Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 With Acute Encephalopathy and Coma: An International Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To report the prevalence of acute encephalopathy and outcomes in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify determinants of 90-day outcomes. METHODS: Data from adults with severe COVID-19 and acute encephalopathy were prospectively collected for patients requiring intensive care unit management in 31 university or university-affiliated intensive care units in 6 countries (France, United States, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil) between March and September of 2020. Acute encephalopathy was defined, as recently recommended, as subsyndromal delirium or delirium or as a comatose state in case of severely decreased level of consciousness. Logistic multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with 90-day outcomes. A Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score of 1-4 was considered a poor outcome (indicating death, vegetative state, or severe disability). RESULTS: Of 4,060 patients admitted with COVID-19, 374 (9.2%) experienced acute encephalopathy at or before the intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A total of 199/345 (57.7%) patients had a poor outcome at 90-day follow-up as evaluated by the GOS-E (29 patients were lost to follow-up). On multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.01, 95% CI 2.25-7.15), presumed fatal comorbidity (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.68-9.44), Glasgow coma scale score <9 before/at ICU admission (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.22-3.98), vasopressor/inotrope support during ICU stay (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.97-7.76), renal replacement therapy during ICU stay (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.21-4.50), and CNS ischemic or hemorrhagic complications as acute encephalopathy etiology (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41-7.82) were independently associated with higher odds of poor 90-day outcome. Status epilepticus, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome were associated with lower odds of poor 90-day outcome (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.83). DISCUSSION: In this observational study, we found a low prevalence of acute encephalopathy at ICU admission in patients with COVID-19. More than half of patients with COVID-19 presenting with acute encephalopathy had poor outcomes as evaluated by GOS-E. Determinants of poor 90-day outcome were dominated by older age, comorbidities, degree of impairment of consciousness before/at ICU admission, association with other organ failures, and acute encephalopathy etiology. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04320472.

Prone Position in COVID-19 and -COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An International Multicenter Observational Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Prone position is used in acute respiratory distress syndrome and in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is unclear how responders may be identified and whether an oxygenation response improves outcome. The objective of this study was to quantify the response to prone position, describe the differences between coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and explore variables associated with survival. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, multicenter, international cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in Italy, United Kingdom, and France. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventy-six adults (220 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and 156 acute respiratory distress syndrome). INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preproning, a greater proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had severe disease (53% vs 40%), worse Pao2/Fio2 (13.0 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-15.5 kPa] vs 14.1 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-18.6 kPa]; p = 0.017) but greater compliance (38 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 27-53 mL/cm H2O] vs 31 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 21-37 mL/cm H2O]; p < 0.001). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome had a longer median time from intubation to prone position (2.0 d [interquartile range, 0.7-5.0 d] vs 1.0 d [interquartile range, 0.5-2.9 d]; p = 0.03). The proportion of responders, defined by an increase in Pao2/Fio2 greater than or equal to 2.67 kPa (20 mm Hg), upon proning, was similar between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (79% vs 76%; p = 0.5). Responders had earlier prone position (1.4 d [interquartile range, 0.7-4.2 d] vs 2.5 d [interquartile range, 0.8-6.2 d]; p = 0.06)]. Prone position less than 24 hours from intubation achieved greater improvement in oxygenation (11 kPa [interquartile range, 4-21 kPa] vs 7 kPa [interquartile range, 2-13 kPa]; p = 0.002). The variables independently associated with the "responder" category were Pao2/Fio2 preproning (odds ratio, 0.89 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93 kPa-1]; p < 0.001) and interval between intubation and proning (odds ratio, 0.94 d-1 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99 d-1]; p = 0.019). The overall mortality was 45%, with no significant difference observed between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Variables independently associated with mortality included age (odds ratio, 1.03 yr-1 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05 yr-1]; p < 0.001); interval between hospital admission and proning (odds ratio, 1.04 d-1 [95% CI, 1.002-1.084 d-1]; p = 0.047); and change in Pao2/Fio2 on proning (odds ratio, 0.97 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99 kPa-1]; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position, particularly when delivered early, achieved a significant oxygenation response in ~80% of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome, similar to acute respiratory distress syndrome. This response was independently associated with improved survival.

Mental health and stress among ICU healthcare professionals in France according to intensity of the COVID-19 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on mental health of professionals working in the intensive care unit (ICU) according to the intensity of the epidemic in France. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted in 77 French hospitals from April 22 to May 13 2020. All ICU frontline healthcare workers were eligible. The primary endpoint was the mental health, assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. Sources of stress during the crisis were assessed using the Perceived Stressors in Intensive Care Units (PS-ICU) scale. Epidemic intensity was defined as high or low for each region based on publicly available data from Santé Publique France. Effects were assessed using linear mixed models, moderation and mediation analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2643 health professionals participated; 64.36% in high-intensity zones. Professionals in areas with greater epidemic intensity were at higher risk of mental health issues (p < 0.001), and higher levels of overall perceived stress (p < 0.001), compared to low-intensity zones. Factors associated with higher overall perceived stress were female sex (B = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.17), having a relative at risk of COVID-19 (B = 0.14; 95%-CI = 0.09-0.18) and working in high-intensity zones (B = 0.11; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.20). Perceived stress mediated the impact of the crisis context on mental health (B = 0.23, 95%-CI = 0.05, 0.41) and the impact of stress on mental health was moderated by positive thinking, b = - 0.32, 95% CI = - 0.54, - 0.11. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 negatively impacted the mental health of ICU professionals. Professionals working in zones where the epidemic was of high intensity were significantly more affected, with higher levels of perceived stress. This study is supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC-COVID 2020).