Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr ; 46(8): 1875-1882, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1881433

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard for measuring resting energy expenditure. Energy expenditure (EE) estimated by ventilator-derived carbon dioxide consumption (EEVCO2 ) has also been proposed. In the absence of IC, predictive weight-based equations have been recommended to estimate daily energy requirements. This study aims to compare simple predictive weight-based equations with those estimated by EEVCO2 and IC in mechanically ventilated patients of COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective study of a cohort of critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition to compare energy estimations by three methods through the calculation of bias and precision agreement, reliability, and accuracy rates. RESULTS: In 58 mechanically ventilated patients, a total of 117 paired measurements were obtained. The mean estimated energy derived from weight-based calculations was 2576 ± 469 kcal/24 h, as compared with 1507 ± 499 kcal/24 h when EE was estimated by IC, resulting in a significant bias of 1069 kcal/day (95% CI [-2158 to 18.7 kcal]; P < 0.001). Similarly, estimated mean EEVCO2 was 1388 ± 467 kcal/24 h when compared with estimation of EE from IC. A significant bias of only 118 kcal/day (95% CI [-187 to 422 kcal]; P < 0.001), compared by the Bland-Altman plot, was noted. CONCLUSION: The energy estimated with EEVCO2 correlated better with IC values than energy derived from weight-based calculations. Our data suggest that the use of simple predictive equations may potentially lead to overfeeding in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiration, Artificial , Adult , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , COVID-19/therapy , Calorimetry, Indirect/methods , Energy Metabolism , Critical Illness/therapy
2.
JAMA ; 326(18): 1807-1817, 2021 11 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1527380

ABSTRACT

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Life Support Care , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Dexamethasone/adverse effects , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Female , Glucocorticoids/adverse effects , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Mycoses/etiology , Respiration, Artificial , Shock, Septic/etiology , Single-Blind Method
3.
Nurs Crit Care ; 27(5): 706-710, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1066739

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been linked to over 40 million infections and 1.1 million deaths in 210 countries as of October 19, 2020. This highly contagious communicable disease has put not only infected individuals but other patients and frontline workers like nurses at risk in hospitals, especially in Intensive Care units (ICUs). There is a need for minimizing patient contact, improving hand hygiene practices, and optimizing healthcare provider time, especially nurses. Globally it is estimated that nearly a million health care providers have been infected with COVID-19 as of the end of October 2020. METHODS: This retrospective service evaluation documents the experience of health care providers in a COVID-19 ICU in India that was used to implement new protocols for secretion management and oral hygiene. Patient chart information and staff feedback were utilized. INTERVENTION: This pilot study captures the practical benefits of using VAPCare, an automated, closed-loop system for oral secretion removal. RESULTS: Six patients were included in this small-scale study; three patients following the current standard of care for suctioning and oral hygiene and three receiving the new VAPCare and Lumen device protocol. With the new device protocol, the number of infected secretion interactions by a nurse was 50% lower, and nursing time spent on oral hygiene and secretion management 70% less than seen with the current standard of care. The number of disposable gloves used with VAPCare and Lumen was reduced by over 50%. All 10 nurses and six doctors gave positive feedback on device usage. The department recommended updating protocols to prioritize the use of the new secretion management system for patients with COVID19 and other highly contagious conditions. CONCLUSION: The findings are an early indication that using VAPCare for patients could help protect infected patients, other ICU patients, and health care workers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Hand Hygiene , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pilot Projects , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL