Impact of mechanical power on mortality in ventilated critically ill patients. Retrospective study with continuous real-life data (preprint)

Background Over the past decade, numerous studies on potential factors contributing to ventilation-induced lung injury have been carried out. Mechanical power has been pointed out as the parameter that encloses all ventilation-induced lung injury-contributing factors. However, studies conducted to date provide data regarding mechanical power during the early hours of mechanical ventilation that may not correspond to the real scenario. Methods Retrospective observational study conducted at a single center in Spain. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit, > o = 18 years of age, and ventilated for over 24 hours were included. We extracted the mechanical power values throughtout the entire mechanical ventilation period from the clinical information system every two minutes. First, we calculate the cutoff-point for mechanical power beyond which there was a greater change in the probability of death. After, the sum of time values above the safe cut-off point was calculated to obtain the value in hours. We analyzed if the number of hours the patient was under ventilation with a mechanical power above the safe threshold was associated with mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation days, and intensive care unit length of stay. We repeated the analysis in different subgroups based on the degree of hypoxemia and in patients with SARS CoV-2 pneumonia. Results The cut-off point of mechanical power at with there is a higher increase in mortality was 18J/min. The greater the number or hours patients were under mechanical power > 18 J/min the higher the mortality in all the study population, in patients with SARS CoV-2 pneumonia and in mild to moderate hyopoxemic respiratory failure. The risk of death inceases 0.1% for each our with mechanical power exceeding 18 J/min. The number of hours with mechanical power > 18 J/min also affected the days of invasive mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay. Conclusions Continuous monitoring of mechanical power using an automated clinical information system shows that the number of hours with mechanical power > 18 J/min increases mortality in critically ill patients.

A Differential Therapeutic Consideration for use of Corticosteroids According to Established COVID-19 Clinical Phenotypes in Critically Ill Patients (preprint)

Background: The steroids are currently used as standard treatment for severe COVID-19. However, the evidence is weak. Our aim is to determine if the use of corticosteroids was associated with Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality among whole population and pre-specified clinical phenotypes.Methods: A secondary analysis derived from multicenter, observational study of adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease admitted to 63 ICUs in Spain. Three phenotypes were derived by non-supervised clustering analysis from whole population and classified as (A: severe, B: critical and C: life-threatening). The primary outcome was ICU mortality. We performed a Multivariate analysis after propensity score full matching (PS), Cox proportional hazards (CPH), Cox covariate time interaction (TIR), Weighted Cox Regression (WCR) and Fine-Gray analysis(sHR) to assess the impact of corticosteroids on ICU mortality according to the whole population and distinctive patient clinical phenotypes. Results:  A total of 2,017 patients were analyzed, 1171(58%) with corticosteroids. After PS, corticosteroids were shown not to be associated with ICU mortality (OR:1.0,95%CI:0.98-1.15). Corticosteroids were administered in 298/537(55.5%) patients of “A” phenotype and their use was not associated with ICU mortality (HR=0.85[0.55-1.33]). A total of 338/623(54.2%) patients in “B” phenotype received corticosteroids. The CPH (HR =0.65 [0.46-0.91]) and TIR regression (1- 25 day tHR=0.56[0.39-0.82] and >25 days tHR=1.53[1.03-7.12]) showed a biphasic effect of corticosteroids due to proportional assumption violation. No effect of corticosteroids on ICU mortality was observed when WCR was performed (wHR=0.72[0.49-1.05]). Finally, 535/857(62.4%) patients in “C” phenotype received corticosteroids. The CPH (HR=0.73[0.63-0.98]) and TIR regression (1- 25 day tHR=0.69[ 0.53-0.89] and >25 days tHR=1.30[ 1.14-3.25]) showed a biphasic effect of corticosteroids and proportional assumption violation. However, wHR (0.75[0.58-0.98]) and sHR (0.79[0.63-0.98]) suggest a protective effect of corticosteroids on ICU mortality.     Conclusion: Our finding warns against the widespread use of corticosteroids in all critically ill patients with COVID-19 at moderate-high dose. Only patients with the highest severity could benefit from steroid treatment although this effect on clinical outcome was minimized during ICU stay. 

Deploying unsupervised clustering analysis to derive clinical phenotypes and risk factors associated with mortality risk in 2,022 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Spain (preprint)

Background: The identification of factors associated with Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality and derived clinical phenotypes in COVID-19 patients could help for a more tailored approach to clinical decision-making that improves prognostic outcomes. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, observational study of critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease and acute respiratory failure admitted from 63 Intensive Care Units(ICU) in Spain. The objective was to utilize an unsupervised clustering analysis to derive clinical COVID-19 phenotypes and to analyze patient’s factors associated with mortality risk. Patient features including demographics and clinical data at ICU admission were analyzed. Generalized linear models were used to determine ICU morality risk factors. The prognostic models were validated and their performance was measured using accuracy test, sensitivity, specificity and ROC curves. Results: : The database included a total of 2,022 patients (mean age 64[IQR5-71] years, 1423(70.4%) male, median APACHE II score (13[IQR10-17]) and SOFA score (5[IQR3-7]) points. The ICU mortality rate was 32.6%. Of the 3 derived phenotypes, the A(mild) phenotype (537;26.7%) included older age (<65 years), fewer abnormal laboratory values and less development of complications, B (moderate) phenotype (623,30.8%) had similar characteristics of A phenotype but were more likely to present shock. The C(severe) phenotype was the most common (857;42.5%) and was characterized by the interplay of older age (>65 years), high severity of illness and a higher likelihood of development shock. Crude ICU mortality was 20.3%, 25% and 45.4% for A, B and C phenotype respectively. The ICU mortality risk factors and model performance differed between whole population and phenotype classifications. Conclusion: The presented machine learning model identified three clinical phenotypes that significantly correlated with host-response patterns and ICU mortality. Different risk factors across the whole population and clinical phenotypes were observed which may limit the application of a “one-size-fits-all” model in practice .

Deploying Machine Learning to Validate Clinical Phenotypes and Factors Associated with Mortality Risk in 2,022 Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19 in Spain (preprint)

Background: The identification of factors associated with Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality and derived clinical phenotypes in COVID-19 patients could help for a more tailored approach to clinical decision-making that improves prognostic outcomes. The objective was to analyze patient’s factors associated with mortality risk and utilize a Machine Learning(ML) to derive clinical COVID-19 phenotypes.Methods: Prospective, multicenter, observational study of critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease and acute respiratory failure admitted from 63 Intensive Care Units(ICU) in Spain. Patient features including demographics and clinical data at ICU admission were analyzed. Generalized linear models were used to determine ICU morality risk factors. An unsupervised clustering analysis was applied to determine presence of phenotypes. The prognostic models were validated and their performance was measured using accuracy test, sensitivity, specificity and ROC curves.Findings: The database included a total of 2,022 patients (mean age 64[IQR5-71] years, 1423(70·4%) male, median APACHE II score (13[IQR10-17]) and SOFA score (5[IQR3-7]) points. The ICU mortality rate was 32·6%. Of the 3 derived phenotypes, the C(severe) phenotype was the most common (857;42·5%) and was characterized by the interplay of older age (>65 years), high severity of illness and a higher likelihood of development shock. The A(mild) phenotype (537;26·7%) included older age (>65 years), fewer abnormal laboratory values and less development of complications and B (moderate) phenotype (623,30·8%) had similar characteristics of A phenotype but were more likely to present shock. Crude ICU mortality was 45·4%, 25·0% and 20·3% for the C, B and A phenotype respectively. The ICU mortality risk factors and model performance differed between whole population and phenotype classifications.Interpretation: The presented ML model identified three clinical phenotypes that significantly correlated with host-response patterns and ICU mortality. Different risk factors across the whole population and clinical phenotypes were observed which may limit the application of a “one-size-fits-all” model in practice.Funding Statement: This study was supported by the Spanish Intensive Care Society(SEMICYUC) and Ricardo Barri Casanovas Foundation.Declaration of Interests: All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by the reference institutional review board at Joan XXIII University Hospital (IRB# CEIM/066/2020) and each participating site with a waiver of informed consent. All data values were anonymized prior to the phenotyping which consisted of clustering clinical variables on their association with COVID-19 mortality.