Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Add filters

Year range
J Infect ; 2022 Jun 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1914623


BACKGROUND: Procalcitonin (PCT) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) are useful biomarkers to differentiate bacterial from viral or fungal infections, although the association between them and co-infection or mortality in COVID-19 remains unclear. METHODS: The study represents a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia to 84 ICUs from ten countries between (March 2020-January 2021). Primary outcome was to determine whether PCT or CRP at admission could predict community-acquired bacterial respiratory co-infection (BC) and its added clinical value by determining the best discriminating cut-off values. Secondary outcome was to investigate its association with mortality. To evaluate the main outcome, a binary logistic regression was performed. The area under the curve evaluated diagnostic performance for BC prediction. RESULTS: 4635 patients were included, 7.6% fulfilled BC diagnosis. PCT (0.25[IQR 0.1-0.7] versus 0.20[IQR 0.1-0.5]ng/mL, p<0.001) and CRP (14.8[IQR 8.2-23.8] versus 13.3 [7-21.7]mg/dL, p=0.01) were higher in BC group. Neither PCT nor CRP were independently associated with BC and both had a poor ability to predict BC (AUC for PCT 0.56, for CRP 0.54). Baseline values of PCT<0.3ng/mL, could be helpful to rule out BC (negative predictive value 91.1%) and PCT≥0.50ng/mL was associated with ICU mortality (OR 1.5,p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These biomarkers at ICU admission led to a poor ability to predict BC among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Baseline values of PCT<0.3ng/mL may be useful to rule out BC, providing clinicians a valuable tool to guide antibiotic stewardship and allowing the unjustified overuse of antibiotics observed during the pandemic, additionally PCT≥0.50ng/mL might predict worsening outcomes.

EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-337888


Background: Optimal time to intubate patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is controversial. Whereas some authors recommend trying noninvasive respiratory support before intubate, others argue that delaying intubation can cause patient-self-induced lung injury and worsen the prognosis. We hypothesized that delayed intubation would increase the risk mortality in COVID-19 patients. Methods: This preplanned retrospective observational study used prospectively collected data from adult patients with COVID-19 and respiratory failure admitted to 73 intensive care units between February 2020 and March 2021. Patients with limitations on life support and those with missing data were excluded. We collected demographic, laboratory, clinical variables and outcomes. Intubation was classified as 1) Very early: before or at ICU admission;2) Early: < 24 hours after ICU admission;or 3) Late: ≥24 hours after ICU admission. We compared the early group versus those intubated late, using chi-square tests for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. To assess the relationship between early versus late intubation and mortality, we used multivariable binary logistic regression. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: We included 4198 patients [median age, 63 (54‒71) years;70.8% male;median SOFA score, 4 (3‒7);median APACHE score, 13 (10‒18)], and median PaO 2 /FiO 2 , 131 (100‒190)];intubation was very early in 2024 (48.2%) patients, early in 928 (22.1%), and late in 441 (10.5%). ICU mortality was 30.2% and median ICU stay was 14 (7‒28) days. Although patients in the late group were younger [62 vs. 64, respectively, p<0.05] and had less severe disease [APACHE II (13 vs. 14, respectively, p<0.05) and SOFA (3 vs. 4, respectively, p<0.05) scores], and higher PaO2/FiO 2 at admission (116 vs. 100, respectively, p<0.05), mortality was higher in the late group than in the early group (36.9% vs. 31.6%, p<0.05). Late intubation was independently associated with mortality (OR1.83;95%CI 1.35‒2.47). Conclusions: Delaying intubation beyond the first 24 hours of admission in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia increases the risk of mortality. Trial registration (NCT 04948242)

Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 11: 100243, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1500123


BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the changes in critical care throughout the pandemic have improved the outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in adults with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to 73 ICUs from Spain, Andorra and Ireland between February 2020 and March 2021. The first wave corresponded with the period from February 2020 to June 2020, whereas the second/third waves occurred from July 2020 to March 2021. The primary outcome was ICU mortality between study periods. Mortality predictors and differences in mortality between COVID-19 waves were identified using logistic regression. FINDINGS: As of March 2021, the participating ICUs had included 3795 COVID-19 pneumonia patients, 2479 (65·3%) and 1316 (34·7%) belonging to the first and second/third waves, respectively. Illness severity scores predicting mortality were lower in the second/third waves compared with the first wave according with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation system (median APACHE II score 12 [IQR 9-16] vs 14 [IQR 10-19]) and the organ failure assessment score (median SOFA 4 [3-6] vs 5 [3-7], p<0·001). The need of invasive mechanical ventilation was high (76·1%) during the whole study period. However, a significant increase in the use of high flow nasal cannula (48·7% vs 18·2%, p<0·001) was found in the second/third waves compared with the first surge. Significant changes on treatments prescribed were also observed, highlighting the remarkable increase on the use of corticosteroids to up to 95.9% in the second/third waves. A significant reduction on the use of tocilizumab was found during the study (first wave 28·9% vs second/third waves 6·2%, p<0·001), and a negligible administration of lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon during the second/third waves compared with the first wave. Overall ICU mortality was 30·7% (n = 1166), without significant differences between study periods (first wave 31·7% vs second/third waves 28·8%, p = 0·06). No significant differences were found in ICU mortality between waves according to age subsets except for the subgroup of 61-75 years of age, in whom a reduced unadjusted ICU mortality was observed in the second/third waves (first 38·7% vs second/third 34·0%, p = 0·048). Non-survivors were older, with higher severity of the disease, had more comorbidities, and developed more complications. After adjusting for confounding factors through a multivariable analysis, no significant association was found between the COVID-19 waves and mortality (OR 0·81, 95% CI 0·64-1·03; p = 0·09). Ventilator-associated pneumonia rate increased significantly during the second/third waves and it was independently associated with ICU mortality (OR 1·48, 95% CI 1·19-1·85, p<0·001). Nevertheless, a significant reduction both in the ICU and hospital length of stay in survivors was observed during the second/third waves. INTERPRETATION: Despite substantial changes on supportive care and management, we did not find significant improvement on case-fatality rates among critical COVID-19 pneumonia patients. FUNDING: Ricardo Barri Casanovas Foundation (RBCF2020) and SEMICYUC.