Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 268, 2021 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1892224

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) has been diffusely employed outside the intensive care unit (ICU) to face the high request of ventilatory support due to the massive influx of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). We sought to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in COVID-19 patients supported by NIV outside the ICU. METHODS: We searched PUBMED®, EMBASE®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register, along with medRxiv and bioRxiv repositories for pre-prints, for observational studies and randomized controlled trials, from inception to the end of February 2021. Two authors independently selected the investigations according to the following criteria: (1) observational study or randomized clinical trials enrolling ≥ 50 hospitalized patients undergoing NIRS outside the ICU, (2) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and (3) at least the intra-hospital mortality reported. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed. Data extraction was independently performed by two authors to assess: investigation features, demographics and clinical characteristics, treatments employed, NIRS regulations, and clinical outcomes. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool was applied to determine the quality of the enrolled studies. The primary outcome was to assess the overall intra-hospital mortality of patients under NIRS outside the ICU. The secondary outcomes included the proportions intra-hospital mortalities of patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation following NIRS failure and of those with 'do-not-intubate' (DNI) orders. RESULTS: Seventeen investigations (14 peer-reviewed and 3 pre-prints) were included with a low risk of bias and a high heterogeneity, for a total of 3377 patients. The overall intra-hospital mortality of patients receiving NIRS outside the ICU was 36% [30-41%]. 26% [21-30%] of the patients failed NIRS and required intubation, with an intra-hospital mortality rising to 45% [36-54%]. 23% [15-32%] of the patients received DNI orders with an intra-hospital mortality of 72% [65-78%]. Oxygenation on admission was the main source of between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19 outbreak, delivering NIRS outside the ICU revealed as a feasible strategy to cope with the massive demand of ventilatory assistance. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , CRD42020224788, December 11, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation/statistics & numerical data , Observational Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology
3.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(4): 431-439, 2022 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551111

ABSTRACT

Rationale: The "Berlin definition" of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles have proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. Objectives: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: From previously published studies, we analyzed patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who had PaO2/FiO2 of ⩽300 while treated with ⩾40 L/min HFNO, or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with positive end-expiratory pressure of ⩾5 cm H2O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV versus patients transitioned to IMV. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. A total of 112 HFNO and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. Of those, 104 (92.9%) patients on HFNO and 66 (95.7%) on NIV continued to have PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 under IMV. Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72), whereas in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV, it was 28.6% (32/112) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), whereas in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV, it was 44.9% (31/69) (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (P = 0.2479). Conclusions: Broadening the ARDS definition to include patients on HFNO with PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Hypoxia/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/diagnosis , Hypoxia/mortality , Hypoxia/virology , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/mortality , Patient Acuity , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Treatment Outcome
4.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 263, 2021 07 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331949

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pathophysiological features of coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (COVID-19 ARDS) were indicated to be somewhat different from those described in nonCOVID-19 ARDS, because of relatively preserved compliance of the respiratory system despite marked hypoxemia. We aim ascertaining whether respiratory system static compliance (Crs), driving pressure (DP), and tidal volume normalized for ideal body weight (VT/kg IBW) at the 1st day of controlled mechanical ventilation are associated with intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS: Observational multicenter cohort study. All consecutive COVID-19 adult patients admitted to 25 ICUs belonging to the COVID-19 VENETO ICU network (February 28th-April 28th, 2020), who received controlled mechanical ventilation, were screened. Only patients fulfilling ARDS criteria and with complete records of Crs, DP and VT/kg IBW within the 1st day of controlled mechanical ventilation were included. Crs, DP and VT/kg IBW were collected in sedated, paralyzed and supine patients. RESULTS: A total of 704 COVID-19 patients were screened and 241 enrolled. Seventy-one patients (29%) died in ICU. The logistic regression analysis showed that: (1) Crs was not linearly associated with ICU mortality (p value for nonlinearity = 0.01), with a greater risk of death for values < 48 ml/cmH2O; (2) the association between DP and ICU mortality was linear (p value for nonlinearity = 0.68), and increasing DP from 10 to 14 cmH2O caused significant higher odds of in-ICU death (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06-1.99); (3) VT/kg IBW was not associated with a significant increase of the risk of death (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.52). Multivariable analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Crs < 48 ml/cmH2O was associated with ICU mortality, while DP was linearly associated with mortality. DP should be kept as low as possible, even in the case of relatively preserved Crs, irrespective of VT/kg IBW, to reduce the risk of death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Aged , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Tidal Volume
5.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 268, 2021 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1330231

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) has been diffusely employed outside the intensive care unit (ICU) to face the high request of ventilatory support due to the massive influx of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19). We sought to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in COVID-19 patients supported by NIV outside the ICU. METHODS: We searched PUBMED®, EMBASE®, and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical trials register, along with medRxiv and bioRxiv repositories for pre-prints, for observational studies and randomized controlled trials, from inception to the end of February 2021. Two authors independently selected the investigations according to the following criteria: (1) observational study or randomized clinical trials enrolling ≥ 50 hospitalized patients undergoing NIRS outside the ICU, (2) laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and (3) at least the intra-hospital mortality reported. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed. Data extraction was independently performed by two authors to assess: investigation features, demographics and clinical characteristics, treatments employed, NIRS regulations, and clinical outcomes. Methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool was applied to determine the quality of the enrolled studies. The primary outcome was to assess the overall intra-hospital mortality of patients under NIRS outside the ICU. The secondary outcomes included the proportions intra-hospital mortalities of patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation following NIRS failure and of those with 'do-not-intubate' (DNI) orders. RESULTS: Seventeen investigations (14 peer-reviewed and 3 pre-prints) were included with a low risk of bias and a high heterogeneity, for a total of 3377 patients. The overall intra-hospital mortality of patients receiving NIRS outside the ICU was 36% [30-41%]. 26% [21-30%] of the patients failed NIRS and required intubation, with an intra-hospital mortality rising to 45% [36-54%]. 23% [15-32%] of the patients received DNI orders with an intra-hospital mortality of 72% [65-78%]. Oxygenation on admission was the main source of between-study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19 outbreak, delivering NIRS outside the ICU revealed as a feasible strategy to cope with the massive demand of ventilatory assistance. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , CRD42020224788, December 11, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/mortality , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation/statistics & numerical data , Observational Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology
6.
JAMA ; 325(17): 1731-1743, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241490

ABSTRACT

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Treatment Failure
8.
JAMA ; 325(17): 1731-1743, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1148761

ABSTRACT

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Treatment Failure
9.
Eur Respir J ; 56(5)2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067167

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 outbreak spread rapidly in Italy and the lack of intensive care unit (ICU) beds soon became evident, forcing the application of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) outside the ICU, raising concerns over staff contamination. We aimed to analyse the safety of the hospital staff and the feasibility and outcomes of NRS applied to patients outside the ICU. METHODS: In this observational study, data from 670 consecutive patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 referred to pulmonology units in nine hospitals between March 1 and May 10, 2020 were analysed. Data collected included medication, mode and usage of NRS (i.e. high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV)), length of stay in hospital, endotracheal intubation (ETI) and deaths. RESULTS: 42 (11.1%) healthcare workers tested positive for infection, but only three of them required hospitalisation. Data are reported for all patients (69.3% male), whose mean±sd age was 68±13 years. The arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio at baseline was 152±79, and the majority (49.3%) of patients were treated with CPAP. The overall unadjusted 30-day mortality rate was 26.9%, with 16%, 30% and 30% for HFNC, CPAP and NIV, respectively, while the total ETI rate was 27%, with 29%, 25% and 28%, respectively; the relative probability of death was not related to the NRS used after adjustment for confounders. ETI and length of stay were not different among the groups. Mortality rate increased with age and comorbidity class progression. CONCLUSIONS: The application of NRS outside the ICU is feasible and associated with favourable outcomes. Nonetheless, it was associated with a risk of staff contamination.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care , Noninvasive Ventilation , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Feasibility Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 18(6): 1020-1026, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1006326

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Treatment with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is frequent. Shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds led clinicians to deliver NIV also outside ICUs. Data about the use of NIV in COVID-19 is limited.Objectives: To describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 treated with NIV outside the ICUs. To investigate the factors associated with NIV failure (need for intubation or death).Methods: In this prospective, single-day observational study, we enrolled adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with NIV outside the ICU from 31 hospitals in Lombardy, Italy.Results: We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, ventilatory management, and patient outcomes. Of 8,753 patients with COVID-19 present in the hospitals on the study day, 909 (10%) were receiving NIV outside the ICU. A majority of patients (778/909; 85%) patients were treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was delivered by helmet in 617 (68%) patients. NIV failed in 300 patients (37.6%), whereas 498 (62.4%) patients were discharged alive without intubation. Overall mortality was 25%. NIV failure occurred in 152/284 (53%) patients with an arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio <150 mm Hg. Higher C-reactive protein and lower PaO2/FiO2 and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.Conclusions: The use of NIV outside the ICUs was common in COVID-19, with a predominant use of helmet CPAP, with a rate of success >60% and close to 75% in full-treatment patients. C-reactive protein, PaO2/FiO2, and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04382235).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Hospital Mortality , Hypoxia/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Patients' Rooms , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Cannula , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Failure
13.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 598379, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-954188

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high mortality. Lung-protective ventilation is the current standard of care in patients with ARDS, but it might lead to hypercapnia, which is independently associated with worse outcomes. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) has been proposed as an adjuvant therapy to avoid progression of clinical severity and limit further ventilator-induced lung injury, but its use in COVID-19 has not been described yet. Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) is common among critically ill COVID-19 patients. In centers with available dialysis, low-flow ECCO2R (<500 mL/min) using RRT platforms could be carried out by dialysis specialists and might be an option to efficiently allocate resources during the COVID-19 pandemic for patients with hypercapnia as the main indication. Here, we report the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of ECCO2R using an RRT platform to provide either standalone ECCO2R or ECCO2R combined with RRT in four hypercapnic patients with moderate ARDS. A randomized clinical trial is required to assess the overall benefit and harm. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04351906.

15.
J Intensive Care ; 8: 80, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-863305

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop severe respiratory failure requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and about 80% of them need mechanical ventilation (MV). These patients show great complexity due to multiple organ involvement and a dynamic evolution over time; moreover, few information is available about the risk factors that may contribute to increase the time course of mechanical ventilation.The primary objective of this study is to investigate the risk factors associated with the inability to liberate COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation. Due to the complex evolution of the disease, we analyzed both pulmonary variables and occurrence of non-pulmonary complications during mechanical ventilation. The secondary objective of this study was the evaluation of risk factors for ICU mortality. METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study enrolled 391 patients from fifteen COVID-19 dedicated Italian ICUs which underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia. Clinical and laboratory data, ventilator parameters, occurrence of organ dysfunction, and outcome were recorded. The primary outcome measure was 28 days ventilator-free days and the liberation from MV at 28 days was studied by performing a competing risks regression model on data, according to the method of Fine and Gray; the event death was considered as a competing risk. RESULTS: Liberation from mechanical ventilation was achieved in 53.2% of the patients (208/391). Competing risks analysis, considering death as a competing event, demonstrated a decreased sub-hazard ratio for liberation from mechanical ventilation (MV) with increasing age and SOFA score at ICU admission, low values of PaO2/FiO2 ratio during the first 5 days of MV, respiratory system compliance (CRS) lower than 40 mL/cmH2O during the first 5 days of MV, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and cardiovascular complications.ICU mortality during the observation period was 36.1% (141/391). Similar results were obtained by the multivariate logistic regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable. CONCLUSIONS: Age, SOFA score at ICU admission, CRS, PaO2/FiO2, renal and cardiovascular complications, and late-onset VAP were all independent risk factors for prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04411459.

16.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10(1): 133, 2020 Oct 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-846400

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A Covid-19 outbreak developed in Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna (Italy) at the end of February 2020. Fear of an imminent saturation of available ICU beds generated the notion that rationing of intensive care resources could have been necessary. RESULTS: In order to evaluate the impact of Covid-19 on the ICU capacity to manage critically ill patients, we performed a retrospective analysis of the first 2 weeks of the outbreak (February 24-March 8). Data were collected from regional registries and from a case report form sent to participating sites. ICU beds increased from 1545 to 1989 (28.7%), and patients receiving respiratory support outside the ICU increased from 4 (0.6%) to 260 (37.0%). Patients receiving respiratory support outside the ICU were significantly older [65 vs. 77 years], had more cerebrovascular (5.8 vs. 13.1%) and renal (5.3 vs. 10.0%) comorbidities and less obesity (31.4 vs. 15.5%) than patients admitted to the ICU. PaO2/FiO2 ratio, respiratory rate and arterial pH were higher [165 vs. 244; 20 vs. 24 breath/min; 7.40 vs. 7.46] and PaCO2 and base excess were lower [34 vs. 42 mmHg; 0.60 vs. 1.30] in patients receiving respiratory support outside the ICU than in patients admitted to the ICU, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Increase in ICU beds and use of out-of-ICU respiratory support allowed effective management of the first 14 days of the Covid-19 outbreak, avoiding resource rationing.

17.
J Crit Care ; 61: 39-44, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-797556

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A case series of five patients, representing the clinical spectrum of COVID-19 associated PTE. Patients were admitted to four hospitals in Germany, Italy, and France. Infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was confirmed using a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test. RESULTS: The onset of PTE varied from 2 to 4 weeks after the occurrence of the initial symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection and led to deterioration of the clinical picture in all cases. PTE was the primary reason for hospital admission after a 2-week period of self-isolation at home (1 patient) and hospital readmission after initial uncomplicated hospital discharge (2 patients). Three of the patients had no past history of clinically relevant risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Severe disease progression was associated with concomitant increases in IL-6, ferritin, and D-Dimer levels. The outcome from PTE was related to the extent of vascular involvement, and associated complications. CONCLUSION: PTE is a potential life-threatening complication, which occurs frequently in patients with COVID-19. Intermediate therapeutic dose of anticoagulants and extend thromboprophylaxis are necessary after meticulous risk-benefit assessment.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/diagnosis , Pulmonary Embolism/drug therapy , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Disease Progression , Ferritins/blood , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/analysis , France , Germany , Hospitalization , Humans , Interleukin-6/blood , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Pulmonary Embolism/complications , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
18.
Ann Intensive Care ; 10: 124, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-768626

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Preliminary reports have described significant procoagulant events in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), including life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). MAIN TEXT: We review the current data on the epidemiology, the possible underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and the therapeutic implications of PE in relation to COVID-19. The incidence of PE is reported to be around 2.6-8.9% of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and up to one-third of those requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, despite standard prophylactic anticoagulation. This may be explained by direct and indirect pathologic consequences of COVID-19, complement activation, cytokine release, endothelial dysfunction, and interactions between different types of blood cells. CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis should be started in all patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the hospital. The use of an intermediate therapeutic dose of low molecular weight (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin can be considered on an individual basis in patients with multiple risk factors for venous thromboembolism, including critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. Decisions about extending prophylaxis with LMWH after hospital discharge should be made after balancing the reduced risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the risk of increased bleeding events and should be continued for 7-14 days after hospital discharge or in the pre-hospital phase in case of pre-existing or persisting VTE risk factors. Therapeutic anticoagulation is the cornerstone in the management of patients with PE. Selection of an appropriate agent and correct dosing requires consideration of underlying comorbidities.

20.
Lancet Respir Med ; 8(12): 1201-1208, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-731950

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 can develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to examine the functional and morphological features of COVID-19-associated ARDS and to compare these with the characteristics of ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective observational study was done at seven hospitals in Italy. We enrolled consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and who met Berlin criteria for ARDS, who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between March 9 and March 22, 2020. All patients were sedated, paralysed, and ventilated in volume-control mode with standard ICU ventilators. Static respiratory system compliance, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, ventilatory ratio (a surrogate of dead space), and D-dimer concentrations were measured within 24 h of ICU admission. Lung CT scans and CT angiograms were done when clinically indicated. A dataset for ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 was created from previous ARDS studies. Survival to day 28 was assessed. FINDINGS: Between March 9 and March 22, 2020, 301 patients with COVID-19 met the Berlin criteria for ARDS at participating hospitals. Median static compliance was 41 mL/cm H2O (33-52), which was 28% higher than in the cohort of patients with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (32 mL/cm H2O [25-43]; p<0·0001). 17 (6%) of 297 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS had compliances greater than the 95th percentile of the classical ARDS cohort. Total lung weight did not differ between the two cohorts. CT pulmonary angiograms (obtained in 23 [8%] patients with COVID-19-related ARDS) showed that 15 (94%) of 16 patients with D-dimer concentrations greater than the median had bilateral areas of hypoperfusion, consistent with thromboembolic disease. Patients with D-dimer concentrations equal to or less than the median had ventilatory ratios lower than those of patients with D-dimer concentrations greater than the median (1·66 [1·32-1·95] vs 1·90 [1·50-2·33]; p=0·0001). Patients with static compliance equal to or less than the median and D-dimer concentrations greater than the median had markedly increased 28-day mortality compared with other patient subgroups (40 [56%] of 71 with high D-dimers and low compliance vs 18 [27%] of 67 with low D-dimers and high compliance, 13 [22%] of 60 with low D-dimers and low compliance, and 22 [35%] of 63 with high D-dimers and high compliance, all p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS have a form of injury that, in many aspects, is similar to that of those with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. Notably, patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who have a reduction in respiratory system compliance together with increased D-dimer concentrations have high mortality rates. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Computed Tomography Angiography , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/metabolism , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Lung/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL