Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv ; 36(3): 112-126, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2302395

ABSTRACT

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition, characterized by diffuse inflammatory lung injury. Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread worldwide, the most common cause of ARDS has been the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Both the COVID-19-associated ARDS and the ARDS related to other causes-also defined as classical ARDS-are burdened by high mortality and morbidity. For these reasons, effective therapeutic interventions are urgently needed. Among them, inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) has been studied in patients with ARDS since 1993 and it is currently under investigation. In this review, we aim at describing the biological and pharmacological rationale of iNO treatment in ARDS by elucidating similarities and differences between classical and COVID-19 ARDS. Thereafter, we present the available evidence on the use of iNO in clinical practice in both types of respiratory failure. Overall, iNO seems a promising agent as it could improve the ventilation/perfusion mismatch, gas exchange impairment, and right ventricular failure, which are reported in ARDS. In addition, iNO may act as a viricidal agent and prevent lung hyperinflammation and thrombosis of the pulmonary vasculature in the specific setting of COVID-19 ARDS. However, the current evidence on the effects of iNO on outcomes is limited and clinical studies are yet to demonstrate any survival benefit by administering iNO in ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Nitric Oxide , Administration, Inhalation , SARS-CoV-2 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy
2.
J Intensive Care ; 11(1): 14, 2023 Apr 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2250721

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Previous studies linked a high intensity of ventilation, measured as mechanical power, to mortality in patients suffering from "classic" ARDS. By contrast, mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 may present with intact pulmonary mechanics while undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time. We investigated whether an association between higher mechanical power and mortality is modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective study included critically ill, adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h between March 2020 and December 2021 at a tertiary healthcare facility in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary exposure was median mechanical power during the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation, calculated using a previously validated formula. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. As co-primary analysis, we investigated whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 modified the primary association. We further investigated the association between mechanical power and days being alive and ventilator free and effect modification of this by a diagnosis of COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, effect modification and negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, severity of disease and in-hospital factors, were applied. RESULTS: 1,737 mechanically ventilated patients were included, 411 (23.7%) suffered from COVID-19. 509 (29.3%) died within 30 days. The median mechanical power during the first 24 h of ventilation was 19.3 [14.6-24.0] J/min in patients with and 13.2 [10.2-18.0] J/min in patients without COVID-19. A higher mechanical power was associated with 30-day mortality (ORadj 1.26 per 1-SD, 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI 1.09-1.46; p = 0.002). Effect modification and interaction analysis did not support that this association was modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.38; p-for-interaction = 0.68). A higher mechanical power was associated with a lower number of days alive and ventilator free until day 28 (IRRadj 0.83 per 7.1 J/min increase; 95% CI 0.75-0.91; p < 0.001, adjusted risk difference - 2.7 days per 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI - 4.1 to - 1.3). CONCLUSION: A higher mechanical power is associated with elevated 30-day mortality. While patients with COVID-19 received mechanical ventilation with higher mechanical power, this association was independent of a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19.

3.
Nitric Oxide ; 121: 20-33, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665319

ABSTRACT

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) acts as a selective pulmonary vasodilator and it is currently approved by the FDA for the treatment of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. iNO has been demonstrated to effectively decrease pulmonary artery pressure and improve oxygenation, while decreasing extracorporeal life support use in hypoxic newborns affected by persistent pulmonary hypertension. Also, iNO seems a safe treatment with limited side effects. Despite the promising beneficial effects of NO in the preclinical literature, there is still a lack of high quality evidence for the use of iNO in clinical settings. A variety of clinical applications have been suggested in and out of the critical care environment, aiming to use iNO in respiratory failure and pulmonary hypertension of adults or as a preventative measure of hemolysis-induced vasoconstriction, ischemia/reperfusion injury and as a potential treatment of renal failure associated with cardiopulmonary bypass. In this narrative review we aim to present a comprehensive summary of the potential use of iNO in several clinical conditions with its suggested benefits, including its recent application in the scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, guidelines, observational studies and case-series were reported and the main findings summarized. Furthermore, we will describe the toxicity profile of NO and discuss an innovative proposed strategy to produce iNO. Overall, iNO exhibits a wide range of potential clinical benefits, that certainly warrants further efforts with randomized clinical trials to determine specific therapeutic roles of iNO.


Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Hypertension, Pulmonary/drug therapy , Infant, Newborn, Diseases/drug therapy , Nitric Oxide/therapeutic use , Vasodilator Agents/therapeutic use , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Hypertension, Pulmonary/etiology , Infant, Newborn , Infant, Newborn, Diseases/etiology , Nitric Oxide/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Vasodilator Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
4.
Chest ; 160(2): 454-465, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1184884

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few small studies have described hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) occurring in patients with COVID-19. RESEARCH QUESTION: What characteristics in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are associated with HAIs and how are HAIs associated with outcomes in these patients? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Multicenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data including adult patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to eight Italian hub hospitals from February 20, 2020, through May 20, 2020. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate Weibull regression models were used to assess incidence, microbial cause, resistance patterns, risk factors (ie, demographics, comorbidities, exposure to medication), and impact on outcomes (ie, ICU discharge, length of ICU and hospital stays, and duration of mechanical ventilation) of microbiologically confirmed HAIs. RESULTS: Of the 774 included patients, 359 patients (46%) demonstrated 759 HAIs (44.7 infections/1,000 ICU patient-days; 35% multidrug-resistant [MDR] bacteria). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; n = 389 [50%]), bloodstream infections (BSIs; n = 183 [34%]), and catheter-related BSIs (n = 74 [10%]) were the most frequent HAIs, with 26.0 (95% CI, 23.6-28.8) VAPs per 1,000 intubation-days, 11.7 (95% CI, 10.1-13.5) BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days, and 4.7 (95% CI, 3.8-5.9) catheter-related BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days. Gram-negative bacteria (especially Enterobacterales) and Staphylococcus aureus caused 64% and 28% of cases of VAP, respectively. Variables independently associated with infection were age, positive end expiratory pressure, and treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics at admission. Two hundred thirty-four patients (30%) died in the ICU (15.3 deaths/1,000 ICU patient-days). Patients with HAIs complicated by septic shock showed an almost doubled mortality rate (52% vs 29%), whereas noncomplicated infections did not affect mortality. HAIs prolonged mechanical ventilation (median, 24 days [interquartile range (IQR), 14-39 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 5-13 days]; P < .001), ICU stay (24 days [IQR, 16-41 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 6-14 days]; P = .003), and hospital stay (42 days [IQR, 25-59 days] vs 23 days [IQR, 13-34 days]; P < .001). INTERPRETATION: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for HAIs, especially VAPs and BSIs resulting from MDR organisms. HAIs prolong mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, and HAIs complicated by septic shock almost double mortality. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04388670; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cross Infection/complications , Aged , Critical Illness , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/complications , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Sepsis/complications , Sepsis/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL