Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr ; 46(8): 1875-1882, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1881433


BACKGROUND: Indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard for measuring resting energy expenditure. Energy expenditure (EE) estimated by ventilator-derived carbon dioxide consumption (EEVCO2 ) has also been proposed. In the absence of IC, predictive weight-based equations have been recommended to estimate daily energy requirements. This study aims to compare simple predictive weight-based equations with those estimated by EEVCO2 and IC in mechanically ventilated patients of COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective study of a cohort of critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition to compare energy estimations by three methods through the calculation of bias and precision agreement, reliability, and accuracy rates. RESULTS: In 58 mechanically ventilated patients, a total of 117 paired measurements were obtained. The mean estimated energy derived from weight-based calculations was 2576 ± 469 kcal/24 h, as compared with 1507 ± 499 kcal/24 h when EE was estimated by IC, resulting in a significant bias of 1069 kcal/day (95% CI [-2158 to 18.7 kcal]; P < 0.001). Similarly, estimated mean EEVCO2 was 1388 ± 467 kcal/24 h when compared with estimation of EE from IC. A significant bias of only 118 kcal/day (95% CI [-187 to 422 kcal]; P < 0.001), compared by the Bland-Altman plot, was noted. CONCLUSION: The energy estimated with EEVCO2 correlated better with IC values than energy derived from weight-based calculations. Our data suggest that the use of simple predictive equations may potentially lead to overfeeding in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.

COVID-19 , Respiration, Artificial , Adult , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , COVID-19/therapy , Calorimetry, Indirect/methods , Energy Metabolism , Critical Illness/therapy
Indian J Crit Care Med ; 24(12): 1218-1222, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-993960


Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) causes thromboinflammation resulting in a high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, which occur in significant numbers despite giving standard thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins. Various markers and tests have been evaluated and found to have a strong association with the worse prognosis of the disease. Common coagulation markers like D-dimer and fibrinogen give more of a static picture of coagulation, whereas viscoelastic tests like thromboelastography (TEG) provide an understanding of the coagulation function and help in better interpretation. We conducted a retrospective analysis of TEG values of 32 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Hypercoagulation as defined by TEG-coagulation index (CI) higher than the upper limit of the normal reference range (NRR) is found in 62.5% of the patients. There is also a clear representation of hypercoagulability as reflected by TEG-R, TEG-K, and TEG-LY30 values lower than or toward the lower limit of NRR, and TEG-ANGLE, TEG-MA, and TEG-CI values higher than or toward the upper limit of NRR which is more pronounced in severe forms of the disease, both in comparison to NRRs and other non-COVID ICU patients. Findings are similar to that of earlier studies in patients with COVID-19 except for the LY30, which is retained in the majority of our patients. Thromboelastography can be a useful tool to understand and screen for COVID-19-related hypercoagulability and may help predict VTE events. The potential of TEG to determine the optimal anticoagulant therapy needs to be evaluated in larger prospective studies. How to cite this article: Saseedharan S, Talla VB, Chiluka A. Thromboelastography Profile of Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to Intensive Care Unit: A Single-center Retrospective Study from India. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(12):1218-1222.