A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. / Estudo nacional sobre recursos da saúde e práticas clínicas durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

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.

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.

Analysis of mobility level of COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation support: A single center, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients frequently require mechanical ventilation (MV) and undergo prolonged periods of bed rest with restriction of activities during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Our aim was to address the degree of mobilization in critically ill patients with COVID-19 undergoing to MV support. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study. We analyzed patients' mobility level, through the Perme ICU Mobility Score (Perme Score) of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. The Perme Mobility Index (PMI) was calculated [PMI = ΔPerme Score (ICU discharge-ICU admission)/ICU length of stay], and patients were categorized as "improved" (PMI > 0) or "not improved" (PMI ≤ 0). Comparisons were performed with stratification according to the use of MV support. RESULTS: From February 2020, to February 2021, 1,297 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU and assessed for eligibility. Out of those, 949 patients were included in the study [524 (55.2%) were classified as "improved" and 425 (44.8%) as "not improved"], and 396 (41.7%) received MV during ICU stay. The overall rate of patients out of bed and able to walk ≥ 30 meters at ICU discharge were, respectively, 526 (63.3%) and 170 (20.5%). After adjusting for confounders, independent predictors of improvement of mobility level were frailty (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.94; p = 0.03); SAPS III Score (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99; p = 0.04); SOFA Score (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.78; p < 0.001); use of MV after the first hour of ICU admission (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.99; p = 0.04); tracheostomy (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.95; p = 0.03); use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.05-0.8; p = 0.03); neuromuscular blockade (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.3-0.95; p = 0.03); a higher Perme Score at admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.28-0.43; p < 0.001); palliative care (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.16; p < 0.001); and a longer ICU stay (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; p = 0.04) were associated with a lower chance of mobility improvement, while non-invasive ventilation within the first hour of ICU admission and after the first hour of ICU admission (OR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.59-3.81; p < 0.001) and (OR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.56-3.26; p < 0.001), respectively; and vasopressor use (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.07-5.5; p = 0.03) were associated with a higher chance of mobility improvement. CONCLUSION: The use of MV reduced mobility status in less than half of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs: A Review of Strategies to Avoid Polymyxins and Carbapenems Misuse in Low Middle-Income Countries.

Antibiotics misuse and overuse are concerning issues worldwide, especially in low middle-income countries. These practices contribute to the increasing rates of antimicrobial resistance. One efficient strategy to avoid them is antimicrobial stewardship programs. In this review, we focus on the possible approaches to spare the prescription of polymyxins and carbapenems for the treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales, and Pseudomonas aeruginosas infections. Additionally, we highlight how to implement cumulative antibiograms and biomarkers to a sooner de-escalation of antibiotics.

Cancer-Related Characteristics Associated With Invasive Mechanical Ventilation or In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 Admitted to ICU: A Cohort Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Coexistence of cancer and COVID-19 is associated with worse outcomes. However, the studies on cancer-related characteristics associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes have shown controversial results. The objective of the study was to evaluate cancer-related characteristics associated with invasive mechanical ventilation use or in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We designed a cohort multicenter study including adults with active cancer admitted to ICU due to COVID-19. Seven cancer-related characteristics (cancer status, type of cancer, metastasis occurrence, recent chemotherapy, recent immunotherapy, lung tumor, and performance status) were introduced in a multilevel logistic regression model as first-level variables and hospital was introduced as second-level variable (random effect). Confounders were identified using directed acyclic graphs. RESULTS: We included 274 patients. Required to undergo invasive mechanical ventilation were 176 patients (64.2%) and none of the cancer-related characteristics were associated with mechanical ventilation use. Approximately 155 patients died in hospital (56.6%) and poor performance status, measured with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, with odds ratio = 3.54 (1.60-7.88, 95% CI) for ECOG =2 and odds ratio = 3.40 (1.60-7.22, 95% CI) for ECOG = 3 to 4. Cancer status, cancer type, metastatic tumor, lung cancer, and recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy were not associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active cancer and COVID-19 admitted to ICU, poor performance status was associated with in-hospital mortality but not with mechanical ventilation use. Cancer status, cancer type, metastatic tumor, lung cancer, and recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy were not associated with invasive mechanical ventilation use or in-hospital mortality.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

The Perme Mobility Index: A new concept to assess mobility level in patients with coronavirus (COVID-19) infection.

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. Data on the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) are needed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU and to address factors associated with mobility level at the time of ICU discharge. METHODS: Single center, retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed COVID-19 infection were analyzed. The mobility status was assessed by the Perme Score at admission and discharge from ICU with higher scores indicating higher mobility level. The Perme Mobility Index (PMI) was calculated [PMI = ΔPerme Score (ICU discharge-ICU admission)/ICU length of stay]. Based on the PMI, patients were divided into two groups: "Improved" (PMI > 0) and "Not improved" (PMI ≤ 0). RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in this analysis. The hospital mortality rate was 16.2%. The Perme Score improved significantly when comparing ICU discharge with ICU admission [20.0 (7-28) points versus 7.0 (0-16) points; P < 0.001]. A total of 88 patients (64.7%) improved their mobility level during ICU stay, and the median PMI of these patients was 1.5 (0.6-3.4). Patients in the improved group had a lower duration of mechanical ventilation [10 (5-14) days versus 15 (8-24) days; P = 0.021], lower hospital length of stay [25 (12-37) days versus 30 (11-48) days; P < 0.001], and lower ICU and hospital mortality rate. Independent predictors for mobility level were lower age, lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, and not having received renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients' mobility level was low at ICU admission; however, most patients improved their mobility level during ICU stay. Risk factors associated with the mobility level were age, comorbidities, and use of renal replacement therapy.

Acute Kidney Injury and Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: Risk Factors and Outcomes: A Single-Center Experience in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 may develop multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, including acute kidney injury (AKI). We report the incidence, risk factors, associations, and outcomes of AKI and renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between March 2020 and May 2020. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to identify risk factors for the development of AKI and use of RRT. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality after ICU admission. RESULTS: 101 (50.2%) patients developed AKI (72% on the first day of invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV]), and thirty-four (17%) required RRT. Risk factors for AKI included higher baseline Cr (OR 2.50 [1.33-4.69], p = 0.005), diuretic use (OR 4.14 [1.27-13.49], p = 0.019), and IMV (OR 7.60 [1.37-42.05], p = 0.020). A higher C-reactive protein level was an additional risk factor for RRT (OR 2.12 [1.16-4.33], p = 0.023). Overall 60-day mortality was 14.4% {23.8% (n = 24) in the AKI group versus 5% (n = 5) in the non-AKI group (HR 2.79 [1.04-7.49], p = 0.040); and 35.3% (n = 12) in the RRT group versus 10.2% (n = 17) in the non-RRT group, respectively (HR 2.21 [1.01-4.85], p = 0.047)}. CONCLUSIONS: AKI was common among critically ill COVID-19 patients and occurred early in association with IMV. One in 6 AKI patients received RRT and 1 in 3 patients treated with RRT died in hospital. These findings provide important prognostic information for clinicians caring for these patients.

Intensive support recommendations for critically-ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection

ABSTRACT In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation). RESUMO Em dezembro de 2019, uma série de pacientes com pneumonia grave foi identificada em Wuhan, província de Hubei, na China. Esses pacientes evoluíram para síndrome respiratória aguda grave e síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Posteriormente, a COVID-19 foi atribuída a um novo betacoronavírus, o coronavírus da síndrome respiratória aguda grave 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Cerca de 20% dos pacientes com diagnóstico de COVID-19 desenvolvem formas graves da doença, incluindo insuficiência respiratória aguda hipoxêmica, síndrome respiratória aguda grave, síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo e insuficiência renal aguda e requerem admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva. Não há nenhum ensaio clínico randomizado controlado que avalie potenciais tratamentos para pacientes com infecção confirmada pela COVID-19 no momento da publicação destas recomendações de tratamento. Dessa forma, essas recomendações são baseadas predominantemente na opinião de especialistas (grau de recomendação de nível C).

Coagulation profile of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Coagulation abnormalities in COVID-19 patients have not been addressed in depth. OBJECTIVE: To perform a longitudinal evaluation of coagulation profile of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. METHODS: Conventional coagulation tests, rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), platelet function, fibrinolysis, antithrombin, protein C and S were measured at days 0, 1, 3, 7 and 14. Based on median total maximum SOFA score, patients were divided in two groups: SOFA ≤ 10 and SOFA > 10. RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied. Some conventional coagulation tests, as aPTT, PT and INR remained unchanged during the study period, while alterations on others coagulation laboratory tests were detected. Fibrinogen levels were increased in both groups. ROTEM maximum clot firmness increased in both groups from Day 0 to Day 14. Moreover, ROTEM-FIBTEM maximum clot firmness was high in both groups, with a slight decrease from day 0 to day 14 in group SOFA ≤ 10 and a slight increase during the same period in group SOFA > 10. Fibrinolysis was low and decreased over time in all groups, with the most pronounced decrease observed in INTEM maximum lysis in group SOFA > 10. Also, D-dimer plasma levels were higher than normal reference range in both groups and free protein S plasma levels were low in both groups at baseline and increased over time, Finally, patients in group SOFA > 10 had lower plasminogen levels and Protein C ​​than patients with SOFA <10, which may represent less fibrinolysis activity during a state of hypercoagulability. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients have a pronounced hypercoagulability state, characterized by impaired endogenous anticoagulation and decreased fibrinolysis. The magnitude of coagulation abnormalities seems to correlate with the severity of organ dysfunction. The hypercoagulability state of COVID-19 patients was not only detected by ROTEM but it much more complex, where changes were observed on the fibrinolytic and endogenous anticoagulation system.

Position Statement: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation of Patients with Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 - 2020. / Posicionamento para Ressuscitação Cardiopulmonar de Pacientes com Diagnóstico ou Suspeita de COVID-19 ­ 2020.

Care for patients with cardiac arrest in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has several unique aspects that warrant particular attention. This joint position statement by the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC), Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (AMIB), and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA), all official societies representing the corresponding medical specialties affiliated with the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), provides recommendations to guide health care workers in the current context of limited robust evidence, aiming to maximize the protection of staff and patients alike. It is essential that full aerosol precautions, which include wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, be followed during resuscitation. It is also imperative that potential causes of cardiac arrest of particular interest in this patient population, especially hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmias associated with QT prolongation, and myocarditis, be considered and addressed. An advanced invasive airway device should be placed early. Use of HEPA filters at the bag-valve interface is mandatory. Management of cardiac arrest occurring during mechanical ventilation or during prone positioning demands particular ventilator settings and rescuer positioning for chest compressions which deviate from standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques. Apart from these logistical issues, care should otherwise follow national and international protocols and guidelines, namely the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) and 2019 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines and the 2019 Update to the Brazilian Society of Cardiology Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Guideline.

Intensive support recommendations for critically-ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation).

Recommendations for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The care for patients suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest in a context of a COVID-19 pandemic has particularities that should be highlighted. The following recommendations from the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), the Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC) and the Brazilian Association of Intensive Medicine (AMIB) and the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA), associations and societies official representatives of specialties affiliated to the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), aim to guide the various assistant teams, in a context of little solid evidence, maximizing the protection of teams and patients. It is essential to wear full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for aerosols during the care of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and it is imperative to consider and treat the potential causes in these patients, especially hypoxia and arrhythmias caused by changes in the QT interval or myocarditis. The installation of an advanced invasive airway must be obtained early and the use of High Efficiency Particulate Arrestance (HEPA) filters at the interface with the valve bag is mandatory; situations of occurrence of CPR during mechanical ventilation and in a prone position demand peculiarities that are different from the conventional CPR pattern. Faced with the care of a patient diagnosed or suspected of COVID-19, the care follows the national and international protocols and guidelines 2015 ILCOR (International Alliance of Resuscitation Committees), AHA 2019 Guidelines (American Heart Association) and the Update of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Care Directive of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology 2019.

A atenção ao paciente vítima de parada cardiorrespiratória em um contexto de pandemia de COVID-19 possui particularidades que devem ser ressaltadas. As seguintes recomendações da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência (ABRAMEDE), Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC), Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB) e Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA), associações e sociedades representantes oficiais de especialidades afiliadas a Associação Medica Brasileira (AMB), têm por objetivo orientar as diversas equipes assistentes, em um contexto de poucas evidências sólidas, maximizando a proteção das equipes e dos pacientes.É fundamental a paramentação completa com Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) para aerossóis durante o atendimento de Parada Cardiorrespiratória (PCR), e imperativo que se considerem e tratem os potenciais causas nesses pacientes, principalmente hipóxia e arritmias causadas por alterações no intervalo QT ou miocardites. A instalação de via aérea invasiva avançada deve ser obtida precocemente e o uso de filtros High Efficiency Particulate Arrestance (HEPA) na interface com a bolsa-válvula é obrigatório; situações de ocorrência de PCR durante a ventilação mecânica e em posição pronada demandam peculiaridades distintas do padrão convencional de PCR. Frente ao atendimento de um paciente com diagnóstico ou suspeito de COVID-19, o atendimento segue em acordo com os protocolos e diretrizes nacionais e internacionais 2015 ILCOR (Aliança Internacional dos Comitês de Ressuscitação), Diretrizes AHA 2019 (American Heart Association) e a Atualização da Diretriz de Ressuscitação Cardiopulmonar e Cuidados de Emergência da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia 2019.