Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
1.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(6): 689-702, 2022 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1851566

ABSTRACT

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Several observational studies have described hemostatic derangements and thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current evidence on pathologic findings, pathophysiology, coagulation and hemostatic abnormalities, D-dimer's role in prognostication epidemiology and risk factors of thrombotic complications, and the role of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. While existing evidence is limited in quality, COVID-19 appears to increase micro-and macro-vascular thrombosis rates in hospitalized and critically ill patients, which may contribute to the burden of disease. D-dimer can be used for risk stratification of hospitalized patients, but its role to guide anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. Evidence of higher quality is needed to address the role of therapeutic anticoagulation or high-intensity venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. TAKE-HOME POINTS.

2.
JAMA ; 327(21): 2104-2113, 2022 06 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1843811

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Intubation, Intratracheal , Prone Position , Respiratory Insufficiency , Wakefulness , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
3.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-305413

ABSTRACT

Background: The increasing burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is straining intensive care unit (ICU) resources globally. Early use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) decreases the need for endotracheal intubation (EI) in different causes of respiratory failure. While HFNC is used in COVID-19-related AHRF, its efficacy remains to be investigated. We aimed to examine whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) prevents the need for intubation in COVID-19 with (AHRF). Methods: This is a single-center prospective observational study that was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Saudi Arabia the period from April, 2020 to August, 2020. Adults patients admitted to the ICU with AHRF secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with HFNC were included. We excluded hemodynamically unstable patients and those who were intubated or managed with non-invasive ventilation. Patients’ data and clinical outcomes were pre-defined. The primary outcome was to determine the rate of EI among patients who were treated with HFNC. Secondary outcomes included predictors of HFNC success/failure, mortality, and hospital length of stay. Results: We consecutively screened 111 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with AHRF,. Out of those, 44 (40%) patients received HFNC with a median duration of three days (IQR, 1–5). The median age was 57 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46–64), and 82% were men. HFNC failure and EI occurred in 29 (66%) patients. Patients who failed HFNC treatment had higher risk of death compared to those who did not (52% vs. 0%;p=0.001). At baseline, the prevalence of hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and asthma was higher in the HFNC failure group. After adjustment for possible confounders, a high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and a low ROX index were significantly associated with HFNC failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.93;p=0.025;and HR, 0.61;95% CI, 0.42–0.88;p=0.008, respectively). Conclusions: In this prospective study, one-third of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients who received HFNC did not require intubation. High SOFA score and low ROX index were associated with HFNC failure.

4.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-305264

ABSTRACT

Background: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. Results: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. Conclusion: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

5.
J Infect Public Health ; 15(1): 142-151, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations. RESULTS: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations. CONCLUSION: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia
6.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(3): e74-e87, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510480

ABSTRACT

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Consensus , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units/standards , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Delphi Technique , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment/standards
7.
Crit Care Med ; 49(11): 1974-1982, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475880
8.
Saudi J Med Med Sci ; 9(3): 215-222, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1449040

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) decreases the need for endotracheal intubation (EI) in different respiratory failure causes. While HFNC is used in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) under weak recommendations, its efficacy remains to be investigated. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to examine HFNC efficacy in preventing EI among COVID-19 patients with AHRF. Secondary objectives were to determine predictors of HFNC success/failure, mortality rate, and length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study conducted at a single tertiary care centre in Saudi Arabia from April to August 2020. Adult patients admitted to the ICU with AHRF secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia and managed with HFNC were included. We excluded patients who were intubated or managed with non-invasive ventilation before HFNC. RESULTS: Forty-four patients received HFNC for a median duration of 3 days (interquartile range, 1-5 days). The mean age was 57 ± 14 years, and 86% were men. HFNC failure and EI occurred in 29 (66%) patients. Patients in whom HNFC treatment failed had a higher risk of death (52% versus 0%; P = 0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors, a high SOFA score and a low ROX index were significantly associated with HFNC failure (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.93; P = 0.025; and HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; P = 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: One-third of hypoxemic COVID-19 patients who received HFNC did not require intubation. High SOFA score and low ROX index were associated with HFNC failure.

9.
Saudi J Gastroenterol ; 27(4): 201-207, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1261400

ABSTRACT

Patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) and liver transplant recipients are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although several studies demonstrated the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in the general population, data in CLD patients and liver transplant recipients are lacking. Two COVID-19 vaccines were approved by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority and rolled out to several million recipients in Saudi Arabia. These vaccines are mRNA-based vaccine BNT162b2 from Pfizer/BioNTech and adenovirus-based AZD1222 from Oxford/AstraZeneca from three manufacturing sites (EU Nodes, Serum Institute of India, and South Korea Bio). The Saudi Association for the Study of Liver diseases and Transplantation (SASLT) has reviewed the available evidence and issued interim recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in CLD and liver transplant recipients. Since there is no evidence contradicting the safety and immunogenicity of the currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in patients with CLD and hepatobiliary cancer and liver transplant recipients, the SASLT recommends vaccination in those patient populations. CLD and hepatobiliary cancer patients and liver transplant recipients should be prioritized depending on the risk factors for severe COVID-19. In transplant recipients, the optimal timing of vaccination remains unknown; however, immunization is recommended after the initial immunosuppression phase. Patients with CLD and liver transplant candidates or recipients should be closely monitored after COVID-19 vaccination. These patient populations should be included in future clinical trials to provide further evidence on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Liver Diseases , Liver Transplantation , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Saudi Arabia
10.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(5): 521-537, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193132

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Corticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS. METHODS: The protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality. RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course. CONCLUSION: The use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 106, 2021 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136238

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Humans
12.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): e219-e234, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Disease Management , Intensive Care Units , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants , Evidence-Based Medicine , Hemodynamics , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Immunization, Passive , Patient Positioning , Ventilation
13.
Saudi J Med Med Sci ; 9(1): 1-2, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1027785
14.
PLoS One ; 16(1): e0244778, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1013217

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/adverse effects , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/metabolism , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/metabolism , Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
15.
Pol Arch Intern Med ; 130(9): 816-817, 2020 09 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-881563
16.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(11): e1031-e1037, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-744635

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Pediatrics/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Sepsis/therapy , Algorithms , Attitude to Health , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Child , Critical Care/standards , Humans , Multiple Organ Failure/etiology , Multiple Organ Failure/therapy , Pandemics , Resuscitation/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Sepsis/etiology , Shock, Septic/etiology , Shock, Septic/therapy , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
17.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(3): 204-216, 2020 08 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-725509

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Aerosols , Animals , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/transmission , Systematic Reviews as Topic , World Health Organization
19.
Crit Care Med ; 48(10): 1403-1410, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-717244

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the importance of critical care clinical research that is not pandemic-focused during pandemic times; outline principles to assist in the prioritization of nonpandemic research during pandemic times; and propose a guiding framework for decisions about whether, when and how to continue nonpandemic research while still honoring the moral and scientific imperative to launch research that is pandemic-focused. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: Using in-person, email, and videoconference exchanges, we convened an interprofessional clinical research group, conducted a literature review of empirical studies, ethics documents and expert commentaries (2010 to present), and viewed traditional and social media posts (March 2020 to May 2020). Stakeholder consultation involved scientific, ethics, clinical, and administrative leaders. SETTING: Clinical research in the ICU. PATIENTS: Patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: While clinical research should be prioritized to advantage patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in order to care for affected patients, it ideally would not unduly disadvantage patients without coronavirus disease 2019. Thus, timely, rigorous, relevant, and ethical clinical research is needed to improve the care and optimize outcomes for both patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019, acknowledging how many studies that are not exclusively focused on coronavirus disease 2019 remain relevant to patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Considerations to continue nonpandemic-focused research include the status of the pandemic, local jurisdictional guidance, capacity and safety of bedside and research personnel, disposition of patients already enrolled in nonpandemic studies, analyzing characteristics of each nonpandemic-focused study, research oversight, and final reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberation about continuing nonpandemic research should use objective, transparent criteria considering several aspects of the research process such as bedside and research staff safety, infection control, the informed consent model, protocol complexity, data collection, and implementation integrity. Decisions to pause or pursue nonpandemic research should be proportionate, transparent, and revisited as the pandemic abates.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Care/standards , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Global Health , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Research Design , Safety Management
20.
Crit Care Med ; 48(6): e440-e469, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-685042

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL