Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 141, 2022 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846858

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. METHODS: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. RESULTS: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0-25) and 25 (IQR 7-26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0-87) and 87 (IQR 0-88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Aged , COVID-19/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/therapeutic use , Propensity Score , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy
2.
BMJ ; 377: e068723, 2022 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1822063

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional mechanical ventilation on outcomes of patients with covid-19 associated respiratory failure. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: 30 countries across five continents, 3 January 2020 to 29 August 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 7345 adults admitted to the intensive care unit with clinically suspected or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTIONS: ECMO in patients with a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio <80 mm Hg compared with conventional mechanical ventilation without ECMO. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was hospital mortality within 60 days of admission to the intensive care unit. Adherence adjusted estimates were calculated using marginal structural models with inverse probability weighting, accounting for competing events and for baseline and time varying confounding. RESULTS: 844 of 7345 eligible patients (11.5%) received ECMO at any time point during follow-up. Adherence adjusted mortality was 26.0% (95% confidence interval 24.5% to 27.5%) for a treatment strategy that included ECMO if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio decreased <80 mm Hg compared with 33.2% (31.8% to 34.6%) had patients received conventional treatment without ECMO (risk difference -7.1%, 95% confidence interval -8.2% to -6.1%; risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.82). In secondary analyses, ECMO was most effective in patients aged <65 years and with a PaO2/FiO2 <80 mm Hg or with driving pressures >15 cmH2O during the first 10 days of mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO was associated with a reduction in mortality in selected adults with covid-19 associated respiratory failure. Age, severity of hypoxaemia, and duration and intensity of mechanical ventilation were found to be modifiers of treatment effectiveness and should be considered when deciding to initiate ECMO in patients with covid-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Oxygen , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Crit Care Med ; 50(2): 275-285, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1691783

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The study investigated the impact of prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory failure on the patient outcome. DESIGN: An observational study of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients. We used a multistate survival model to compare the outcomes of patients treated with or without prone positioning during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which incorporates the dynamic nature of prone positioning and adjusts for potential confounders. SETTING: Seventy-two international institutions participating in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium international registry. PATIENTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients who were supported by venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the study period. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 232 coronavirus disease 2019 patients at 72 participating institutions who were supported with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the study period from February 16, 2020, to October 31, 2020. Proning was used in 176 patients (76%) before initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and in 67 patients (29%) during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Survival to hospital discharge was 33% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation prone group versus 22% in the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation supine group. Prone positioning during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights that prone positioning during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for refractory coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with reduced mortality. Given the observational nature of the study, a randomized controlled trial of prone positioning on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is needed to confirm these findings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Patient Positioning/methods , Prone Position , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Probability , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology
5.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(11): e0567, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1515112

ABSTRACT

Factors associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation are still not fully elucidated. OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-level parameters, readily available at the bedside, associated with the risk of in-hospital mortality within 28 days from commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation or coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational cohort study by the global Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium. Patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation from February 2, 2020, to May 15, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient characteristics and clinical data were assessed upon ICU admission, the commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation and for 28 days thereafter. We primarily aimed to identify time-independent and time-dependent risk factors for 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality. RESULTS: One-thousand five-hundred eighty-seven patients were included in the survival analysis; 588 patients died in hospital within 28 days of commencing invasive mechanical ventilation (37%). Cox-regression analysis identified associations between the hazard of 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality with age (hazard ratio, 1.26 per 10-yr increase in age; 95% CI, 1.16-1.37; p < 0.001), positive end-expiratory pressure upon commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.81 per 5 cm H2O increase; 95% CI, 0.67-0.97; p = 0.02). Time-dependent parameters associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality were serum creatinine (hazard ratio, 1.28 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41; p < 0.001), lactate (hazard ratio, 1.22 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.11-1.34; p < 0.001), Paco2 (hazard ratio, 1.63 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.19-2.25; p < 0.001), pH (hazard ratio, 0.89 per 0.1 increase; 95% CI, 0.8-14; p = 0.041), Pao2/Fio2 (hazard ratio, 0.58 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.52-0.66; p < 0.001), and mean arterial pressure (hazard ratio, 0.92 per 10 mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This international study suggests that in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on invasive mechanical ventilation, older age and clinically relevant variables monitored at baseline or sequentially during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation are associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality hazard. Further investigation is warranted to validate any causative roles these parameters might play in influencing clinical outcomes.

6.
Global Health ; 17(1): 84, 2021 07 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1327935

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The initial research requirements in pandemics are predictable. But how is it possible to study a disease that is so quickly spreading and to rapidly use that research to inform control and treatment? MAIN BODY: In our view, a dilemma with such wide-reaching impact mandates multi-disciplinary collaborations on a global scale. International research collaboration is the only means to rapidly address these fundamental questions and potentially change the paradigm of data sharing for the benefit of patients throughout the world. International research collaboration presents significant benefits but also barriers that need to be surmounted, especially in low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSION: Facilitating international cooperation, by building capacity in established collaborative platforms and in low- and middle-income countries, is imperative to efficiently answering the priority clinical research questions that can change the trajectory of a pandemic.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , COVID-19/prevention & control , Capacity Building , Global Health , International Cooperation , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans
7.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 199, 2021 06 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262513

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneous respiratory system static compliance (CRS) values and levels of hypoxemia in patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) requiring mechanical ventilation have been reported in previous small-case series or studies conducted at a national level. METHODS: We designed a retrospective observational cohort study with rapid data gathering from the international COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium study to comprehensively describe CRS-calculated as: tidal volume/[airway plateau pressure-positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)]-and its association with ventilatory management and outcomes of COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation (MV), admitted to intensive care units (ICU) worldwide. RESULTS: We studied 745 patients from 22 countries, who required admission to the ICU and MV from January 14 to December 31, 2020, and presented at least one value of CRS within the first seven days of MV. Median (IQR) age was 62 (52-71), patients were predominantly males (68%) and from Europe/North and South America (88%). CRS, within 48 h from endotracheal intubation, was available in 649 patients and was neither associated with the duration from onset of symptoms to commencement of MV (p = 0.417) nor with PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.100). Females presented lower CRS than males (95% CI of CRS difference between females-males: - 11.8 to - 7.4 mL/cmH2O p < 0.001), and although females presented higher body mass index (BMI), association of BMI with CRS was marginal (p = 0.139). Ventilatory management varied across CRS range, resulting in a significant association between CRS and driving pressure (estimated decrease - 0.31 cmH2O/L per mL/cmH20 of CRS, 95% CI - 0.48 to - 0.14, p < 0.001). Overall, 28-day ICU mortality, accounting for the competing risk of being discharged within the period, was 35.6% (SE 1.7). Cox proportional hazard analysis demonstrated that CRS (+ 10 mL/cm H2O) was only associated with being discharge from the ICU within 28 days (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28, p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre report provides a comprehensive account of CRS in COVID-19 patients on MV. CRS measured within 48 h from commencement of MV has marginal predictive value for 28-day mortality, but was associated with being discharged from ICU within the same period. Trial documentation: Available at https://www.covid-critical.com/study . TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000421932.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Lung Compliance/physiology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Cohort Studies , Critical Care/methods , Europe , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index
8.
ASAIO J ; 67(3): 254-262, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1101913

ABSTRACT

Viscoelastic coagulation monitor (VCM) is a portable device developed to evaluate the viscoelastic properties of whole blood activated by contact with glass. In this study, VCM was employed to analyze the viscoelastic profiles of 36 COVID-19 intensive care patients. Full anticoagulant dose heparin (unfractionated [UFH]; low molecular weight [LMWH]) was administrated to all patients. The association between VCM and laboratory parameters was retrospectively analyzed. The administration of UFH-influenced VCM parameters prolonging clotting time (CT) and clot formation time (CFT) and reducing angle (alpha) and amplitudes of the VCM tracings (A10, A20, and maximum clot firmness [MCF]) compared with LMWH therapy. A tendency toward hypercoagulation was observed by short CT and CFT in patients receiving LMWH. Clotting time was correlated with UFH dose (Spearman's rho = 0.48, p ≤ 0.001), and no correlation was found between CT and LMWH. All VCM tracings failed to show lysis at 30 and 45 minutes, indicating the absence of fibrinolysis. A10, A20, and MCF exhibited very-good to good diagnostic accuracy for detecting platelet count and fibrinogen above the upper reference limit of the laboratory. In conclusion, VCM provided reliable results in COVID-19 patients and was easy to perform with minimal training at the bedside.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Monitoring, Physiologic/instrumentation , Point-of-Care Systems , Thrombelastography/instrumentation , Adult , Blood Coagulation , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombelastography/methods , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Thrombosis/virology
10.
ASAIO J ; 66(7): 707-721, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-981428

ABSTRACT

Disclaimer: The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Guidelines have been developed to assist existing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) centers to prepare and plan provision of ECMO during the ongoing pandemic. The recommendations have been put together by a team of interdisciplinary ECMO providers from around the world. Recommendations are based on available evidence, existing best practice guidelines, ethical principles, and expert opinion. This is a living document and will be regularly updated when new information becomes available. ELSO is not liable for the accuracy or completeness of the information in this document. These guidelines are not meant to replace sound clinical judgment or specialist consultation but rather to strengthen provision and clinical management of ECMO specifically, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Pediatr Crit Care Med ; 21(10): 902-903, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-852031
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL