Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 148, 2022 05 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862142

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A higher-than-usual resistance to standard sedation regimens in COVID-19 patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has led to the frequent use of the second-line anaesthetic agent ketamine. Simultaneously, an increased incidence of cholangiopathies in mechanically ventilated patients receiving prolonged infusion of high-dose ketamine has been noted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate a potential dose-response relationship between ketamine and bilirubin levels. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients suffering from COVID-19-associated ARDS between March 2020 and August 2021. A time-varying, multivariable adjusted, cumulative weighted exposure mixed-effects model was employed to analyse the exposure-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and total bilirubin levels. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-three critically ill patients were included into the analysis. Ketamine was infused to 170 (70%) patients at a rate of 1.4 [0.9-2.0] mg/kg/h for 9 [4-18] days. The mixed-effects model revealed a positively correlated infusion duration-effect as well as dose-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and rising bilirubin levels (p < 0.0001). In comparison, long-term infusion of propofol and sufentanil, even at high doses, was not associated with increasing bilirubin levels (p = 0.421, p = 0.258). Patients having received ketamine infusion had a multivariable adjusted competing risk hazard of developing a cholestatic liver injury during their ICU stay of 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-7.8] (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A causally plausible, dose-effect relationship between long-term infusion of ketamine and rising total bilirubin levels, as well as an augmented, ketamine-associated, hazard of cholestatic liver injury in critically ill COVID-19 patients could be shown. High-dose ketamine should be refrained from whenever possible for the long-term analgosedation of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ketamine , Propofol , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Bilirubin , COVID-19/complications , Critical Illness , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Ketamine/adverse effects , Liver , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/chemically induced , Retrospective Studies
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 607594, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1325533

ABSTRACT

The continued digitalization of medicine has led to an increased availability of longitudinal patient data that allows the investigation of novel and known diseases in unprecedented detail. However, to accurately describe any underlying pathophysiology and allow inter-patient comparisons, individual patient trajectories have to be synchronized based on temporal markers. In this pilot study, we use longitudinal data from critically ill ICU COVID-19 patients to compare the commonly used alignment markers "onset of symptoms," "hospital admission," and "ICU admission" with a novel objective method based on the peak value of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP). By applying our CRP-based method to align the progression of neutrophils and lymphocytes, we were able to define a pathophysiological window that improved mortality risk stratification in our COVID-19 patient cohort. Our data highlights that proper synchronization of longitudinal patient data is crucial for accurate interpatient comparisons and the definition of relevant subgroups. The use of objective temporal disease markers will facilitate both translational research efforts and multicenter trials.

3.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(10): 1184-1193, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1261246

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Tidal Volume
4.
Cell Rep Med ; 2(4): 100229, 2021 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1129218

ABSTRACT

The impact of secondary bacterial infections (superinfections) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not well understood. In this prospective, monocentric cohort study, we aim to investigate the impact of superinfections in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients are assessed for concomitant microbial infections by longitudinal analysis of tracheobronchial secretions, bronchoalveolar lavages, and blood cultures. In 45 critically ill patients, we identify 19 patients with superinfections (42.2%). Superinfections are detected on day 10 after intensive care admission. The proportion of participants alive and off invasive mechanical ventilation at study day 28 (ventilator-free days [VFDs] at 28 days) is substantially lower in patients with superinfection (subhazard ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.90; p = 0.028). Patients with pulmonary superinfections have a higher incidence of bacteremia, virus reactivations, yeast colonization, and required intensive care treatment for a longer time. Superinfections are frequent and associated with reduced VFDs at 28 days despite a high rate of empirical antibiotic therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/pathology , Respiration, Artificial , Superinfection/diagnosis , Aged , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/microbiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Enterococcus faecalis/isolation & purification , Female , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pseudomonas aeruginosa/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Superinfection/complications , Superinfection/epidemiology , Time Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL