Methylprednisolone pulse therapy for critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The guidelines recommend the use of dexamethasone 6 mg or an equivalent dose in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who require supplemental oxygen. Given that the severity of COVID-19 varies, we investigated the effect of a pulse dose of corticosteroids on the clinical course of critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted between September and December 2021, which was when the Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus was predominant. We evaluated the mortality and oxygenation of severe to critical COVID-19 cases between groups that received dexamethasone 6 mg for 10 days (control group) and methylprednisolone 250 mg/day for 3 days (pulse group). RESULTS: Among 44 patients, 14 and 30 patients were treated with control steroids and pulse steroids, respectively. There was no difference in disease severity, time from COVID-19 diagnosis to steroid administration, or use of remdesivir or antibacterial agents between the two groups. The pulse steroid group showed a significant improvement in oxygenation before and after steroid treatment (P<0.001) compared with the control steroid group (P=0.196). There was no difference in in-hospital mortality (P=0.186); however, the pulse steroid group had a lower mortality rate (23.3%) than the control steroid group (42.9%). There was a significant difference in the length of hospital stay between both two groups (P=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Pulse steroids showed no mortality benefit but were associated with oxygenation improvement and shorter hospital stay than control steroids. Hyperglycemia should be carefully monitored with pulse steroids.

Lopinavir-ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine for viral clearance and clinical improvement in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The efficacies of lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine remain to be determined in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To compare the virological and clinical responses to lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine treatment in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with COVID-19 treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine at a single center in Korea from February 17 to March 31, 2020. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine concurrently and those treated with lopinavir-ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine for less than 7 days were excluded. Time to negative conversion of viral RNA, time to clinical improvement, and safety outcomes were assessed after 6 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 65 patients (mean age, 64.3 years; 25 men [38.5%]), 31 were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir and 34 were treated with hydroxychloroquine. The median duration of symptoms before treatment was 7 days and 26 patients (40%) required oxygen support at baseline. Patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir had a significantly shorter time to negative conversion of viral RNA than those treated with hydroxychloroquine (median, 21 days vs. 28 days). Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 4.21) and younger age (aHR, 2.64; 95% CI 1.43 to 4.87) was associated with negative conversion of viral RNA. There was no significant difference in time to clinical improvement between lopinavir-ritonavir- and hydroxychloroquine-treated patients (median, 18 days vs. 21 days). Lymphopenia and hyperbilirubinemia were more frequent in lopinavir-ritonavir-treated patients compared with hydroxychloroquine-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Lopinavir-ritonavir was associated with more rapid viral clearance than hydroxychloroquine in mild to moderate COVID-19, despite comparable clinical responses. These findings should be confirmed in randomized, controlled trials.

Prognostic Implication of Baseline Sarcopenia for Length of Hospital Stay and Survival in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The impact of sarcopenia on clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not clearly determined yet. We aimed to investigate the association between baseline sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: All hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 who had baseline chest computed tomography (CT) scans at a Korean university hospital from February 2020 to May 2020 were included. The main outcome was time from hospital admission to discharge. Death was considered as a competing risk for discharge. Baseline skeletal muscle cross-sectional area at the level of the 12th thoracic vertebra was measured from chest CT scans. The lowest quartile of skeletal muscle index (skeletal muscle cross-sectional area divided by height-squared) was defined as sarcopenia. RESULTS: Of 121 patients (median age, 62 years; 44 men; 29 sarcopenic), 7 patients died and 86 patients were discharged during the 60-day follow-up. Patients with sarcopenia showed a longer time to discharge (median, 55 vs 28 days; p < .001) and a higher incidence of death (17.2% vs 2.2%; p = .004) than those without sarcopenia. Baseline sarcopenia was an independent predictor of delayed hospital discharge (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.23-0.96), but was not independently associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 (aHR, 3.80; 95% CI, 0.48-30.26). The association between baseline sarcopenia and delayed hospital discharge was consistent in subgroups stratified by age, sex, comorbidities, and severity of COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline sarcopenia was independently associated with a prolonged hospital stay in patients with COVID-19. Sarcopenia could be a prognostic marker in COVID-19.

Clinical features and prognostic factors of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Daegu, South Korea: A multi-center retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: To describe the clinical and demographic characteristics of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Daegu, South Korea, and to explore the risk factors for in-hospital mortality in these patients.Retrospective cohort study of 110 critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU in Daegu, South Korea, between February 18 and April 5, 2020. The final date of follow-up was April 20, 2020.A total of 110 patient medical records were reviewed. The median age was 71 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 63-78 years). During the study period, 47 patients (42.7%) died in the hospital. The most common SARS-CoV-2 infection related complication was acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in 95 patients (86.4%). Of the 79 patients (71.8%) who received invasive mechanical ventilation, 46 (58.2%) received neuromuscular blockade injection, and 19 (24.1%) received ECMO treatment. All patients received antibiotic injection, 99 patients (90%) received hydroxychloroquine, 96 patients (87.3%) received lopinavir-ritonavir antiviral medication, and 14 patients (12.7%) received other antiviral agents, including darunavir-cobicistat and emtricitabine-tenofovir. In the multivariable logistic regression model, the odds ratio of in-hospital death was higher with APACHE II score (OR = 1.126; 95% CI = 1.014-1.252; P  = .027).The in-hospital mortality rate of critically ill patients with COVID-19 was approximately 40%. Higher APACHE II score at admission was an independent risk factor for death in these patients.

Experience of percutaneous tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious disease that causes respiratory failure. Tracheostomy is an essential procedure in critically ill COVID-19 patients; however, it is an aerosol-generating technique and thus carries the risk of infection transmission. We report our experience with percutaneous tracheostomy and its safety in a real medical setting. METHODS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, 13 critically ill patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between February 24 and April 30, 2020. Seven of these patients underwent percutaneous tracheostomy using Ciaglia Blue Rhino. The medical environment, percutaneous tracheostomy method, and COVID-19 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results were retrospectively reviewed. After treatment, the COVID-19 infection status of healthcare personnel was investigated by RT-PCR. RESULTS: The ICU contained negative pressure cohort areas and isolation rooms, and healthcare personnel wore a powered air-purifying respirator system. We performed seven cases of percutaneous tracheostomy in the same way as in patients without COVID-19. Five patients (71.4%) tested positive for COVID-19 by RT-PCR at the time of tracheostomy. The median cycle threshold value for the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase was 30.60 (interquartile range [IQR], 25.50-36.56) in the upper respiratory tract and 35.04 (IQR, 28.40-36.74) in the lower respiratory tract. All healthcare personnel tested negative for COVID-19 by RT-PCR. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous tracheostomy was performed with conventional methods in the negative pressure cohort area. It was safe to perform percutaneous tracheostomy in an environment of COVID-19 infection.

Clinical Significance of Timing of Intubation in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study.

The effect of intubation timing on the prognosis of critically ill patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is not yet well understood. We investigated whether early intubation is associated with the survival of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This multicenter, retrospective, observational study was done on 47 adult COVID-19 patients with ARDS who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Daegu, Korea between February 17 and April 23, 2020. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital mortality were compared between the early intubation and initially non-intubated groups, and between the early and late intubation groups, respectively. Of the 47 patients studied, 23 (48.9%) were intubated on the day of meeting ARDS criteria (early intubation), while 24 (51.1%) were not initially intubated. Eight patients were never intubated during the in-hospital course. Median follow-up duration was 46 days, and 21 patients (44.7%) died in the hospital. No significant difference in in-hospital mortality rate was noted between the early group and initially non-intubated groups (56.5% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.110). Furthermore, the risk of in-hospital death in the early intubation group was not significantly different compared to the initially non-intubated group on multivariate adjusted analysis (p = 0.385). Results were similar between early and late intubation in the subgroup analysis of 39 patients treated with mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, in this study of critically ill COVID-19 patients with ARDS, early intubation was not associated with improved survival. This result may help in the efficient allocation of limited medical resources, such as ventilators.