical fitness and its relationship with functional dyspnea in survivors of COVID-19 6 months after their discharge from the hospital. METHODS: Data collected routinely from people referred for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) following hospitalization for COVID-19 were retrospectively analyzed. Persistent dyspnea was assessed using the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three people with persistent symptoms were referred for CPET. Mean modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score was 1 (SD = 1) and was significantly associated with peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak; %) (rho = -0.49). At 6 months, those hospitalized in the general ward had a relatively preserved VO2peak (87% [SD = 20]), whereas those who had been in the intensive care unit had a moderately reduced VO2peak (77% [SD = 15]). Of note, the results of the CPET revealed that, in all individuals, respiratory equivalents were high, power-to-weight ratios were low, and those who had been in the intensive care unit had a relatively low ventilatory efficiency (mean VE/VCO2 slope = 34 [SD = 5]). Analysis of each individual showed that none had a breathing reserve <15% or 11 L/min, all had a normal exercise electrocardiogram, and 4 had a heart rate >90%. CONCLUSION: At 6 months, persistent dyspnea was associated with reduced physical fitness. This study offers initial insights into the mid-term physical fitness of people who required hospitalization for COVID-19. It also provides novel pathophysiological clues about the underlaying mechanism of the physical limitations associated with persistent dyspnea. Those with persistent dyspnea should be offered a tailored rehabilitation intervention, which should probably include muscle reconditioning, breathing retraining, and perhaps respiratory muscle training. IMPACT: This study is the first, to our knowledge, to show that a persistent breathing disorder (in addition to muscle deconditioning) can explain persistent symptoms 6 months after hospitalization for COVID-19 infection and suggests that a specific rehabilitation intervention is warranted.