Incidence, Risk Factors, and Consequences of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms in Survivors of COVID-19-Related ARDS.

Purpose: To assess the prevalence of symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in survivors of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome that needed ICU care; to investigate risk factors and their impact on the Health-Related Quality of life (HR-QoL). Materials and Methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational study included all patients who were discharged from the ICU. Patients were administered the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Level Version (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, the Short-Form Health Survey 36Version 2 (SF-36v2), a socioeconomic question set and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) to assess PTSD. Results: The multivariate logistic regression model found that an International Standard Classification of Education Score (ISCED) higher than 2 (OR 3.42 (95% CI 1.28-9.85)), monthly income less than EUR 1500 (OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.13-0.97)), and more than two comorbidities (OR 4.62 (95% CI 1.33-16.88)) are risk factors for developing PTSD symptoms. Patients with PTSD symptoms are more likely to present a worsening in their quality of life as assessed by EQ-5D-5L and SF-36 scales. Conclusion: The main factors associated with the development of PTSD-related symptoms were a higher education level, a lower monthly income, and more than two comorbidities. Patients who developed symptoms of PTSD reported a significantly lower Health-Related Quality of life as compared to patients without PTSD. Future research areas should be oriented toward recognizing potential psychosocial and psychopathological variables capable of influencing the quality of life of patients discharged from the intensive care unit to better recognize the prognosis and longtime effects of diseases.

Quality of Life in COVID-Related ARDS Patients One Year after Intensive Care Discharge (Odissea Study): A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Investigating the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge is necessary to identify possible modifiable risk factors. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the HRQoL in COVID-19 critically ill patients one year after ICU discharge. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective observational study, COVID-19 patients admitted to nine ICUs from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 in Italy were enrolled. One year after ICU discharge, patients were required to fill in short-form health survey 36 (SF-36) and impact of event-revised (IES-R) questionnaire. A multivariate linear or logistic regression analysis to search for factors associated with a lower HRQoL and post-traumatic stress disorded (PTSD) were carried out, respectively. RESULTS: Among 1003 patients screened, 343 (median age 63 years [57-70]) were enrolled. Mechanical ventilation lasted for a median of 10 days [2-20]. Physical functioning (PF 85 [60-95]), physical role (PR 75 [0-100]), emotional role (RE 100 [33-100]), bodily pain (BP 77.5 [45-100]), social functioning (SF 75 [50-100]), general health (GH 55 [35-72]), vitality (VT 55 [40-70]), mental health (MH 68 [52-84]) and health change (HC 50 [25-75]) describe the SF-36 items. A median physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores were 45.9 (36.5-53.5) and 51.7 (48.8-54.3), respectively, considering 50 as the normal value of the healthy general population. In all, 109 patients (31.8%) tested positive for post-traumatic stress disorder, also reporting a significantly worse HRQoL in all SF-36 domains. The female gender, history of cardiovascular disease, liver disease and length of hospital stay negatively affected the HRQoL. Weight at follow-up was a risk factor for PTSD (OR 1.02, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The HRQoL in COVID-19 ARDS (C-ARDS) patients was reduced regarding the PCS, while the median MCS value was slightly above normal. Some risk factors for a lower HRQoL have been identified, the presence of PTSD is one of them. Further research is warranted to better identify the possible factors affecting the HRQoL in C-ARDS.

Chest wall loading during supine and prone position in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: effects on respiratory mechanics and gas exchange.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports of patients with severe, late-stage COVID-19 ARDS with reduced respiratory system compliance described paradoxical decreases in plateau pressure and increases in respiratory system compliance in response to anterior chest wall loading. We aimed to assess the effect of chest wall loading during supine and prone position in ill patients with COVID-19-related ARDS and to investigate the effect of a low or normal baseline respiratory system compliance on the findings. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, cohort study in the intensive care unit of a COVID-19 referral center. Consecutive mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients with COVID-19-related ARDS were enrolled and classified as higher (≥ 40 ml/cmH2O) or lower respiratory system compliance (< 40 ml/cmH2O). The study included four steps, each lasting 6 h: Step 1, supine position, Step 2, 10-kg continuous chest wall compression (supine + weight), Step 3, prone position, Step 4, 10-kg continuous chest wall compression (prone + weight). The mechanical properties of the respiratory system, gas exchange and alveolar dead space were measured at the end of each step. RESULTS: Totally, 40 patients were enrolled. In the whole cohort, neither oxygenation nor respiratory system compliance changed between supine and supine + weight; both increased during prone positioning and were unaffected by chest wall loading in the prone position. Alveolar dead space was unchanged during all the steps. In 16 patients with reduced compliance, PaO2/FiO2 significantly increased from supine to supine + weight and further with prone and prone + weight (107 ± 15.4 vs. 120 ± 18.5 vs. 146 ± 27.0 vs. 159 ± 30.4, respectively; p < 0.001); alveolar dead space decreased from both supine and prone position after chest wall loading, and respiratory system compliance significantly increased from supine to supine + weight and from prone to prone + weight (23.9 ± 3.5 vs. 30.9 ± 5.7 and 31.1 ± 5.7 vs. 37.8 ± 8.7 ml/cmH2O, p < 0.001). The improvement was higher the lower the baseline compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike prone positioning, chest wall loading had no effects on respiratory system compliance, gas exchange or alveolar dead space in an unselected cohort of critically ill patients with C-ARDS. Only patients with a low respiratory system compliance experienced an improvement, with a higher response the lower the baseline compliance.

High rates of impaired quality of life and social and economic problems at 6 months after COVID-19-related ARDS.

PURPOSE: Assess long-term quality of life (HR-QoL) and socio-economic impact in COVID-19-related ARDS (C-ARDS) survivors. METHODS: C-ARDS survivors were followed up at 6 months in this prospective, cohort study. HR-QoL was assessed using SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L, and the socio-economic burden of COVID-19 was evaluated with a dedicated questionnaire. Clinical data were prospectively recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-nine survivors, age 63 [57-71], 84% male, were enrolled. The frequency of EQ-5D-5L reported problems was significantly higher among survivors compared to normal, in mobility, usual activities, and self-care; anxiety and depression and pain were not different. SF-36 scores were lower than the reference population, and physical and mental summary scores were below normal in 52% and 33% of the subjects, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, prolonged hospital length of stay (OR 1.45; p 0.02) and two or more comorbidities on admission (OR 7.42; p 0.002) were significant predictors of impaired "physical" and "mental" HR-QoL, respectively. A total of 38% subjects worsened social relations, 42% changed their employment status, and 23% required personal care support. CONCLUSIONS: C-ARDS survivors have long-term impairment in HR-QoL and socio-economic problems. Prolonged hospital stay and previous comorbidities are risk factors for developing health-related issues.

Safety profile of enhanced thromboprophylaxis strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: observational report from 28 European intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: Critical illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is associated with a high burden of pulmonary embolism (PE) and thromboembolic events despite standard thromboprophylaxis. Available guidance is discordant, ranging from standard care to the use of therapeutic anticoagulation for enhanced thromboprophylaxis (ET). Local ET protocols have been empirically determined and are generally intermediate between standard prophylaxis and full anticoagulation. Concerns have been raised in regard to the potential risk of haemorrhage associated with therapeutic anticoagulation. This report describes the prevalence and safety of ET strategies in European Intensive Care Unit (ICUs) and their association with outcomes during the first wave of the COVID pandemic, with particular focus on haemorrhagic complications and ICU mortality. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, multi-centre study including adult critically ill COVID-19 patients. Anonymised data included demographics, clinical characteristics, thromboprophylaxis and/or anticoagulation treatment. Critical haemorrhage was defined as intracranial haemorrhage or bleeding requiring red blood cells transfusion. Survival was collected at ICU discharge. A multivariable mixed effects generalised linear model analysis matched for the propensity for receiving ET was constructed for both ICU mortality and critical haemorrhage. RESULTS: A total of 852 (79% male, age 66 [37-85] years) patients were included from 28 ICUs. Median body mass index and ICU length of stay were 27.7 (25.1-30.7) Kg/m2 and 13 (7-22) days, respectively. Thromboembolic events were reported in 146 patients (17.1%), of those 78 (9.2%) were PE. ICU mortality occurred in 335/852 (39.3%) patients. ET was used in 274 (32.1%) patients, and it was independently associated with significant reduction in ICU mortality (log odds = 0.64 [95% CIs 0.18-1.1; p = 0.0069]) but not an increased risk of critical haemorrhage (log odds = 0.187 [95%CI - 0.591 to - 0.964; p = 0.64]). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of critically ill patients with a high prevalence of thromboembolic events, ET was associated with reduced ICU mortality without an increased burden of haemorrhagic complications. This study suggests ET strategies are safe and associated with favourable outcomes. Whilst full anticoagulation has been questioned for prophylaxis in these patients, our results suggest that there may nevertheless be a role for enhanced / intermediate levels of prophylaxis. Clinical trials investigating causal relationship between intermediate thromboprophylaxis and clinical outcomes are urgently needed.

Central venous pressure swing outperforms diaphragm ultrasound as a measure of inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation in COVID-19 patients.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19-related shortage of ICU beds magnified the need of tools to properly titrate the ventilator assistance. We investigated whether bedside-available indices such as the ultrasonographic changes in diaphragm thickening ratio (TR) and the tidal swing in central venous pressure (ΔCVP) are reliable estimates of inspiratory effort, assessed as the tidal swing in esophageal pressure (ΔPes). METHODS: Prospective, observational clinical investigation in the intensive care unit of a tertiary care Hospital. Fourteen critically-ill patients were enrolled (age 64 ± 7 years, BMI 29 ± 4 kg/m2), after 6 [3; 9] days from onset of assisted ventilation. A three-level pressure support trial was performed, at 10 (PS10), 5 (PS5) and 0 cmH2O (PS0). In each step, the esophageal and central venous pressure tidal swing were recorded, as well as diaphragm ultrasound. RESULTS: The reduction of pressure support was associated with an increased respiratory rate and a reduced tidal volume, while minute ventilation was unchanged. ΔPes significantly increased with reducing support (5 [3; 8] vs. 8 [14; 13] vs. 12 [6; 16] cmH2O, p < 0.0001), as did the diaphragm TR (9.2 ± 6.1 vs. 17.6 ± 7.2 vs. 28.0 ± 10.0%, p < 0.0001) and the ΔCVP (4 [3; 7] vs. 8 [5; 9] vs. 10 [7; 11] cmH2O, p < 0.0001). ΔCVP was significantly associated with ΔPes (R2 = 0.810, p < 0.001), as was diaphragm TR, albeit with a lower coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.399, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure undergoing assisted mechanical ventilation, ΔCVP is a better estimate of inspiratory effort than diaphragm ultrasound.