Eficacia de la tromboprofilaxis con heparina de bajo peso molecular en pacientes críticos con COVID-19: estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational, prospective, multicenter study

Introducción: Los pacientes COVID-19 presentan una coagulopatía caracterizada por una elevada incidencia de complicaciones tromboembólicas. Ante la controversia existente sobre el manejo de la tromboprofilaxis, se llevó a cabo un estudio con el objetivo de analizar el efecto de las diferentes dosis de heparina de bajo peso molecular (HBPM) utilizadas en los pacientes críticos con COVID-19. Material y métodos: Se evaluaron datos del Reg-COVID19. Se compararon dos grupos de pacientes según la dosis de HBPM administrada: profilaxis y tratamiento. El objetivo primario fue determinar si había relación de la dosis de HBPM con la mortalidad. Los objetivos secundarios incluyeron la incidencia de eventos trombóticos y hemorrágicos, la duración de la estancia en UCI, la ventilación mecánica invasiva y parámetros trombóticos e inflamatorios. Resultados: Se analizaron datos de 720 pacientes, 258 en el grupo de profilaxis y 462 en el de tratamiento. La proteína C reactiva, la ventilación mecánica invasiva, y el tratamiento con tocilizumab o corticosteroides se relacionaron con la elección de la dosis de HBPM. La incidencia de complicaciones hemorrágicas (66/720, 9.2%) y trombóticas (69/720, 9.6%) fue similar en ambos grupos, al igual que el curso temporal de los eventos trombóticos, que ocurrieron antes que los hemorrágicos (9 [3-18] y 12 [6-19] días respectivamente). La mortalidad fue menor en el grupo de profilaxis (25.2% frente a 35.1%), pero al aplicar un modelo de ponderación de probabilidad inversa, no se encontraron diferencias entre los grupos. Conclusión: No se encontraron efectos beneficiosos ni perjudiciales relacionados con la administración de dosis profilácticas o terapéuticas de HBPM en pacientes críticos COVID-19, con una tasa similar de complicaciones hemorrágicas o trombóticas. A partir de estos resultados, consideramos que son necesarios más estudios para determinar el protocolo óptimo de tromboprofilaxis en estos pacientes.

High-flow nasal oxygen in patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: Whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in adult patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure improves clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. We thus sought to assess the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on ventilator-free days, compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, on adult patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs). Main exposure was the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (conservative group), while early invasive mechanical ventilation (within the first day of ICU admission; early intubation group) served as the comparator. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at 28 days. ICU length of stay and all-cause in-hospital mortality served as secondary outcomes. We used propensity score matching to adjust for measured confounding. RESULTS: Out of 468 eligible patients, a total of 122 matched patients were included in the present analysis (61 for each group). When compared to early intubation, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference: 8.0 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.4 to 11.7 days) and a reduction in ICU length of stay (mean difference: - 8.2 days; 95% CI - 12.7 to - 3.6 days). No difference was observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality between groups (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: The use of high-flow nasal oxygen upon ICU admission in adult patients with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may lead to an increase in ventilator-free days and a reduction in ICU length of stay, when compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Future studies should confirm our findings.

Early corticosteroids are associated with lower mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) have a high fatality rate likely due to a dysregulated immune response. Corticosteroids could attenuate this inappropriate response, although there are still some concerns regarding its use, timing, and dose. METHODS: This is a nationwide, prospective, multicenter, observational, cohort study in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Spain from 12th March to 29th June 2020. Using a multivariable Cox model with inverse probability weighting, we compared relevant outcomes between patients treated with early corticosteroids (before or within the first 48 h of ICU admission) with those who did not receive early corticosteroids (delayed group) or any corticosteroids at all (never group). Primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Secondary endpoints included 7-day mortality, ventilator-free days, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 691 patients out of 882 (78.3%) received corticosteroid during their hospital stay. Patients treated with early-corticosteroids (n = 485) had lower ICU mortality (30.3% vs. never 36.6% and delayed 44.2%) and lower 7-day mortality (7.2% vs. never 15.2%) compared to non-early treated patients. They also had higher number of ventilator-free days, less length of ICU stay, and less secondary infections than delayed treated patients. There were no differences in medical complications between groups. Of note, early use of moderate-to-high doses was associated with better outcomes than low dose regimens. CONCLUSION: Early use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality than no or delayed use, and fewer complications than delayed use.

Awake prone positioning does not reduce the risk of intubation in COVID-19 treated with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy: a multicenter, adjusted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. RESULTS: A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53-1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0-2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0-3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40-2.72), p = 0.92]. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

Características, evolución clínica y factores asociados a la mortalidad en UCI de los pacientes críticos infectados por SARS-CoV-2 en España: estudio prospectivo, de cohorte y multi-céntrico

Resumen Antecedentes: No se ha reportado plenamente la evolución clínica de los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 durante su ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI), incluyendo las complicaciones médicas e infecciosas y terapias de soporte, así como su asociación con la mortalidad en ICU. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio es describir las características clínicas y la evolución de los pacientes ingresados en UCI por COVID-19, y determinar los factores de riesgo de la mortalidad en UCI de dichos pacientes. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo, multi-céntrico y de cohorte, que incluyó a los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 ingresados en 30 UCIs de España y Andorra. Se incluyó a los pacientes consecutivos de 12 de Marzo a 26 de Mayo de 2020 si habían fallecido o habían recibido el alta de la UCI durante el periodo de estudio. Se reportaron los datos demográficos, síntomas, signos vitales, marcadores de laboratorio, terapias de soporte, terapias farmacológicas, y complicaciones médicas e infecciosas, realizándose una comparación entre los pacientes fallecidos y los pacientes dados de alta. Resultados: Se incluyó a un total de 663 pacientes. La mortalidad general en UCI fue del 31% (203 pacientes). Al ingreso en UCI los no supervivientes eran más hipoxémicos [SpO2 sin mascarilla de no reinhalación, de 90 (RIC 83 - 93) vs 91 (RIC 87 - 94);p<0,001] y con mayor puntuación en la escala SOFA - Evaluación de daño orgánico secuencial - [SOFA, 7 (RIC 5 - 9) vs 4 (RIC 3 - 7);p<0,001]. Las complicaciones fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes: síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA) (95% vs 89%;p=0,009), insuficiencia renal aguda (IRA) (58% vs 24%;p<10-16), shock (42% vs 14%;p<10-13), y arritmias (24% vs 11%;p<10-4). Las súper-infecciones respiratorias, infecciones del torrente sanguíneo y los shock sépticos fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes (33% vs 25%;p=0,03, 33% vs 23%;p=0,01 y 15% vs 3%, p=10-7), respectivamente. El modelo de regresión multivariable reflejó que la edad estaba asociada a la mortalidad, y que cada año incrementaba el riesgo de muerte en un 1% (95%IC: 1 - 10, p=0,014). Cada incremento de 5 puntos en la escala APACHE II predijo de manera independiente la mortalidad [OR: 1,508 (1,081, 2,104), p= 0,015]. Los pacientes con IRA [OR: 2,468 (1,628, 3,741), p<10-4)], paro cardiaco [OR: 11,099 (3,389, 36,353), p= 0,0001], y shock séptico [OR: 3,224 (1,486, 6,994), p= 0,002] tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado. Conclusiones: Los pacientes mayores de COVID-19 con puntuaciones APACHE II más altas al ingreso, que desarrollaron IRA en grados II o III y/o shock séptico durante la estancia en UCI tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado. La mortalidad en UCI fue del 31%. 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<0.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5 to 9) s 4 (IQR 3 to 7);p<0.001]. Complicatio s were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs 89%;p=0.009), 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=0.03, 33% vs 23%;p=0.01 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=0.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), p= 0.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), p<10-4)], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), p= 0.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), p= 0.002] 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%.