Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 35
Filter
1.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(6): 690-705, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1850306

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
2.
Intensive Crit Care Nurs ; 70: 103227, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1828574

ABSTRACT

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk for healthcare-acquired infections (HAI) due to the high prevalence of invasive procedures and devices, induced immunosuppression, comorbidity, frailty and increased age. Over the past decade we have seen a successful reduction in the incidence of HAI related to invasive procedures and devices. However, the rate of ICU-acquired infections remains high. Within this context, the ongoing emergence of new pathogens, further complicates treatment and threatens patient outcomes. Additionally, the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the challenge that an emerging pathogen provides in adapting prevention measures regarding both the risk of exposure to caregivers and the need to maintain quality of care. ICU nurses hold a special place in the prevention and management of HAI as they are involved in basic hygienic care, steering and implementing quality improvement initiatives, correct microbiological sampling, and aspects antibiotic stewardship. The emergence of more sensitive microbiological techniques and our increased knowledge about interactions between critically ill patients and their microbiota are leading us to rethink how we define HAIs and best strategies to diagnose, treat and prevent these infections in the ICU. This multidisciplinary expert review, focused on the ICU setting, will summarise the recent epidemiology of ICU-HAI, discuss the place of modern microbiological techniques in their diagnosis, review operational and epidemiological definitions and redefine the place of several controversial preventive measures including antimicrobial-impregnated medical devices, chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths, catheter dressings and chlorhexidine-based mouthwashes. Finally, general guidance is suggested that may reduce HAI incidence and especially outbreaks in ICUs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Catheter-Related Infections , Cross Infection , Adult , Chlorhexidine , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2
4.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-329730

ABSTRACT

This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the efficacy of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. Randomized controlled trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, where patients were receiving supplemental oxygen at baseline and at least one arm received treatment with remdesivir, were identified. Outcomes included mortality, recovery, and no longer requiring supplemental oxygen. NMAs were performed for low-flow oxygen (LFO2);high-flow oxygen (HFO2), including NIV;or oxygen at any flow (AnyO2) at early (day 14/15) and late (day 28/29) time points. Six studies were included (N=5,245 patients) in the NMA. Remdesivir lowered early and late mortality among AnyO2 patients (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.34-0.79;RR 0.81, 95%CrI 0.69-0.95) and LFO2 patients (RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.09-0.46;RR 0.24, 95%CI 0.11-0.48);no improvement was observed among HFO2 patients. Improved early and late recovery was observed among LFO2 patients (RR 1.22, 95%CrI 1.09-1.38;RR 1.17, 95%CrI 1.09-1.28). Remdesivir also lowered the requirement for oxygen support among all patient subgroups. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen at baseline, use of remdesivir compared to best supportive care is likely to improve the risk of mortality, recovery and need for oxygen support in AnyO2 and LFO2 patients.

5.
ERJ Open Res ; 8(1)2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690978

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321071

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 infection is a major cause of hospital admission and represents a challenge to resource management during ICU stay. We aimed to describe the clinical course, resource use and outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ICU admission. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library up to May 10 th , 2020. Preprints and reports were also included if they meet the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on characteristics of study populations, resource use, and outcomes. FINDINGS: From 31 articles included, a total of 50,881 patients were evaluated and 24,411 patients were admitted in the ICU. Most of patients admitted in ICU were male (57%) and the mean age was 56 (95% IC 48.5 – 59.8) years-old. Hospital and ICU mortality was 8.4% and 30% respectively, and the length of stay was 9.0 (95% IC 6.3 – 12.0) days and 8.0 (95% IC 5.1 – 11.0) days, respectively. Mortality in patients with ARDS was 93%. Mechanical ventilation was used in 10,544 patients (54% of those admitted in ICU) and mortality was 56.4%. The length of MV stay was 8.4 (95% IC 1.6 – 13.7) days. The main resources described was the use of non-invasive ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, renal replacement therapy and vasopressors. INTERPRETATION: This systematic review based on over 50,000 patients demonstrates that COVID-19 infection is associated with substantial resource use in the ICU, high mortality and prolonged length of ICU stay.FUNDING STATEMENT: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The study was performed with institutional departmental funding.DECLARATION OF INTERESTS: The authors state that they have no competing interest with the subject.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-318944

ABSTRACT

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic represented a challenge for intensive care units (ICU) with overwhelming demand, heterogenous outcomes and clinical practices. To improve care a profound knowledge on severe COVID-19 patients during different time points is crucial. This data is still scarce. We aimed to analyze and compare COVID-19 patient demographics, clinical management, and outcomes between two periods from the first pandemic wave.MethodsWe performed a multicentric ambispective cohort study including severe COVID-19 patients between March and August 2020 from 16 Portuguese ICUs. A peak and a plateau period were defined, corresponding to weeks 10-16 and 17-34 of the first pandemic wave. All patients had SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia diagnosis and complete hospital follow-up.ResultsWe included 541 adult patients with a median age of 65 [57-74] years and mostly male (71.2%). Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome developed in 63.9% of cases. Overall, 28-day mortality rate was 23.7% with age and SAPSII (both p<0.001) as independent risk factors.Between peak and plateau periods there were no significant differences in age (65 vs. 66, p=0.6), SAPS II (40 vs. 39, p=0.8), PaO2/FiO2 ratio (139 vs. 136, p=0.6), and antibiotic therapy (57.2% vs. 63.8%, p=0.2) at admission, nor in 28-day mortality (24.4% vs. 22.8%, p=0.7). Adjuvant therapy with corticosteroids had no impact on 28-day mortality (26.9% vs. 22.5% without, p=0.4). The peak period included 53.8% of patients and they had less comorbidities (no comorbidities 29% vs. 36%, p=0.01), presented at admission a higher use of vasopressors (81% vs. 63%, p<0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (58 vs 49%, p<0.001), prone positioning (60% vs 48%, p=0.009), and hydroxychloroquine (80.2% vs. 13.4%;p<0.001) and lopinavir/ritonavir (60.4% vs. 13.4%;p<0.001) prescription, as compared with the plateau period. In the plateau period, there was a greater use of high flow nasal canula (5% vs 16%, p<0.001) on admission, remdesivir (0.5% vs. 19.9%;p<0.001) and corticosteroid (39% vs. 61%, p<0.001) therapy, and a shorter ICU length-of-stay for survivors (12 days vs. 7, p<0.001).ConclusionThere were significant changes in patient comorbidities, therapies and ICU length-of-stay between peak and plateau periods of the first COVID-19 wave with similar 28-day mortality.

8.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-318939

ABSTRACT

We present a viable prototype of a simple mechanical ventilator intended as a last resort to ventilate COVID-19 patients. The prototype implements the pressure-controlled continuous mandatory ventilation mode (PC-CMV) with settable breathing rates, inspiration/expiration time ratios and FiO2 modulation. Although safe, the design aims to minimize the use of technical components and those used are common in industry, so its construction may be possible in times of logistical shortage or disruption or in areas with reduced access to technical materials and at a moderate cost, affordable to lower income countries. Most of the device can be manufactured by modest technical means and construction plans are provided.

9.
Clin Appl Thromb Hemost ; 28: 10760296221079612, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1685921

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a new form of acute respiratory failure leading to multiorgan failure and ICU admission. Gathered evidence suggests that a 3-fold rise in D-dimer concentrations may be linked to poor prognosis and higher mortality. PURPOSE: To describe D-dimer admission profile in severe ICU COVID19 patients and its predictive role in outcomes and mortality. METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study. All adult patients admitted to ICU with COVID19 were divided into 3 groups: (1) Lower-values group (D-dimer levels < 3-fold normal range value [NRV] [500ng/mL]), Intermediate-values group (D-dimer ≥3-fold and <10-fold NRV) and Higher-value group (≥10-fold NRV). RESULTS: 118 patients (mean age 63 years, 73% males) were included (N = 73 Lower-values group, N = 31 Intermediate-values group; N = 11 Higher-values group). Mortality was not different between groups (p = 0.51). Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed no differences (p = 0.52) between groups, nor it was verified even when gender, age, ICU length of stay, and SOFA score were considered as covariables. CONCLUSIONS: In severe COVID19 patients, the D-dimer profile does not retain a predictive value regarding patients' survivability and should not be used as a surrogate of disease severity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/metabolism , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
10.
Ann Intensive Care ; 12(1): 9, 2022 Feb 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673925

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. METHODS: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

11.
ERJ open research ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1610380

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe COVID-19, many were treated outside of the traditional walls of the ICU, and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside of the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC WHO COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes, and vasopressors. A logistic Generalised Additive Model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted and not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median [IQR], 67 years [55, 78]), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 days (5–19) and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those that were cared for outside of ICU (12 [6–23] versus 8 [4–15] days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% [5797/18831] versus 39.0% [7532/19295], p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR:0.70, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside of an ICU.

12.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 11, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1607559

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent multicenter studies identified COVID-19 as a risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). However, no large multicenter study has compared the incidence of IPA between COVID-19 and influenza patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of putative IPA in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared with influenza patients. METHODS: This study was a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter retrospective European cohort. Consecutive adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for > 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia or influenza pneumonia were included. The 28-day cumulative incidence of putative IPA, based on Blot definition, was the primary outcome. IPA incidence was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, considering extubation (dead or alive) within 28 days as competing event. RESULTS: A total of 1047 patients were included (566 in the SARS-CoV-2 group and 481 in the influenza group). The incidence of putative IPA was lower in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia group (14, 2.5%) than in influenza pneumonia group (29, 6%), adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio (cHR) 3.29 (95% CI 1.53-7.02, p = 0.0006). When putative IPA and Aspergillus respiratory tract colonization were combined, the incidence was also significantly lower in the SARS-CoV-2 group, as compared to influenza group (4.1% vs. 10.2%), adjusted cHR 3.21 (95% CI 1.88-5.46, p < 0.0001). In the whole study population, putative IPA was associated with significant increase in 28-day mortality rate, and length of ICU stay, compared with colonized patients, or those with no IPA or Aspergillus colonization. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the incidence of putative IPA was low. Its incidence was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than in those with influenza pneumonia. Clinical trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Intubation , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/therapy , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
13.
J Ment Health ; : 1-10, 2022 Jan 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1604963

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

15.
Front Chem ; 9: 685196, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441098

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that may lead to a severe acute respiratory syndrome. Such syndrome is thought to be related, at least in part, to a dysregulation of the immune system which involves three main components: hyperactivity of the innate immune system; decreased production of type 1 Interferons (IFN) by SARS-CoV-2-infected cells, namely respiratory epithelial cells and macrophages; and decreased numbers of both CD4+ and particularly CD8+ T cells. Herein, we describe how excessive activation of the innate immune system and the need for viral replication in several cells of the infected organism promote significant alterations in cells' energy metabolism (glucose metabolism), which may underlie the poor prognosis of the disease in severe situations. When activated, cells of the innate immune system reprogram their metabolism, and increase glucose uptake to ensure secretion of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Changes in glucose metabolism are also observed in pulmonary epithelial cells, contributing to dysregulation of cytokine synthesis and inflammation of the pulmonary epithelium. Controlling hyperglycolysis in critically ill patients may help to reduce the exaggerated production of pro-inflammatory cytokines and optimise the actions of the adaptive immune system. In this review, we suggest that the administration of non-toxic concentrations of 2-deoxy-D-glucose, the use of GLUT 1 inhibitors, of antioxidants such as vitamin C in high doses, as well as the administration of N-acetylcysteine in high doses, may be useful complementary therapeutic strategies for these patients, as suggested by some clinical trials and/ or reports. Overall, understanding changes in the glycolytic pathway associated with COVID-19 infection can help to find new forms of treatment for this disease.

16.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2021 May 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416749

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with COVID-19, based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48h were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture, within 48h after intubation, in endotracheal aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 1,050 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2 and 482 in influenza groups). The prevalence of bacterial identification was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs 33.6%, unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.30), adjusted OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.33), p<0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of co-infection in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia, respectively. Bacterial identification was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (1.57 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.44), p=0.043). However, no significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of co-infection on mortality was not different between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial identification within 48h after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

17.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(2): 188-198, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384370

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection have several risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI), the reported incidence of hospital-acquired infections is low. We aimed to determine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, and the incidence of VA-LRTI. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation > 48 h were eligible if they had: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection at ICU admission. VA-LRTI, including ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), were diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. All VA-LRTI were prospectively identified, and chest-X rays were analyzed by at least two physicians. Cumulative incidence of first episodes of VA-LRTI was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, and compared using Fine-and Gray models. RESULTS: 1576 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2, 482 in influenza, and 526 in no viral infection groups). VA-LRTI incidence was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 patients (287, 50.5%), as compared to influenza patients (146, 30.3%, adjusted sub hazard ratio (sHR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.04)) or patients with no viral infection (133, 25.3%, adjusted sHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.39)). Gram-negative bacilli were responsible for a large proportion (82% to 89.7%) of VA-LRTI, mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of VA-LRTI is significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection after statistical adjustment, but residual confounding may still play a role in the effect estimates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Respiratory Tract Infections , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe , Female , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Ventilators, Mechanical
19.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 177, 2021 05 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352667

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). No study has evaluated the relationship between VAP and mortality in this population, or compared this relationship between SARS-CoV-2 patients and other populations. The main objective of our study was to determine the relationship between VAP and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort. VAP was diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. Univariable and multivariable marginal Cox's regression models, with cause-specific hazard for duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Extubation, and ICU discharge alive were considered as events of interest, and mortality as competing event. FINDINGS: Of 1576 included patients, 568 were SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 482 influenza pneumonia, and 526 no evidence of viral infection at ICU admission. VAP was associated with significantly higher risk for 28-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16-2.47), p = 0.006), and influenza groups (1.75 (1.03-3.02), p = 0.045), but not in the no viral infection group (1.07 (0.64-1.78), p = 0.79). VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation in the SARS-CoV-2 group, but not in the influenza or no viral infection groups. VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of ICU stay in the 3 study groups. No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to VAP between the 3 groups, suggesting that the impact of VAP on mortality was not different between study groups. INTERPRETATION: VAP was associated with significantly increased 28-day mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients. However, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, did not significantly modify the relationship between VAP and 28-day mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Aged , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL