Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 28
Filter
1.
Crit Care Explor ; 2(6): e0139, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1795099

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has stretched ICU resources in an unprecedented fashion and outstripped personal protective equipment supplies. The combination of a novel disease, resource limitations, and risks to medical personnel health have created new barriers to implementing the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; and "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, a proven ICU care approach that reduces delirium, shortens mechanical ventilation duration, prevents post-ICU syndrome, and reduces healthcare costs. This narrative review acknowledges barriers and offers strategies to optimize Bundle performance in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. DATA SOURCES STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: The most relevant literature, media reports, and author experiences were assessed for inclusion in this narrative review including PubMed, national newspapers, and critical care/pharmacology textbooks. DATA SYNTHESIS: Uncertainty regarding coronavirus disease 2019 clinical course, shifts in attitude, and changes in routine behavior have hindered Bundle use. A domino effect results from: 1) changes to critical care hierarchy, priorities, and ICU team composition; 2) significant personal protective equipment shortages cause; 3) reduced/restricted physical bedside presence favoring; 4) increased depth of sedation and use of neuromuscular blockade; 5) which exacerbate drug shortages; and 6) which require prolonged use of limited ventilator resources. Other identified barriers include manageable knowledge deficits among non-ICU clinicians unfamiliar with the Bundle or among PICU specialists deploying pediatric-based Bundle approaches who are unfamiliar with adult medicine. Both groups have been enlisted to augment the adult ICU work force to meet demand. Strategies were identified to facilitate Bundle performance to liberate patients from the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: We acknowledge current challenges that interfere with comprehensive management of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Rapid response to new circumstances precisely requires established safety mechanisms and protocols like the ABCDEF Bundle to increase ICU and ventilator capacity and help survivors maximize recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 as early as possible.

2.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 2022 Mar 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764954

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress. METHODS: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression. RESULTS: Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.

3.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(4): 327-336, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1665591

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The oral, selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib has shown efficacy in studies of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a multinational, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of baricitinib in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib plus standard of care in critically ill hospitalised adults with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. METHODS: This exploratory trial followed the study design of COV-BARRIER in a critically ill cohort not included in the main phase 3 trial. The study was conducted across 18 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and the USA. Participants (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection on baseline invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were randomly assigned (1:1) to baricitinib (4 mg) or placebo once daily for up to 14 days in combination with standard of care. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to study group assignment. Prespecified endpoints included all-cause mortality through days 28 and 60, number of ventilator-free days, duration of hospitalisation, and time to recovery through day 28. The efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in the safety population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2020, and April 10, 2021, 101 participants were enrolled into the exploratory trial and assigned to baricitinib (n=51) or placebo (n=50) plus standard of care. Standard of care included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 87 (86%) participants. Treatment with baricitinib significantly reduced 28-day all-cause mortality compared with placebo (20 [39%] of 51 participants died in the baricitinib group vs 29 [58%] of 50 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·31-0·96]; p=0·030; 46% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 19%). A significant reduction in 60-day mortality was also observed in the baricitinib group compared with the placebo group (23 [45%] events vs 31 [62%]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·33-0·97]; p=0·027; 44% relative reduction; absolute risk reduction 17%). In every six baricitinib-treated participants, one additional death was prevented compared with placebo at days 28 and 60. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between treatment groups (mean 8·1 days [SD 10·2] in the baricitinib group vs 5·5 days [8·4] in the placebo group; p=0·21). The mean duration of hospitalisation in baricitinib-treated participants was not significantly shorter than in placebo-treated participants (23·7 days [SD 7·1] vs 26·1 days [3·9]; p=0·050). The rates of infections, blood clots, and adverse cardiovascular events were similar between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: In critically ill hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, treatment with baricitinib compared with placebo (in combination with standard of care, including corticosteroids) reduced mortality, which is consistent with the mortality reduction observed in less severely ill patients in the hospitalised primary COV-BARRIER study population. However, this was an exploratory trial with a relatively small sample size; therefore, further phase 3 trials are needed to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Adolescent , Adult , Azetidines , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Purines , Pyrazoles , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Standard of Care , Sulfonamides , Treatment Outcome
4.
Chest ; 2022 Jan 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1624426

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Broad-scale adoption of spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) into everyday practice has been slow, and uncertainty exists regarding what factors facilitate or impede their routine delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: What patient, practice, and pharmacologic factors are associated with SAT and SBT performance and to what extent do they predict overall SAT/SBT performance? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This secondary analysis used data collected from a national quality improvement collaborative composed of 68 diverse ICUs. Critically ill adults who received mechanical ventilation and/or continuously infused sedative medications were included. We performed mixed-effects logistic regression modeling, created receiver operating characteristic curves, and calculated the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Included in the SAT and SBT analysis were 4,847 and 4,938 patients, respectively. In multivariable models controlling for admitting patient characteristics, factors independently associated with higher odds of a next-day SAT and SBT included physical restraint use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.42-1.87; AOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.60-2.09), documented target sedation level (AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.41-2.01; AOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24-1.72), more frequent level of arousal assessments (AOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54), and dexmedetomidine administration (AOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; AOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.27-1.80). Factors independently associated with lower odds of a next-day SAT and SBT included deep sedation/coma (AOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.80; AOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28-0.37) and benzodiazepine (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95; AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.77) or ketamine (AOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.71; AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.88) administration. Models incorporating admitting, daily, and unit variations displayed moderate discriminant accuracy in predicting next-day SAT (AUC, 0.73) and SBT (AUC, 0.72) performance. INTERPRETATION: There are a number of modifiable factors associated with SAT/SBT performance that are amenable to the development and testing of implementation interventions.

7.
J Allergy Clin Immunol ; 149(2): 565-568, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1565578

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Open forum infectious diseases ; 8(Suppl 1):S808-S809, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564089

ABSTRACT

Background Interventions to reduce mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are a crucial unmet medical need. Baricitinib (BARI) is an oral, selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor with efficacy in hospitalized adults with COVID-19. Treatment with BARI 4-mg was evaluated in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 with baseline need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Methods COV-BARRIER (NCT04421027) was a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and elevation of ≥ 1 serum inflammatory marker. In this newly completed substudy, enrolled participants (not previously reported) from 4 countries on IMV or ECMO at study entry were randomly assigned 1:1 to once-daily BARI 4-mg or placebo (PBO) for up to 14 days plus standard of care (SOC), which included baseline systemic corticosteroid use in 86% of patients. The prespecified exploratory endpoints included all-cause mortality and number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) through Day 28. Results Characteristics for 101 participants are shown in Table 1. Treatment with BARI significantly reduced all-cause mortality by Day 28 compared to PBO [39.2% vs 58.0%, respectively;hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54 (95%CI 0.31, 0.96), p=0.030, relative risk (RR) = 0.68 (95%CI 0.45, 1.02);Figure 1A]. One additional death was prevented for every six BARI-treated patients. Significant reduction in mortality was also observed by Day 60 [45.1% vs 62.0%;HR = 0.56 (95%CI 0.33, 0.97), p=0.027, RR = 0.73 (95%CI 0.50, 1.06);Figure 1B]. Patients treated with BARI showed a numerical reduction in the duration of IMV and duration of hospitalization vs PBO and more BARI treated patients recovered (Table 2). No new safety findings were observed (Table 2). Conclusion Treatment with BARI+SOC (corticosteroids) resulted in an absolute risk reduction in mortality of 19% at Day 28 and 17% at Day 60 in patients with COVID-19 who were on IMV or ECMO at enrollment. These results are consistent with the reduction in mortality observed in the less severely ill hospitalized patients in the primary COV-BARRIER study population. Disclosures E. Wesley Ely, MD, CDC (Grant/Research Support)Eli Lilly (Other Financial or Material Support, Unpaid consultant)NIH (Grant/Research Support)VA (Grant/Research Support) Athimalaipet V. Ramanan, FRCP, AbbVie (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Eli Lilly and Company (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)Novartis (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Pfizer (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Roche (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)Sobi (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau)UCB (Consultant, Speaker’s Bureau) Cynthia E. Kartman, RN BSN, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Stephanie de Bono, MD PhD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Ran Liao, PhD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Maria Lucia B Piruzeli, MD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Sujatro Chakladar, PhD, Eli Lilly and Company (Employee, Shareholder) Vincent Marconi, MD, Bayer (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Eli Lilly (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)

9.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1407-1418, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1545515

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of -2·7 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41-0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47-0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company. TRANSLATIONS: For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
Azetidines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Purines/therapeutic use , Pyrazoles/therapeutic use , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , Adult , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents , Asia , COVID-19/drug therapy , Dexamethasone , Double-Blind Method , Europe , Humans , North America , SARS-CoV-2 , South America , Treatment Outcome
10.
The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1498764
11.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(10): 1089-1103, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1359936

ABSTRACT

Delirium is the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. In the intensive care unit (ICU), duration of delirium is independently predictive of excess death, length of stay, cost of care, and acquired dementia. There are numerous neurotransmitter/functional and/or injury-causing hypotheses rather than a unifying mechanism for delirium. Without using a validated delirium instrument, delirium can be misdiagnosed (under, but also overdiagnosed and trivialized), supporting the recommendation to use a monitoring instrument routinely. The best-validated ICU bedside instruments are CAM-ICU and ICDSC, both of which also detect subsyndromal delirium. Both tools have some inherent limitations in the neurologically injured patients, yet still provide valuable information about delirium once the sequelae of the primary injury settle into a new post-injury baseline. Now it is known that antipsychotics and other psychoactive medications do not reliably improve brain function in critically ill delirious patients. ICU teams should systematically screen for predisposing and precipitating factors. These include exacerbations of cardiac/respiratory failure or sepsis, metabolic disturbances (hypoglycemia, dysnatremia, uremia and ammonemia) receipt of psychoactive medications, and sensory deprivation through prolonged immobilization, uncorrected vision and hearing deficits, poor sleep hygiene, and isolation from loved ones so common during COVID-19 pandemic. The ABCDEF (A2F) bundle is a means to facilitate implementation of the 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (PADIS) Guidelines. In over 25,000 patients across nearly 100 institutions, the A2F bundle has been shown in a dose-response fashion (i.e., greater bundle compliance) to yield improved survival, length of stay, coma and delirium duration, cost, and less ICU bounce-backs and discharge to nursing homes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delirium , Adult , Critical Care , Critical Illness , Delirium/diagnosis , Delirium/etiology , Delirium/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
12.
Trials ; 22(1): 314, 2021 Apr 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1277968

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of specialist palliative care intervention in patients undergoing surgery for cancer has not been studied extensively. The SCOPE randomized controlled trial will investigate the effect of specialist palliative care intervention in cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study protocol of the SCOPE Trial was published in December 2019. METHODS AND DESIGN: The SCOPE Trial is a single-center, single-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial that will investigate specialist palliative care intervention for cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study plans to enroll 236 patients that will be randomized to specialist palliative care (intervention arm) and usual care (control arm) in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: The primary outcome of the study is the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Trial Outcome Index (TOI) at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes of the study include the total FACT-G score at 90 days postoperatively, days alive at home without an emergency room visit within 90 days of operation, and all-cause mortality at 1 year after operation. Time frames for all outcomes will start on the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the SCOPE randomized controlled trial. The statistical analysis plan was completed on 6 April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03436290 . Registered on 16 February 2018.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , Palliative Care , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Treatment Outcome
13.
Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol ; 65(4): 403-412, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1237350

ABSTRACT

Mechanical ventilation is a known risk factor for delirium, a cognitive impairment characterized by dysfunction of the frontal cortex and hippocampus. Although IL-6 is upregulated in mechanical ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI) and may contribute to delirium, it is not known whether the inhibition of systemic IL-6 mitigates delirium-relevant neuropathology. To histologically define neuropathological effects of IL-6 inhibition in an experimental VILI model, VILI was simulated in anesthetized adult mice using a 35 cc/kg tidal volume mechanical ventilation model. There were two control groups, as follow: 1) spontaneously breathing or 2) anesthetized and mechanically ventilated with 10 cc/kg tidal volume to distinguish effects of anesthesia from VILI. Two hours before inducing VILI, mice were treated with either anti-IL-6 antibody, anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, or saline. Neuronal injury, stress, and inflammation were assessed using immunohistochemistry. CC3 (cleaved caspase-3), a neuronal apoptosis marker, was significantly increased in the frontal (P < 0.001) and hippocampal (P < 0.0001) brain regions and accompanied by significant increases in c-Fos and heat shock protein-90 in the frontal cortices of VILI mice compared with control mice (P < 0.001). These findings were not related to cerebral hypoxia, and there was no evidence of irreversible neuronal death. Frontal and hippocampal neuronal CC3 were significantly reduced with anti-IL-6 antibody (P < 0.01 and P < 0.0001, respectively) and anti-IL-6 receptor antibody (P < 0.05 and P < 0.0001, respectively) compared with saline VILI mice. In summary, VILI induces potentially reversible neuronal injury and inflammation in the frontal cortex and hippocampus, which is mitigated with systemic IL-6 inhibition. These data suggest a potentially novel neuroprotective role of systemic IL-6 inhibition that justifies further investigation.


Subject(s)
Antibodies/pharmacology , Apoptosis/drug effects , Delirium/metabolism , Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Neurons/metabolism , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/metabolism , Animals , Delirium/drug therapy , Delirium/pathology , Disease Models, Animal , Female , Frontal Lobe/injuries , Frontal Lobe/metabolism , Frontal Lobe/pathology , HSP90 Heat-Shock Proteins/metabolism , Hippocampus/injuries , Hippocampus/metabolism , Hippocampus/pathology , Inflammation/drug therapy , Inflammation/metabolism , Inflammation/pathology , Interleukin-6/metabolism , Mice , Neurons/pathology , Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-fos/metabolism , Repressor Proteins/metabolism , Tumor Suppressor Proteins/metabolism , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/drug therapy , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/pathology
14.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 95(11): 2487-2498, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1071751

ABSTRACT

In light of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, we explore the role of stress, fear, and the impact of positive and negative emotions on health and disease. We then introduce strategies to help mitigate stress within the health care team, and provide a rationale for their efficacy. Additionally, we identify strategies to optimize patient care and explain their heightened importance in today's environment.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Fear/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Professional-Patient Relations , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Adaptation, Psychological , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/physiopathology , Anxiety/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Fear/physiology , Global Health , Humans , Interpersonal Relations , Mental Health , Occupational Health , Pandemics , Resilience, Psychological , Stress, Psychological/physiopathology , Stress, Psychological/prevention & control
16.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(3): 239-250, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1053892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, 750 000 patients with COVID-19 worldwide have required mechanical ventilation and thus are at high risk of acute brain dysfunction (coma and delirium). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of delirium and coma, and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19, to aid the development of strategies to mitigate delirium and associated sequelae. METHODS: This multicentre cohort study included 69 adult intensive care units (ICUs), across 14 countries. We included all patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to participating ICUs with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before April 28, 2020. Patients who were moribund or had life-support measures withdrawn within 24 h of ICU admission, prisoners, patients with pre-existing mental illness, neurodegenerative disorders, congenital or acquired brain damage, hepatic coma, drug overdose, suicide attempt, or those who were blind or deaf were excluded. We collected de-identified data from electronic health records on patient demographics, delirium and coma assessments, and management strategies for a 21-day period. Additional data on ventilator support, ICU length of stay, and vital status was collected for a 28-day period. The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of delirium and coma and to investigate any associated risk factors associated with development of delirium the next day. We also investigated predictors of number of days alive without delirium or coma. These outcomes were investigated using multivariable regression. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20 and April 28, 2020, 4530 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to 69 ICUs, of whom 2088 patients were included in the study cohort. The median age of patients was 64 years (IQR 54 to 71) with a median Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II of 40·0 (30·0 to 53·0). 1397 (66·9%) of 2088 patients were invasively mechanically ventilated on the day of ICU admission and 1827 (87·5%) were invasively mechanical ventilated at some point during hospitalisation. Infusion with sedatives while on mechanical ventilation was common: 1337 (64·0%) of 2088 patients were given benzodiazepines for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 12·0) and 1481 (70·9%) were given propofol for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 11·0). Median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score while on invasive mechanical ventilation was -4 (-5 to -3). 1704 (81·6%) of 2088 patients were comatose for a median of 10·0 days (6·0 to 15·0) and 1147 (54·9%) were delirious for a median of 3·0 days (2·0 to 6·0). Mechanical ventilation, use of restraints, and benzodiazepine, opioid, and vasopressor infusions, and antipsychotics were each associated with a higher risk of delirium the next day (all p≤0·04), whereas family visitation (in person or virtual) was associated with a lower risk of delirium (p<0·0001). During the 21-day study period, patients were alive without delirium or coma for a median of 5·0 days (0·0 to 14·0). At baseline, older age, higher SAPS II scores, male sex, smoking or alcohol abuse, use of vasopressors on day 1, and invasive mechanical ventilation on day 1 were independently associated with fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma (all p<0·01). 601 (28·8%) of 2088 patients died within 28 days of admission, with most of those deaths occurring in the ICU. INTERPRETATION: Acute brain dysfunction was highly prevalent and prolonged in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Benzodiazepine use and lack of family visitation were identified as modifiable risk factors for delirium, and thus these data present an opportunity to reduce acute brain dysfunction in patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Coma/epidemiology , Delirium/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Coma/virology , Critical Illness/psychology , Delirium/virology , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Respiration, Artificial/psychology , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
17.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(3): 236-237, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1046082
18.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 102: 106277, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1034177

ABSTRACT

Delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) affects up to 80% of critically ill, mechanically ventilated (MV) adults. Delirium is associated with substantial negative outcomes, including increased hospital complications and long-term effects on cognition and health status in ICU survivors. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness of a Family Automated Voice Reorientation (FAVoR) intervention on delirium among critically ill MV patients. The FAVoR intervention uses scripted audio messages, which are recorded by the patient's family and played at hourly intervals during daytime hours. This ongoing orientation to the ICU environment through recorded messages in a voice familiar to the patient may enable the patient to more accurately interpret the environment and thus reduce risk of delirium. The study's primary aim is to test the effect of the FAVoR intervention on delirium in critically ill MV adults in the ICU. The secondary aims are to explore: (1) if the effect of FAVoR on delirium is mediated by sleep, (2) if selected biobehavioral factors moderate the effects of FAVoR on delirium, and (3) the effects of FAVoR on short-term and long-term outcomes, including cognition and health status. Subjects (n = 178) are randomly assigned to the intervention or control group within 48 h of initial ICU admission and intubation. The intervention group receives FAVoR over a 5-day period, while the control group receives usual care. Delirium-free days, sleep and activity, cognition, patient-reported health status and sleep quality, and data regarding iatrogenic/environmental and biobehavioral factors are collected.


Subject(s)
Delirium , Respiration, Artificial , Adult , Critical Illness , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
19.
Nat Rev Dis Primers ; 6(1): 90, 2020 11 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-989848

ABSTRACT

Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally.


Subject(s)
Delirium/diagnosis , Delirium/therapy , Cognitive Dysfunction/etiology , Cognitive Dysfunction/physiopathology , Delirium/epidemiology , Humans , Quality of Life/psychology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL