Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Int J Infect Dis ; 118: 83-88, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1838851

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care-associated infection (HAI) incidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Patients from 7 LMICs were followed up during hospital intensive care unit (ICU) stays from January 2019 to May 2020. HAI rates were calculated using the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) Surveillance Online System applying the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) criteria. Pre-COVID-19 rates for 2019 were compared with COVID-19 era rates for 2020 for central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), ventilator-associated events (VAEs), mortality, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 7,775 patients were followed up for 49,506 bed days. The 2019 to 2020 rate comparisons were 2.54 and 4.73 CLABSIs per 1,000 central line days (risk ratio [RR] = 1.85, p = .0006), 9.71 and 12.58 VAEs per 1,000 mechanical ventilator days (RR = 1.29, p = .10), and 1.64 and 1.43 CAUTIs per 1,000 urinary catheter days (RR = 1.14; p = .69). Mortality rates were 15.2% and 23.2% for 2019 and 2020 (RR = 1.42; p < .0001), respectively. Mean LOS for 2019 and 2020 were 6.02 and 7.54 days (RR = 1.21, p < .0001), respectively. DISCUSSION: This study documents an increase in HAI rates in 7 LMICs during the first 5 months of the COVID-19 pandemic and highlights the need to reprioritize and return to conventional infection prevention practices.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Urinary Tract Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care , Developing Countries , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Urinary Tract Infections/epidemiology
2.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(5): 580-589, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1797659

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia. METHODS: We assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero. RESULTS: We obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference - 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) - 11.7-3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72-1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI - 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (- 3 to 10; P = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dexamethasone , Hypoxia , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Humans , Hypoxia/complications , Hypoxia/drug therapy , Patient Acuity , Quality of Life , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome
3.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(1): 45-55, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1605102

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation. METHODS: We analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone. RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI -0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses. CONCLUSION: We found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone , Humans , Hypoxia , SARS-CoV-2 , Steroids
4.
J Intensive Care ; 9(1): 60, 2021 Oct 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Asia has more critically ill people than any other part of our planet. The aim of this article is to review the development of critical care as a specialty, critical care societies and education and research, the epidemiology of critical illness as well as epidemics and pandemics, accessibility and cost and quality of critical care, culture and end-of-life care, and future directions for critical care in Asia. MAIN BODY: Although the first Asian intensive care units (ICUs) surfaced in the 1960s and the 1970s and specialisation started in the 1990s, multiple challenges still exist, including the lack of intensivists, critical care nurses, and respiratory therapists in many countries. This is aggravated by the brain drain of skilled ICU staff to high-income countries. Critical care societies have been integral to the development of the discipline and have increasingly contributed to critical care education, although critical care research is only just starting to take off through collaboration across groups. Sepsis, increasingly aggravated by multidrug resistance, contributes to a significant burden of critical illness, while epidemics and pandemics continue to haunt the continent intermittently. In particular, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has highlighted the central role of critical care in pandemic response. Accessibility to critical care is affected by lack of ICU beds and high costs, and quality of critical care is affected by limited capability for investigations and treatment in low- and middle-income countries. Meanwhile, there are clear cultural differences across countries, with considerable variations in end-of-life care. Demand for critical care will rise across the continent due to ageing populations and rising comorbidity burdens. Even as countries respond by increasing critical care capacity, the critical care community must continue to focus on training for ICU healthcare workers, processes anchored on evidence-based medicine, technology guided by feasibility and impact, research applicable to Asian and local settings, and rallying of governments for support for the specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care in Asia has progressed through the years, but multiple challenges remain. These challenges should be addressed through a collaborative approach across disciplines, ICUs, hospitals, societies, governments, and countries.

5.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 65(5): 702-710, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1081822

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to severe hypoxic respiratory failure and death. Corticosteroids decrease mortality in severely or critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the optimal dose remains unresolved. The ongoing randomised COVID STEROID 2 trial investigates the effects of higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone (12 vs 6 mg intravenously daily for up to 10 days) in 1,000 adult patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: This protocol outlines the rationale and statistical methods for a secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the primary outcome (days alive without life support at day 28) and all secondary outcomes registered up to day 90. We will use hurdle-negative binomial models to estimate the mean number of days alive without life support in each group and present results as mean differences and incidence rate ratios with 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). Additional count outcomes will be analysed similarly and binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with results presented as probabilities, relative risks and risk differences with 95% CrIs. We will present probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and probabilities of effects smaller than pre-defined clinically minimally important differences for all outcomes analysed. Analyses will be adjusted for stratification variables and conducted using weakly informative priors supplemented by sensitivity analyses using sceptic priors. DISCUSSION: This secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will supplement the primary, conventional analysis and may help clinicians, researchers and policymakers interpret the results of the COVID STEROID 2 trial while avoiding arbitrarily dichotomised interpretations of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973; EudraCT: 2020-003363-25.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Hypoxia/drug therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Bayes Theorem , Humans
6.
Indian J Anaesth ; 64(Suppl 2): S107-S115, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-708564

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a highly contagious virus. The closed environment of the operation room (OR) with aerosol generating airway management procedures increases the risk of transmission of infection among the anaesthesiologists and other OR personnel. Wearing complete, fluid impermeable personal protective equipment (PPE) for airway related procedures is recommended. Team preparation, clear methods of communication and appropriate donning and doffing of PPEs are essential to prevent spread of the infection. Optimal pre oxygenation, rapid sequence induction and video laryngoscope aided tracheal intubation (TI) are recommended. Supraglottic airways (SGA) and surgical cricothyroidotomy should be preferred for airway rescue. High flow nasal oxygen, face mask ventilation, nebulisation, small bore cannula cricothyroidotomy with jet ventilation should be avoided. Tracheal extubation should be conducted with the same levels of precaution as TI. The All India Difficult Airway Association (AIDAA) aims to provide consensus guidelines for safe airway management in the OR, while attempting to prevent transmission of infection to the OR personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic.

7.
Lancet Respir Med ; 8(5): 506-517, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-35108

ABSTRACT

As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads across the world, the intensive care unit (ICU) community must prepare for the challenges associated with this pandemic. Streamlining of workflows for rapid diagnosis and isolation, clinical management, and infection prevention will matter not only to patients with COVID-19, but also to health-care workers and other patients who are at risk from nosocomial transmission. Management of acute respiratory failure and haemodynamics is key. ICU practitioners, hospital administrators, governments, and policy makers must prepare for a substantial increase in critical care bed capacity, with a focus not just on infrastructure and supplies, but also on staff management. Critical care triage to allow the rationing of scarce ICU resources might be needed. Researchers must address unanswered questions, including the role of repurposed and experimental therapies. Collaboration at the local, regional, national, and international level offers the best chance of survival for the critically ill.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Care/methods , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL