Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
2.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(6): 690-705, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1899123

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To accommodate the unprecedented number of critically ill patients with pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) expansion of the capacity of intensive care unit (ICU) to clinical areas not previously used for critical care was necessary. We describe the global burden of COVID-19 admissions and the clinical and organizational characteristics associated with outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Multicenter, international, point prevalence study, including adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. RESULTS: 4994 patients from 280 ICUs in 46 countries were included. Included ICUs increased their total capacity from 4931 to 7630 beds, deploying personnel from other areas. Overall, 1986 (39.8%) patients were admitted to surge capacity beds. Invasive ventilation at admission was present in 2325 (46.5%) patients and was required during ICU stay in 85.8% of patients. 60-day mortality was 33.9% (IQR across units: 20%-50%) and ICU mortality 32.7%. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were associated with increased mortality. These associations were also confirmed specifically in mechanically ventilated patients. Admission to surge capacity beds was not associated with mortality, even after controlling for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: ICUs responded to the increase in COVID-19 patients by increasing bed availability and staff, admitting up to 40% of patients in surge capacity beds. Although mortality in this population was high, admission to a surge capacity bed was not associated with increased mortality. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and AKI were identified as the strongest predictors of mortality.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , COVID-19 , Adult , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
4.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-291174

ABSTRACT

Background: Although the number of patients with COVID-19 infection is increasing and concerns for their long-term disabilities are increasing, there is a lack of data about the delivery of the ABCDEF-bundle and supportive care in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). The aim of this study is to investigate the implementation of the ABCDEF-bundle and supportive care provided to patients with COVID-19 infections in ICUs. Methods: This was a world-wide two-day point prevalence study, on June 3 and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries (166 ICUs on Day 1 and 212 on Day 2) participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys. The implementation rate for elements of the ABCDEF-bundle, other supportive ICU care measures and implementation associated structures were investigated. RESULTS Data for 262 patients was collected during the two-day study. Of patients included, 124 (47.3%) underwent mechanical ventilation (MV) and 12 (4.6%) patients were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The proportion of patients with implementation of each element was: Element A (regular pain assessment) 45%;B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials) 28%;C (regular sedation assessment) 52%;D (regular delirium assessment) 38%;E (early mobility and exercise) 47%;and F (family engagement and empowerment) 16%. The implementation of element E for patients on MV was 16% and ECMO was 17%. Supportive care, such as providing protein throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of an ICU diary (25%) was inadequate. A higher implementation rate of elements A and D were recognized in ICUs with specific protocols for ICU care and lower numbers of ICU beds exclusively for patients with COVID-19 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs with more ICU beds for patients with COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS This worldwide two-day point prevalence study found low implementation of the ABCDEF-bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with COVID-19 infections might be key factors to deliver appropriate supportive care.Trial registration: UMIN, UMIN000040405. Registered 14 May 2020, https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000046103

5.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(5): 598-601, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241593

Subject(s)
Critical Care , Medicine , Europe , Humans
6.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(3): e0353, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1158024

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate implementation of evidence-based and supportive cares in ICUs, such as the ABCDEF, nutrition therapy, and ICU diary, for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection in ICUs and their association with ICU clinical practice and setting. DESIGN: A worldwide, 2-day point prevalence study. SETTING: The study was carried out on June 3, 2020, and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys. PATIENTS: The ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The implementation rate for the elements of the ABCDEF bundle, other supportive ICU care measures, and implementation-associated structures were investigated. Data were collected for 262 patients, of whom 47.3% underwent mechanical ventilation and 4.6% were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Each element was implemented for the following percentages of patients: elements A (regular pain assessment), 45%; B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials), 28%; C (regular sedation assessment), 52%; D (regular delirium assessment), 35%; E (early mobility and exercise), 47%; and F (family engagement and empowerment), 16%. The implementation of element E was 4% for patients on mechanical ventilation and 8% for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Supportive care, such as protein provision throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2 g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of ICU diary (25%), was infrequent. Implementation rates of elements A and D were higher in ICUs with specific protocols and fewer ICU beds exclusively for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs that had more ICU beds assigned for them. CONCLUSIONS: This point prevalence study showed low implementation of the ABCDEF bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection might be key factors for delivering appropriate supportive care.

7.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(3): 282-291, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1092644

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has posed unprecedented healthcare system challenges, some of which will lead to transformative change. It is obvious to healthcare workers and policymakers alike that an effective critical care surge response must be nested within the overall care delivery model. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted key elements of emergency preparedness. These include having national or regional strategic reserves of personal protective equipment, intensive care unit (ICU) devices, consumables and pharmaceuticals, as well as effective supply chains and efficient utilization protocols. ICUs must also be prepared to accommodate surges of patients and ICU staffing models should allow for fluctuations in demand. Pre-existing ICU triage and end-of-life care principles should be established, implemented and updated. Daily workflow processes should be restructured to include remote connection with multidisciplinary healthcare workers and frequent communication with relatives. The pandemic has also demonstrated the benefits of digital transformation and the value of remote monitoring technologies, such as wireless monitoring. Finally, the pandemic has highlighted the value of pre-existing epidemiological registries and agile randomized controlled platform trials in generating fast, reliable data. The COVID-19 pandemic is a reminder that besides our duty to care, we are committed to improve. By meeting these challenges today, we will be able to provide better care to future patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care/trends , Pandemics , Critical Care/organization & administration , Disaster Planning , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Monitoring, Physiologic/instrumentation , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Personal Protective Equipment , Surge Capacity , Telemedicine , Workflow
8.
Crit Care Med ; 49(4): 598-622, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1085323

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. DESIGN: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. METHODS: Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? CONCLUSIONS: Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Research , Sepsis/therapy , Humans
9.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): e219-e234, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069322

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Disease Management , Intensive Care Units , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants , Evidence-Based Medicine , Hemodynamics , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Immunization, Passive , Patient Positioning , Ventilation
10.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 110, 2020 Aug 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-704421

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented healthcare crisis with a high prevalence of psychological distress in healthcare providers. We sought to document the prevalence of burnout syndrome amongst intensivists facing the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey among intensivists part of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Symptoms of severe burnout, anxiety and depression were collected. Factors independently associated with severe burnout were assessed using Cox model. RESULTS: Response rate was 20% (1001 completed questionnaires were returned, 45 years [39-53], 34% women, from 85 countries, 12 regions, 50% university-affiliated hospitals). The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression or severe burnout was 46.5%, 30.2%, and 51%, respectively, and varied significantly across regions. Rating of the relationship between intensivists and other ICU stakeholders differed significantly according to the presence of anxiety, depression, or burnout. Similar figures were reported for their rating of the ethical climate or the quality of the decision-making. Factors independently associated with anxiety were female gender (HR 1.85 [1.33-2.55]), working in a university-affiliated hospital (HR 0.58 [0.42-0.80]), living in a city of > 1 million inhabitants (HR 1.40 [1.01-1.94]), and clinician's rating of the ethical climate (HR 0.83 [0.77-0.90]). Independent determinants of depression included female gender (HR 1.63 [1.15-2.31]) and clinician's rating of the ethical climate (HR 0.84 [0.78-0.92]). Factors independently associated with symptoms of severe burnout included age (HR 0.98/year [0.97-0.99]) and clinician's rating of the ethical climate (HR 0.76 [0.69-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an overwhelming psychological impact on intensivists. Follow-up, and management are warranted to assess long-term psychological outcomes and alleviate the psychological burden of the pandemic on frontline personnel.

11.
Crit Care ; 24(1): 486, 2020 08 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-695243

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to support the management of severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: To document this variation in practices, we performed an online survey (April 30-May 25, 2020) on behalf of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A case vignette was sent to ESICM members. Questions investigated practices for a previously healthy 39-year-old patient presenting with severe hypoxemia from COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: A total of 1132 ICU specialists (response rate 20%) from 85 countries (12 regions) responded to the survey. The survey provides information on the heterogeneity in patient's management, more particularly regarding the timing of ICU admission, the first line oxygenation strategy, optimization of management, and ventilatory settings in case of refractory hypoxemia. Practices related to antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory therapies are also investigated. CONCLUSIONS: There are important practice variations in the management of severe COVID-19 patients, including differences at regional and individual levels. Large outcome studies based on multinational registries are warranted.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care , Internationality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19 , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Pandemics , Severity of Illness Index
12.
Crit Care Med ; 48(6): e440-e469, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-685042

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/therapy
13.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(5): 854-887, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-17690

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Sepsis/therapy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Sepsis/diagnosis , Sepsis/etiology , Survivors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL