Steroid exposure and outcome in COVID-19 pneumonia.

Background: Corticosteroids are used to treat COVID-19 pneumonia. However, the optimal dose is unclear. This study describes the association between corticosteroid exposure with disease severity and outcome in COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective, observational study including adult ICU patients who received systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 pneumonia between March 2020 and March 2021. We recorded patient characteristics, disease severity, total steroid exposure, respiratory support and gas exchange data, and 90-day mortality. Results: We included 362 patients. We allocated patients to groups with increasing disease severity according to the highest level of respiratory support that they received: high-flow nasal oxygen or continuous positive airway pressure (HFNO/CPAP) in 12.7%, invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in 61.6%, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in 25.7%. For these three groups, the median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) age was 61 (54-71) vs 58 (50-66) vs 46 (38-53) yr, respectively (P<0.001); median (IQR) APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II scores were 12 (9-15) vs 14 (12-18) vs 15 (12-17), respectively (P=0.006); the median (IQR) lowest P a O 2 /FiO2 ratio was 15.1 (11.8-21.7) vs 15.1 (10.7-22.2) vs 9.5 (7.9-10.9) kPa, respectively (P<0.001). Ninety-day mortality was 9% vs 27% vs 37% (P=0.002). Median (IQR) dexamethasone-equivalent exposure was 37 (24-62) vs 174 (86-504) vs 535 (257-1213) mg (P<0.001). 'Pulsed' steroids were administered to 26% of the IMV group and 48% of the ECMO group. Patients with higher disease severity who received pulse steroids had a higher 90-day mortality. Conclusions: Corticosteroid exposure increased with the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia. Pulsed dose steroids were used more frequently in patients receiving greater respiratory support. Future studies should address patient selection and outcomes associated with pulsed dose steroids in patients with severe and deteriorating COVID-19 pneumonia.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients managed in a high-volume severe respiratory failure and ECMO centre in the United Kingdom.

During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic institutions have needed to develop pragmatic clinical pathways to balance the excess critical care demand and local resources. In this single-centre retrospective cohort study we describe the outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) critical care service. Patients were managed according to a local respiratory failure management pathway that was predicated on timely invasive ventilation when indicated and tailored ventilatory strategies according to pulmonary mechanics. Between 2 March and 25 May 2020 GSTT critical care service admitted 316 patients with confirmed COVID-19. Of the 201 patients admitted directly through the Emergency Department (ED) with a completed critical care outcome, 71.1% survived to critical care discharge. These favourable outcomes may serve to inform the wider debate on optimal organ support in COVID-19.