ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported an increased risk of thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients, but the pathophysiology of this procoagulant phenotype remains poorly understood. We hypothesized that corticosteroids may attenuate this procoagulant state through their anti-inflammatory effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexamethasone (DXM) on the coagulation profile of severely-ill COVID-19 patients METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational before/after bi-centric cohort study among ICU patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 and receiving therapeutic anticoagulation by unfractionated heparin (UFH). Before and after the standardized use of DXM, we compared inflammatory and coagulation profiles, as well as the kinetics of heparin requirement, adjusted for weight and anti-Xa activity. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included, 35 in the no-DXM group, and 51 in the DXM group. At admission, CRP and fibrinogen levels were not different between groups, neither were UFH infusion rates. At day 3 after ICU admission, CRP (178 ± 94 mg/L vs 99± 68 mg/L, p<0.001) and fibrinogen (7.2 ± 1.4 g/L vs 6.1 ± 1.4 g/L, p=0.001) significantly decreased in the DXM group, but not in the no-DXM group. Over time, UFH infusion rates were lower in the DXM group (p<0.001) without any significant difference in plasma anti-Xa activity. CRP variations correlated with heparin dose variations between Day 0 and Day 3 (r=0.39, p=0.009). Finally, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events during in-ICU stay was significantly reduced in the DXM group (4 vs. 43%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill COVID-19 patients, dexamethasone use was associated with a decrease in both pro-inflammatory and procoagulant profile.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Differences in physiology of ARDS have been described between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare initial values and longitudinal changes in respiratory system compliance (CRS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation. METHODS: 135 patients with COVID-19 ARDS from two centers were included in a physiological study; 767 non-COVID-19 ARDS from a clinical trial were used for the purpose of at least 1:2 matching. A propensity-matching was based on age, severity score, oxygenation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pulmonary cause of ARDS and allowed to include 112 COVID-19 and 198 non-COVID pulmonary ARDS. RESULTS: The two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher CRS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28-44] vs 32 [26-38] ml cmH2O-1, p = 0.037). At day 1, CRS was correlated with oxygenation only in non-COVID-19 patients; 61.6% and 68.2% of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS were still ventilated at day 7 (p = 0.241). Oxygenation became lower in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients at days 3 and 7, while CRS became similar. VR was lower at day 1 in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients but increased from day 1 to 7 only in COVID-19 patients. VR was higher at days 1, 3 and 7 in the COVID-19 patients ventilated using heat and moisture exchangers compared to heated humidifiers. After adjustment on PaO2/FiO2, PEEP and humidification device, CRS and VR were found not different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at day 7. Day-28 mortality did not differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients (25.9% and 23.7%, respectively, p = 0.666). CONCLUSIONS: For a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher CRS, dissociated from oxygenation. CRS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , Blood Gas Analysis , Body Mass Index , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Pulmonary Gas Exchange/physiology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Function Tests , Respiratory Mechanics/physiology , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, visits have been prohibited in most French ICUs. Psychological effects, for reference persons (RPs), of remote-only communication have been assessed. METHODS: All RPs of patients referred to ICU for COVID-19 were included. HADS, IES-R, and satisfaction were evaluated at admission, discharge/death, and 3 months. At 3 months, a psychologist provided a qualitative description of RPs' psychological distress. RESULTS: Eighty-eight RPs were included. Prevalence of anxiety and depression was 83% and 73% respectively. At 3 months, lower HADS decrease was associated with patient death/continued hospitalization, and/or sleeping disorders in RPs (p < 0.01). Ninety-nine percent RPs felt the patient was safe (9 [7; 10]/10 points, Likert-type scale), confident with caregivers (10 [9; 10]/10 points), and satisfied with information provided (10 [9; 10]/10 points). All RPs stressed the specific-type of "responsibility" associated with being an RP in a remote-only context, leading RPs to develop narrow diffusion strategies (67%) and restrict the array of contacted relatives to a very few and/or only contacting them rarely. 10 RPs (30%) related the situation to a prior traumatic experience. CONCLUSION: RPs experienced psychological distress and reported that being an RP in a remote-only communication context was a specific responsibility and qualified it as an overall negative experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04385121 . Registered 12 May 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ .