Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Eur J Intern Med ; 100: 110-118, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800087

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: Various forms of Non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) have been used during COVID-19, to treat Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure (HARF), but it has been suggested that the occurrence of strenuous inspiratory efforts may cause Self Induced Lung Injury(P-SILI). The aim of this investigation was to record esophageal pressure, when starting NRS application, so as to better understand the potential risk of the patients in terms of P-SILI and ventilator induced lung injury (VILI). METHODS AND MEASUREMENTS: 21 patients with early de-novo respiratory failure due to COVID-19, underwent three 30 min trials applied in random order: high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). After each trial, standard oxygen therapy was reinstituted using a Venturi mask (VM). 15 patients accepted a nasogastric tube placement. Esophageal Pressure (ΔPes) and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPLDyn), together with the breathing pattern using a bioelectrical impedance monitor were recorded. Arterial blood gases were collected in all patients. MAIN RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in breathing pattern and PaCO2 were found. PaO2/FiO2 ratio improved significantly during NIV and CPAP vs VM. NIV was the only NRS to reduce significantly ΔPes vs. VM (-10,2 ±5 cmH20 vs -3,9 ±3,4). No differences were found in ΔPLDyn between NRS (10,2±5; 9,9±3,8; 7,6±4,3; 8,8±3,6 during VM, HFNC, CPAP and NIV respectively). Minute ventilation (Ve) was directly dependent on the patient's inspiratory effort, irrespective of the NRS applied. 14% of patients were intubated, none of them showing a reduction in ΔPes during NRS. CONCLUSIONS: In the early phase of HARF due to COVID-19, the inspiratory effort may not be markedly elevated and the application of NIV and CPAP ameliorates oxygenation vs VM. NIV was superior in reducing ΔPes, maintaining ΔPLDyn within a range of potential safety.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Hypoxia/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
2.
Eur Respir J ; 2022 Mar 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1775304

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with Covid-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for 3 consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of the patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need of supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 of 151 (75.4%) patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 of 150 (75.2%) in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups [15 days (95% confidence interval (CI), 13.0 to 17.0) and 16 days (95%CI, 13.8 to 18.2); hazard ratio (HR), 0.92; 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528]. No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to Intensive Care Unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR, 1.26; 95%CI, 0.74-2.16; p=0.176), or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. MESSAGE OF THE STUDY: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used for severe and/or life threatening immuno-inflammatory diseases. The addition of pulse glucocorticoid therapy to the standard low dose of dexamethasone scheme was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

3.
Pulmonology ; 2021 Mar 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1144904

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Prone positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL