Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
J Clin Med Res ; 13(10-11): 487-496, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1599396

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Characteristics of intensive care unit (ICU) downgrades who experience a complicated post-ICU ward course (ICU return or floor death) and the incidence of this phenomenon have not been examined in ICU survivors of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The aim of the present study was to establish the rate of a complicated post-ICU ward course among survivors of COVID-19 pneumonia and describe the associated patient, ICU management, and serum biomarker characteristics. An additional aim was to compare these parameters between those who experienced a complicated post-ICU course and those who did not. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who were admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 pneumonia and were downgraded to a hospital floor at the end of their initial ICU stay. Patients were divided based on a complicated or uncomplicated post-ICU course. Groups were compared with respect to relevant clinical variables. Serum biomarker levels were compared on day of ICU exit and were trended in the days preceding the downgrade. Ward stay of patients who had a complicated course was examined for notable floor events surrounding their decompensation. RESULTS: Eighteen out of 99 downgraded patients (18%) experienced a complicated post-ICU course, among them there were 14 returns (14%) and four deaths (4%). They had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, as well as higher D-dimer and C-reactive protein (CRP) at ICU departure. They were less likely to have received therapeutic anticoagulation and convalescent plasma during their ICU stay. On multivariable analysis, these parameters except D-dimer remained independently associated with a complicated course. Review of biomarker trends preceding ICU exit demonstrated an upward trajectory of D-dimer, CRP, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in the complicated course group not mirrored by the uncomplicated course group. Examination of notable floor events leading up to decompensation revealed that in 50% the ward course was characterized by new cardiac disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: Our rate of ward death among ICU downgrades was similar to pre-COVID data, but the rate of ICU return was higher. Complicated post-ICU course patients were exhibiting upward biomarker trends at ICU exit, and their ward stay was punctuated by acute cardiac abnormalities.

3.
J Med Virol ; 94(1): 349-356, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1427138

ABSTRACT

Corticosteroid dosing in the range of 0.5-2 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone equivalents has become a standard part of the management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 pneumonia based on positive results of randomized trials and a meta-analysis. Alongside such conventional dosing, administration of 1 gm of methylprednisolone daily (pulse dosing) has also been reported in the literature with claims of favorable outcomes. Comparisons between such disparate approaches to corticosteroids for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are lacking. In this retrospective study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 pneumonia, we compared patients treated with 0.5-2 mg/kg/day in methylprednisolone equivalents (high-dose corticosteroids) and patients treated with 1 gm of methylprednisolone (pulse-dose corticosteroids) to those who did not receive any corticosteroids. The endpoints of interest were hospital mortality, ICU-free days at Day 28, and complications potentially attributable to corticosteroids. Pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy was associated with a significant increase in ICU-free days at Day 28 compared to no receipt: adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-2.02; p = 0.03) and compared with high-dose corticosteroid administration (p = 0.003). Nonetheless, receipt of high-dose corticosteroids-but not of pulse-dose corticosteroids-significantly reduced the odds of hospital mortality compared to no receipt: adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12-0.77; p = 0.01). High-dose corticosteroids reduced mortality compared to pulse-dose corticosteroids (p = 0.04). Pulse-dose corticosteroids-but not high-dose corticosteroids-significantly increased the odds of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared to no receipt: aOR 3.53 (95% CI: 1.27-9.82; p = 0.02). The odds of this complication were also significantly higher in the pulse-dose group when compared to the high-dose group (p = 0.05 for the comparison). In this single-center study, pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia in the ICU was associated with an increase in ICU-free days but failed to impact hospital mortality, perhaps because of its association with development of severe renal failure. In line with existing trial data, the effect of high-dose corticosteroids on mortality was favorable.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/chemically induced , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Pulse Therapy, Drug/adverse effects , Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/adverse effects , Critical Care/methods , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Methylprednisolone/administration & dosage , Methylprednisolone/adverse effects , Pulse Therapy, Drug/methods , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects
4.
Respir Med ; 184: 106464, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230753

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The clinical features and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who develop a pneumothorax has not been rigorously described or compared to those who do not develop a pneumothorax. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients who developed a pneumothorax with those who did not develop a pneumothorax. METHODS: This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of all adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who were admitted to intensive care units in 4 tertiary care centers in the United States. RESULTS: A total of 842 critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection were analyzed, out of which 594 (71%) were mechanically ventilated. The overall incidence of pneumothorax was 85/842 (10%), and 80/594 (13%) in those who were mechanically ventilated. As compared to mechanically ventilated patients in the non-pneumothorax group, mechanically ventilated patients in the pneumothorax group had worse respiratory parameters at the time of intubation (mean PaO2:FiO2 ratio 105 vs 150, P<0.001 and static respiratory system compliance: 30ml/cmH2O vs 39ml/cmH2O, P = 0.01) and significantly higher in-hospital mortality (63% vs 49%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection was 13%. Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax had worse gas exchange and respiratory mechanics at the time of intubation and had a higher mortality compared to those who did not develop pneumothorax.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Critical Illness , Pneumothorax/etiology , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Case-Control Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pneumothorax/epidemiology , Pneumothorax/mortality , Pneumothorax/physiopathology , Prognosis , Pulmonary Gas Exchange , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
6.
Mycoses ; 64(6): 634-640, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1123574

ABSTRACT

The epidemiology and mycology of invasive candidiasis in the ICU is well-described in certain types of critically ill patients but not in others. One population that has been scarcely studied is non-neutropenic patients admitted specifically to medical ICUs. Even less is known about the broader category of medical ICU patients without active oncological disease. This group constitutes a very large share of the patients requiring critical care across the globe, especially in the era of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We analysed medical ICU candidaemia episodes that occurred in non-oncological patients in our tertiary academic centre in the United States from May 2014 to October 2020 to determine the incidence and species distribution of the associated isolates. We then separately considered non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 cases and compared their characteristics. In the non-COVID-19 group, there were 38 cases for an incidence of 1.1% and rate of 11/1000 admissions. In the COVID-19 group, there were 12 cases for an incidence of 5.1% and rate of 51/1000 admissions. In the entire sample, as well as separately in the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups,Candida albicans accounted for a minority of isolates. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients with candidaemia, COVID-19 patients had lower ICU admission SOFA score but longer ICU length of stay and central venous catheter dwell time at candidaemia detection. This study provides valuable insight into the incidence and species distribution of candidaemia cases occurring in non-oncological critically ill patients and identifies informative differences between non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/microbiology , Candidemia/epidemiology , Candidemia/microbiology , Candidemia/virology , Adult , Aged , Candida/isolation & purification , Critical Care , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Tertiary Care Centers , United States/epidemiology
7.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(12): 1029-1030, 2020 12 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1049161
8.
Int J Infect Dis ; 100: 309-313, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-943164

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has introduced the medical community to a lung disease heretofore unknown to most clinicians. In much of the discourse about COVID-19 lung disease, the more familiar clinical entity of ARDS has been used as the guiding paradigm. Reflecting on studies in ARDS, particularly that due to influenza, and on data from the SARS-CoV and MERS epidemics, many authorities, including within the discipline of infectious diseases, were initially passionate in their opposition to the use of corticosteroids for lung involvement in COVID-19. The voice of the pulmonology community-the community of lung experts-has continued to be among the quietest in this conversation. Herein we offer our perspective as academic pulmonologists who encountered COVID-19 in its first United States epicenter of New York City. We encourage a conceptual separation between early COVID-19 lung involvement and ARDS. We draw on history with other immune cell-mediated lung diseases, on insights from the SARS-CoV experience, and on frontline observations in an attempt to allay the skepticism towards corticosteroids in COVID-19 lung disease that is likely to persist even as favorable study results emerge.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Pulmonary Medicine , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
9.
Breathe (Sheff) ; 16(2): 200113, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-853159

ABSTRACT

Recently, the struggle against COVID-19 by respiratory and intensive care clinicians worldwide was punctuated by the sound of calls from a number of influential publications for an end to, as it were, improvisation and a return to principles of evidence-based medicine. The message was that management of SARS-CoV-2 lung disease needed to be guided strictly according to established dogma in acute respiratory distress syndrome unless supplanted by clinical trials specific to COVID-19. This position is predicated on the assumptions that knowledge about acute respiratory distress syndrome, and only about that entity, is directly translatable to SARS-CoV-2 lung disease, and that clinical trials enrolling COVID-19 patients will be completed in a sufficiently timely and rigorous fashion to influence empirical practice during the current pandemic. Clearly, there is room for an alternative perspective. In this Viewpoint, we aim to articulate a contrary point of view by resorting to arguments that are likely to resonate with frontline clinicians battling COVID-19.

10.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 202(3): 469-470, 2020 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-574696
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL