Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
2.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 2021 Nov 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510480

ABSTRACT

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

3.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 2021 Nov 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506212

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prone position has been widely used in the COVID-19 pandemic, with an extension of its use in patients with spontaneous breathing ('awake prone'). We herein propose a review of the current literature on prone position in mechanical ventilation and while spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia or COVID-19 ARDS. RECENT FINDINGS: A literature search retrieved 70 studies separating whether patient was intubated (24 studies) or nonintubated (46 studies). The outcomes analyzed were intubation rate, mortality and respiratory response to prone. In nonintubated patient receiving prone position, the main finding was mortality reduction in ICU and outside ICU setting. SUMMARY: The final results of the several randomized control trials completed or ongoing are needed to confirm the trend of these results. In intubated patients, observational studies showed that responders to prone in terms of oxygenation had a better survival than nonresponders.

4.
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs ; 20(8): 792-796, 2021 11 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1483429

ABSTRACT

AIMS: Prone positioning is increasingly used for treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In these high-risk patients for cardiovascular events who may spend more than 16 h a day in the prone position, an adequate monitoring of electrocardiogram (ECG) is mandatory. However, effects of prone positioning on the ECG are unknown as is the validity of the ECG recorded with electrodes placed dorsally. We aimed to compare ECG data obtained in the prone position from five electrodes positioned conventionally and dorsally, and to assess the effects of the change of position (from supine to prone) on the ECGs in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with COVID-19 ARDS for whom the prone position was indicated, seven-lead ECG (frontal plane leads and V6) performed in the supine and the prone position with electrodes positioned conventionally and dorsally were compared. A total of 22 patients [20 (91%) males] were included. Among them, 10 (45%) patients had structural or ischaemic heart disease. After prone positioning, PR duration significantly increased and QRS duration significantly decreased whereas QT interval did not significantly change. In the prone position, there were excellent correlations between QRS axis, PR, RR, QRS, and QT intervals durations measured with electrodes placed on the torso and dorsally (with no change in the position of V6). CONCLUSION: Prone positioning induced significant change in the ECG. In the prone position, ECG can be reliably monitored with four electrodes translated from conventional position to the back and with a precordial electrode left in V6 position.

5.
Crit Care Med ; 2021 Sep 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440666

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Prone position is used in acute respiratory distress syndrome and in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is unclear how responders may be identified and whether an oxygenation response improves outcome. The objective of this study was to quantify the response to prone position, describe the differences between coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and explore variables associated with survival. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, multicenter, international cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in Italy, United Kingdom, and France. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventy-six adults (220 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and 156 acute respiratory distress syndrome). INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preproning, a greater proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had severe disease (53% vs 40%), worse PaO2/FIO2 (13.0 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-15.5 kPa] vs 14.1 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-18.6 kPa]; p = 0.017) but greater compliance (38 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 27-53 mL/cm H2O] vs 31 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 21-37 mL/cm H2O]; p < 0.001). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome had a longer median time from intubation to prone position (2.0 d [interquartile range, 0.7-5.0 d] vs 1.0 d [interquartile range, 0.5-2.9 d]; p = 0.03).The proportion of responders, defined by an increase in PaO2/FIO2 greater than or equal to 2.67 kPa (20 mm Hg), upon proning, was similar between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (79% vs 76%; p = 0.5). Responders had earlier prone position (1.4 d [interquartile range, 0.7-4.2 d] vs 2.5 d [interquartile range, 0.8-6.2 d]; p = 0.06)]. Prone position less than 24 hours from intubation achieved greater improvement in oxygenation (11 kPa [interquartile range, 4-21 kPa] vs 7 kPa [interquartile range, 2-13 kPa]; p = 0.002).The variables independently associated with the "responder" category were PaO2/FIO2 preproning (odds ratio, 0.89 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93 kPa-1]; p < 0.001) and interval between intubation and proning (odds ratio, 0.94 d-1 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99 d-1]; p = 0.019).The overall mortality was 45%, with no significant difference observed between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Variables independently associated with mortality included age (odds ratio, 1.03 yr-1 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05 yr-1]; p < 0.001); interval between hospital admission and proning (odds ratio, 1.04 d-1 [95% CI, 1.002-1.084 d-1]; p = 0.047); and change in PaO2/FIO2 on proning (odds ratio, 0.97 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99 kPa-1]; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position, particularly when delivered early, achieved a significant oxygenation response in ~80% of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome, similar to acute respiratory distress syndrome. This response was independently associated with improved survival.

7.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 203(11): 1333-1334, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280512
8.
J Clin Med ; 10(11)2021 May 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266749

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To address the issue of ventilator shortages, our group (eSpiro Network) developed a freely replicable, open-source hardware ventilator. DESIGN: We performed a bench study. SETTING: Dedicated research room as part of an ICU affiliated to a university hospital. SUBJECTS: We set the lung model with three conditions of resistance and linear compliance for mimicking different respiratory mechanics of representative intensive care unit (ICU) patients. INTERVENTIONS: The performance of the device was tested using the ASL5000 lung model. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven conditions were tested. All the measurements fell within the ±10% limits for the tidal volume (VT). The volume error was influenced by the mechanical condition (p = 5.9 × 10-15) and the PEEP level (P = 1.1 × 10-12) but the clinical significance of this finding is likely meaningless (maximum -34 mL in the error). The PEEP error was not influenced by the mechanical condition (p = 0.25). Our experimental results demonstrate that the eSpiro ventilator is reliable to deliver VT and PEEP accurately in various respiratory mechanics conditions. CONCLUSIONS: We report a low-cost, easy-to-build ventilator, which is reliable to deliver VT and PEEP in passive invasive mechanical ventilation.

9.
Ann Intensive Care ; 11(1): 63, 2021 Apr 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1202278

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) has been used to improve oxygenation in patients affected by the SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19). Several mechanisms, including lung recruitment and better lung ventilation/perfusion matching, make a relevant rational for using PP. However, not all patients maintain the oxygenation improvement after returning to supine position. Nevertheless, no evidence exists that a sustained oxygenation response after PP is associated to outcome in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We analyzed data from 191 patients affected by COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing PP for clinical reasons. Clinical history, severity scores and respiratory mechanics were analyzed. Patients were classified as responders (≥ median PaO2/FiO2 variation) or non-responders (< median PaO2/FiO2 variation) based on the PaO2/FiO2 percentage change between pre-proning and 1 to 3 h after re-supination in the first prone positioning session. Differences among the groups in physiological variables, complication rates and outcome were evaluated. A competing risk regression analysis was conducted to evaluate if PaO2/FiO2 response after the first pronation cycle was associated to liberation from mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: The median PaO2/FiO2 variation after the first PP cycle was 49 [19-100%] and no differences were found in demographics, comorbidities, ventilatory treatment and PaO2/FiO2 before PP between responders (96/191) and non-responders (95/191). Despite no differences in ICU length of stay, non-responders had a higher rate of tracheostomy (70.5% vs 47.9, P = 0.008) and mortality (53.7% vs 33.3%, P = 0.006), as compared to responders. Moreover, oxygenation response after the first PP was independently associated to liberation from mechanical ventilation at 28 days and was increasingly higher being higher the oxygenation response to PP. CONCLUSIONS: Sustained oxygenation improvement after first PP session is independently associated to improved survival and reduced duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

10.
Chest ; 159(4): 1426-1436, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-921554

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.


Subject(s)
Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Mechanics
11.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 106, 2021 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136238

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Humans
14.
PLoS One ; 16(1): e0245578, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1034959

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 pandemic sets the healthcare system to a shortage of ventilators. We aimed at assessing tidal volume (VT) delivery and air recirculation during expiration when one ventilator is divided into 2 test-lungs. The study was performed in a research laboratory in a medical ICU of a University hospital. An ICU (V500) and a lower-level ventilator (Elisée 350) were attached to two test-lungs (QuickLung) through a dedicated flow-splitter. A 50 mL/cmH2O Compliance (C) and 5 cmH2O/L/s Resistance (R) were set in both A and B test-lungs (A C50R5 / B C50R5, step1), A C50-R20 / B C20-R20 (step 2), A C20-R20 / B C10-R20 (step 3), and A C50-R20 / B C20-R5 (step 4). Each ventilator was set in volume and pressure control mode to deliver 800mL VT. We assessed VT from a pneumotachograph placed immediately before each lung, pendelluft air, and expiratory resistance (circuit and valve). Values are median (1st-3rd quartiles) and compared between ventilators by non-parametric tests. Between Elisée 350 and V500 in volume control VT in A/B test- lungs were 381/387 vs. 412/433 mL in step 1, 501/270 vs. 492/370 mL in step 2, 509/237 vs. 496/332 mL in step 3, and 496/281 vs. 480/329 mL in step 4. In pressure control the corresponding values were 373/336 vs. 430/414 mL, 416/185 vs. 322/234 mL, 193/108 vs. 176/ 92 mL and 422/201 vs. 481/329mL, respectively (P<0.001 between ventilators at each step for each volume). Pendelluft air volume ranged between 0.7 to 37.8 ml and negatively correlated with expiratory resistance in steps 2 and 3. The lower-level ventilator performed closely to the ICU ventilator. In the clinical setting, these findings suggest that, due to dependence of VT to C, pressure control should be preferred to maintain adequate VT at least in one patient when C and/or R changes abruptly and monitoring of VT should be done carefully. Increasing expiratory resistance should reduce pendelluft volume.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Ventilators, Mechanical/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Lung Compliance , Lung Volume Measurements , Male , Maximal Respiratory Pressures , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Ventilators, Mechanical/standards
15.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(12): 2342-2356, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-917111

ABSTRACT

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a "state-of-the-art" article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an "ABCDEF-R" bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Analgesia/methods , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Pain Management/methods
16.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(12): 2385-2396, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-917110

ABSTRACT

In ARDS patients, the change from supine to prone position generates a more even distribution of the gas-tissue ratios along the dependent-nondependent axis and a more homogeneous distribution of lung stress and strain. The change to prone position is generally accompanied by a marked improvement in arterial blood gases, which is mainly due to a better overall ventilation/perfusion matching. Improvement in oxygenation and reduction in mortality are the main reasons to implement prone position in patients with ARDS. The main reason explaining a decreased mortality is less overdistension in non-dependent lung regions and less cyclical opening and closing in dependent lung regions. The only absolute contraindication for implementing prone position is an unstable spinal fracture. The maneuver to change from supine to prone and vice versa requires a skilled team of 4-5 caregivers. The most frequent adverse events are pressure sores and facial edema. Recently, the use of prone position has been extended to non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients affected with COVID-19 ARDS. The effects of this intervention on outcomes are still uncertain.


Subject(s)
Prone Position/physiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Mechanics/physiology , Humans , Lung Compliance/drug effects , Lung Compliance/physiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/complications
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...