The Use of Noninvasive Multimodal Neuromonitoring in Adult Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 Infection.

INTRODUCTION: Noninvasive neuromonitoring could be a valuable option for bedside assessment of cerebral dysfunction in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). This systematic review aims to investigate the use of noninvasive multimodal neuromonitoring in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were searched for studies investigating noninvasive neuromonitoring in patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs. The monitoring included transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (TCD), the Brain4care Corp. cerebral compliance monitor (B4C), optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD), near infrared spectroscopy, automated pupillometry, and electroencephalography (EEG). RESULTS: Thirty-two studies that investigated noninvasive neuromonitoring techniques in patients with COVID-19 in the ICU were identified from a systematic search of 7001 articles: 1 study investigating TCD, ONSD and pupillometry; 2 studies investigating the B4C device and TCD; 3 studies investigating near infrared spectroscopy and TCD; 4 studies investigating TCD; 1 case series investigating pupillometry, and 21 studies investigating EEG. One hundred and nineteen patients underwent TCD monitoring, 47 pupillometry, 49 ONSD assessment, 50 compliance monitoring with the B4C device, and 900 EEG monitoring. Alterations in cerebral hemodynamics, brain compliance, brain oxygenation, pupillary response, and brain electrophysiological activity were common in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU; these abnormalities were not clearly associated with worse outcome or the development of new neurological complications. CONCLUSIONS: The use of noninvasive multimodal neuromonitoring in critically ill COVID-19 patients could be considered to facilitate the detection of neurological derangements. Determining whether such findings allow earlier detection of neurological complications or guide appropriate therapy requires additional studies.

Early Prediction of High-Flow Oxygen Therapy Failure in COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Study of Scores and Thresholds.

Background High-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) has been widely used as an effective alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in some critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. This study aimed to compare different tools, including the respiratory rate and oxygenation (ROX) index, to predict HFOT failure in this setting. Methodology This single-center retrospective observational study was conducted from September to December 2020 and assessed COVID-19 patients who required HFOT as the first treatment at admission; HFOT failure was defined as IMV use. Prognostic scoring tools were as follows: the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) III scores; C-reactive protein; lung consolidation percentage on chest CT; mean partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio; and ROX index and modified ROX index, calculated using PaO2 instead of blood oxygen saturation, within the first 24 hours after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). These scores were analyzed using a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model; optimal cutoffs were computed using the R system for statistical computing. Results The study enrolled 52 patients, 31 (60%) of whom experienced HFOT failure. The best predictors of HFOT failure measured 24 hours after HFOT initiation were as follows: PaO2/FiO2 (threshold 123.6, sensitivity 87%, specificity 81%, hazard ratio [HR] 7.76, and 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.39-17.1); ROX index (threshold 5.63, sensitivity 68%, specificity 95%, HR 6.18, and 95% CI 2.54-13.4); and modified ROX index (threshold 4.94, sensitivity 81%, specificity 90%, HR 8.16, and 95% CI 3.16-21.5) (P < 0.001 for all). Conclusions Early assessment of the ROX index, modified ROX index, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio can adequately predict, with high accuracy, HFOT failure in COVID-19 patients. Because thresholds remain debated and are still not sufficiently validated, we advocate using them with caution for clinical decision-making in this context.

Early procalcitonin to predict mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a multicentric cohort study.

BACKGROUND: High levels of procalcitonin (PCT) have been associated with a higher risk of mortality in COVID-19 patients. We explored the prognostic role of early PCT assessment in critically ill COVID-19 patients and whether PCT predictive performance would be influenced by immunosuppression. METHODS: Retrospective multicentric analysis of prospective collected data in COVID-19 patients consecutively admitted to 36 intensive care units (ICUs) in Spain and Andorra from March to June 2020. Adult (>18 years) patients with confirmed COVID-19 and available PCT values (<72 hours from ICU admission) were included. Patients were considered as "no immunosuppression" (NI), "chronic immunosuppression" (CI) and "acute immunosuppression" (AIT if only tocilizumab; AIS if only steroids, AITS if both). The primary outcome was the ability of PCT to predict ICU mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1079 eligible patients, 777 patients were included in the analysis. Mortality occurred in 227 (28%) patients. In the NI group 144 (19%) patients were included, 67 (9%) in the CI group, 66 (8%) in the AIT group, 262 (34%) in the AIS group and 238 (31%) in the AITS group; PCT was significantly higher in non-survivors when compared with survivors (0.64 [0.17-1.44] vs. 0.23 [0.11-0.60] ng/mL; P<0.01); however, in the multivariable analysis, PCT values was not independently associated with ICU mortality. PCT values and ICU mortality were significantly higher in patients in the NI and CI groups. CONCLUSIONS: PCT values are not independent predictors of ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients. Acute immunosuppression significantly reduced PCT values, although not influencing its predictive value.

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. RESULTS: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). CONCLUSIONS: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults: evidence and implications.

Rates of survival with functional recovery for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are notably low. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is emerging as a modality to improve prognosis by augmenting perfusion to vital end-organs by utilizing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during conventional CPR and stabilizing the patient for interventions aimed at reversing the aetiology of the arrest. Implementing this emergent procedure requires a substantial investment in resources, and even the most successful ECPR programs may nonetheless burden healthcare systems, clinicians, patients, and their families with unsalvageable patients supported by extracorporeal devices. Non-randomized and observational studies have repeatedly shown an association between ECPR and improved survival, versus conventional CPR, for in-hospital cardiac arrest in select patient populations. Recently, randomized controlled trials suggest benefit for ECPR over standard resuscitation, as well as the feasibility of performing such trials, in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest within highly coordinated healthcare delivery systems. Application of these data to clinical practice should be done cautiously, with outcomes likely to vary by the setting and system within which ECPR is initiated. ECPR introduces important ethical challenges, including whether it should be considered an extension of CPR, at what point it becomes sustained organ replacement therapy, and how to approach patients unable to recover or be bridged to heart replacement therapy. The economic impact of ECPR varies by health system, and has the potential to outstrip resources if used indiscriminately. Ideally, studies should include economic evaluations to inform health care systems about the cost-benefits of this therapy.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study.

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the ISARIC WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study

Due to the large number of patients with severe COVID-19, many were treated outside of the traditional walls of the ICU, and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside of the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC WHO COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes, and vasopressors. A logistic Generalised Additive Model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted and not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median [IQR], 67 years [55, 78]), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 days (5–19) and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those that were cared for outside of ICU (12 [6–23] versus 8 [4–15] days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% [5797/18831] versus 39.0% [7532/19295], p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR:0.70, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside of an ICU.

Do ventilatory parameters influence outcome in patients with severe acute respiratory infection? Secondary analysis of an international, multicentre14-day inception cohort study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the possible association between ventilatory settings on the first day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this pre-planned sub-study of a prospective, multicentre observational study, 441 patients with SARI who received controlled IMV during the ICU stay were included in the analysis. RESULTS: ICU and hospital mortality rates were 23.1 and 28.1%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, tidal volume and respiratory rate on the first day of IMV were not associated with an increased risk of death; however, higher driving pressure (DP: odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.1, p = 0.011), plateau pressure (Pplat) (OR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04-1.13, p < 0.001) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.24, p = 0.006) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. In subgroup analysis, in hypoxemic patients and in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), higher DP, Pplat, and PEEP were associated with increased risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SARI receiving IMV, higher DP, Pplat and PEEP, and not tidal volume, were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death, especially in those with hypoxemia or ARDS.

Fever management in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fever has been reported as a common symptom in COVID-19 patients. The aim of the study was to describe the characteristics of COVID-19 critically ill patients with fever and to assess if fever management had an impact on some physiologic variables. METHODS: This is a retrospective monocentric cohort analysis of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the Department of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Erasme Hospital, Brussels, Belgium, between March 2020 and May 2020. Fever was defined as body temperature ≥38 °C during the ICU stay. We assessed the independent predictors of fever during ICU stay. We reported the clinical and physiological variables before and after the first treated episode of fever during the ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 72 critically ill COVID-19 patients were admitted to the ICU over the study period and were all eligible for the final analysis; 53 (74%) of them developed fever, after a median of 4 [0-13] hours since ICU admission. In the multivariable analysis, male gender (OR 5.41 [C.I. 95% 1.34-21.92]; P=0.02) and low PaO2/FiO2 ratio (OR 0.99 [C.I. 95% 0.99-1.00]; P=0.04) were independently associated with fever. After the treatment of the first febrile episode, heart rate and respiratory rate significantly decreased together with an increase in PaO2 and SaO2. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, male gender and severe impairment of oxygenation were independently associated with fever in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Fever treatment reduced heart rate and respiratory rate and improved systemic oxygenation.

Hypothermia versus Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management is recommended for patients after cardiac arrest, but the supporting evidence is of low certainty. METHODS: In an open-label trial with blinded assessment of outcomes, we randomly assigned 1900 adults with coma who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac or unknown cause to undergo targeted hypothermia at 33°C, followed by controlled rewarming, or targeted normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, ≥37.8°C). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome at 6 months as assessed with the modified Rankin scale. Prespecified subgroups were defined according to sex, age, initial cardiac rhythm, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and presence or absence of shock on admission. Prespecified adverse events were pneumonia, sepsis, bleeding, arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise, and skin complications related to the temperature management device. RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were evaluated for the primary outcome. At 6 months, 465 of 925 patients (50%) in the hypothermia group had died, as compared with 446 of 925 (48%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.14; P = 0.37). Of the 1747 patients in whom the functional outcome was assessed, 488 of 881 (55%) in the hypothermia group had moderately severe disability or worse (modified Rankin scale score ≥4), as compared with 479 of 866 (55%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.09). Outcomes were consistent in the prespecified subgroups. Arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise was more common in the hypothermia group than in the normothermia group (24% vs. 17%, P<0.001). The incidence of other adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, targeted hypothermia did not lead to a lower incidence of death by 6 months than targeted normothermia. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; TTM2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02908308.).

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With COVID-19: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: To report and compare the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients on ECMO. METHODS: We performed an international retrospective study of COVID-19 patients on ECMO from 13 intensive care units from March 1 to April 30, 2020. Demographic data, ECMO characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was to assess the complication rate and 28-day mortality; the secondary outcome was to compare patient and ECMO characteristics between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and non-COVID-19 related ARDS patients on ECMO (non-COVID-19; January 1, 2018 until July 31, 2019). RESULTS: During the study period 71 COVID-19 patients received ECMO, mostly veno-venous, for a median duration of 13 days (IQR 7-20). ECMO was initiated at 5 days (IQR 3-10) following invasive mechanical ventilation. Median PaO2/FiO2 ratio prior to initiation of ECMO was similar in COVID-19 patients (58 mmHg [IQR 46-76]) and non-COVID-19 patients (53 mmHg [IQR 44-66]), the latter consisting of 48 patients. 28-day mortality was 37% in COVID-19 patients and 27% in non-COVID-19 patients. However, Kaplan-Meier curves showed that after a 100-day follow-up this non-significant difference resolves. Non-surviving COVID-19 patients were more acidotic prior to initiation ECMO, had a shorter ECMO run and fewer received muscle paralysis compared to survivors. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in outcomes were found between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients on ECMO. This suggests that ECMO could be considered as a supportive therapy in case of refractory respiratory failure in COVID-19.

The Acquisition of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria in Patients Admitted to COVID-19 Intensive Care Units: A Monocentric Retrospective Case Control Study.

Whether the risk of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB) acquisition in the intensive care unit (ICU) is modified by the COVID-19 crisis is unknown. In this single center case control study, we measured the rate of MDRB acquisition in patients admitted in COVID-19 ICU and compared it with patients admitted in the same ICU for subarachnoid hemorrhage (controls) matched 1:1 on length of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation. All patients were systematically and repeatedly screened for MDRB carriage. We compared the rate of MDRB acquisition in COVID-19 patients and in control using a competing risk analysis. Of note, although we tried to match COVID-19 patients with septic shock patients, we were unable due to the longer stay of COVID-19 patients. Among 72 patients admitted to the COVID-19 ICUs, 33% acquired 31 MDRB during ICU stay. The incidence density of MDRB acquisition was 30/1000 patient days. Antimicrobial therapy and exposure time were associated with higher rate of MDRB acquisition. Among the 72 SAH patients, 21% acquired MDRB, with an incidence density was 18/1000 patient days. The septic patients had more comorbidities and a greater number of previous hospitalizations than the COVID-19 patients. The incidence density of MDRB acquisition was 30/1000 patient days. The association between COVID-19 and MDRB acquisition (compared to control) risk did not reach statistical significance in the multivariable competing risk analysis (sHR 1.71 (CI 95% 0.93-3.21)). Thus, we conclude that, despite strong physical isolation, acquisition rate of MDRB in ICU patients was at least similar during the COVID-19 first wave compared to previous period.