Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 27
Filter
1.
Bradbury, Charlotte A. M. D. PhD, Lawler, Patrick R. M. D. M. P. H.; Stanworth, Simon J. M. D.; McVerry, Bryan J. M. D.; McQuilten, Zoe PhD, Higgins, Alisa M. PhD, Mouncey, Paul R. MSc, Al-Beidh, Farah PhD, Rowan, Kathryn M. PhD, Berry, Lindsay R. PhD, Lorenzi, Elizabeth PhD, Zarychanski, Ryan M. D. MSc, Arabi, Yaseen M. M. D.; Annane, Djillali M. D. PhD, Beane, Abi PhD, van Bentum-Puijk, Wilma MSc, Bhimani, Zahra M. P. H.; Bihari, Shailesh PhD, M Bonten, Marc J. M. D. PhD, Brunkhorst, Frank M. M. D. PhD, Buzgau, Adrian MSc, Buxton, Meredith PhD, Carrier, Marc M. D. MSc, Cheng, Allen C. Mbbs PhD, Cove, Matthew Mbbs, Detry, Michelle A. PhD, Estcourt, Lise J. MBBCh PhD, Fitzgerald, Mark PhD, Girard, Timothy D. M. D. Msci, Goligher, Ewan C. M. D. PhD, Goossens, Herman PhD, Haniffa, Rashan PhD, Hills, Thomas Mbbs PhD, Huang, David T. M. D. M. P. H.; Horvat, Christopher M. M. D.; Hunt, Beverley J. M. D. PhD, Ichihara, Nao M. D. M. P. H. PhD, Lamontagne, Francois M. D.; Leavis, Helen L. M. D. PhD, Linstrum, Kelsey M. M. S.; Litton, Edward M. D. PhD, Marshall, John C. M. D.; McAuley, Daniel F. M. D.; McGlothlin, Anna PhD, McGuinness, Shay P. M. D.; Middeldorp, Saskia M. D. PhD, Montgomery, Stephanie K. MSc, Morpeth, Susan C. M. D. PhD, Murthy, Srinivas M. D.; Neal, Matthew D. M. D.; Nichol, Alistair D. M. D. PhD, Parke, Rachael L. PhD, Parker, Jane C. B. N.; Reyes, Luis F. M. D. PhD, Saito, Hiroki M. D. M. P. H.; Santos, Marlene S. M. D. Mshs, Saunders, Christina T. PhD, Serpa-Neto, Ary PhD MSc M. D.; Seymour, Christopher W. M. D. MSc, Shankar-Hari, Manu M. D. PhD, Singh, Vanessa, Tolppa, Timo Mbbs, Turgeon, Alexis F. M. D. MSc, Turner, Anne M. M. P. H.; van de Veerdonk, Frank L. M. D. PhD, Green, Cameron MSc, Lewis, Roger J. M. D. PhD, Angus, Derek C. M. D. M. P. H.; McArthur, Colin J. M. D.; Berry, Scott PhD, G Derde, Lennie P. M. D. PhD, Webb, Steve A. M. D. PhD, Gordon, Anthony C. Mbbs M. D..
JAMA ; 327(13):1247, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1801957

ABSTRACT

Importance The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control;n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was organ support–free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit–based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from −1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years;521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support–free days was 7 (IQR, −1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23];95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62];adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, −0.2% to 9.5%];97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support–free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28];adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%];99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support–free days within 21 days.

2.
J Med Virol ; 94(5): 2079-2088, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1777582

ABSTRACT

To expand our understanding of the role of angiotensin II (ANGII) in coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19), we conducted an international, multicenter registry study to assess the use of ANGII in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients not receiving ANGII. Critically ill adult patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and received ANGII were matched with COVID-19 patients not receiving ANGII according to age, respiratory support, history of hypertension, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or ANGII receptor blocker, and date of admission. All outcomes were exploratory in nature and included improvement in oxygenation, duration of organ support, and mortality. In one year, 132 patients were included (65 in the ANGII group and 67 in the control group), and patients were comparable in baseline characteristics. During the first 12 h of infusion, patients in the ANGII had a faster decrease in FiO2  and maintained similar mean arterial pressure levels. Hospital mortality was not statistically significantly different between the groups (53.8% vs. 40.3%; p = 0.226). Within the limitations of such a study design, our findings confirm previous observations of a potentially positive effect of ANGII on blood pressure and FiO2 but no effect on patient-centered outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases , Adult , Angiotensin II/pharmacology , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Registries , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 Mar 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731386

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: The outcomes of survivors of critical illness due to COVID-19 compared to non-COVID are yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare new disability at 6-months in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs) with COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19. METHODS: We included COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients from two prospective observational studies. Patients were eligible if they were adult (age ≥18 years) with over 24 hours of mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic, intervention and hospital outcome data were obtained from electronic medical records. Survivors were contacted by telephone for functional outcomes with trained outcome assessors using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. MAIN RESULTS: Between 6 March 2020 and 21 April 2021, 120 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and between August 2017 and January 2019, 199 critically ill patients without COVID-19 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Patients with COVID-19 were older (62 (55-71) vs 58 (44-69), p=0.019) with a lower APACHE II (17 (13-20) vs 19 (15-23), p=0.011). While duration of ventilation was longer in patients with COVID-19 compared to without COVID-19 (12 days (5-19) vs 4.8 (2.3-8.8), p <0.001), 180-day mortality was similar between the groups (39/120 (32.5%) vs 70/199 (35.2%), p=0.715). The incidence of death or new disability at 180 days was similar (58/93 (62.4%) versus 99/150 (66/0%), p=0.583). CONCLUSION: At 6-months there was no difference in new disability for patients requiring mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19. 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/).

4.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 38(12): 1274-1283, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700154

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about how much positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a higher PEEP strategy is superior to a lower PEEP strategy regarding the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs). DESIGN: Multicentre observational study conducted from 1 March to 1 June 2020. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Twenty-two ICUs in The Netherlands and 933 invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorised retrospectively as having received invasive ventilation with higher (n=259) or lower PEEP (n=674), based on the high and low PEEP/FiO2 tables of the ARDS Network, and using ventilator settings and parameters in the first hour of invasive ventilation, and every 8 h thereafter at fixed time points during the first four calendar days. We also used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors that might influence outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of VFDs. Secondary outcomes included distant organ failures including acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, the higher PEEP strategy had no association with the median [IQR] number of VFDs (2.0 [0.0 to 15.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0 to 16.0] days). The median (95% confidence interval) difference was 0.21 (-3.34 to 3.78) days, P = 0.905. In the matched cohort, the higher PEEP group had an association with a lower median number of VFDs (0.0 [0.0 to 14.0] vs. 6.0 [0.0 to 17.0] days) a median difference of -4.65 (-8.92 to -0.39) days, P = 0.032. The higher PEEP strategy had associations with higher incidence of AKI (in the matched cohort) and more use of RRT (in the unmatched and matched cohorts). The higher PEEP strategy had no association with mortality. CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 ARDS, use of higher PEEP may be associated with a lower number of VFDs, and may increase the incidence of AKI and need for RRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilators, Mechanical
5.
Journal of critical care ; 68:31-37, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564742

ABSTRACT

Background The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful oxygenation parameter with prognostic capacity in patients with ARDS. We investigated the prognostic capacity of SpO2/FiO2 for mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID–19. Methods This was a post-hoc analysis of a national multicenter cohort study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID–19. The primary endpoint was 28–day mortality. Results In 869 invasively ventilated patients, 28–day mortality was 30.1%. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 1 had no prognostic value. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 had prognostic capacity for death, with the best cut-offs being 179 and 199, respectively. Both SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 (OR, 0.66 [95%–CI 0.46–0.96]) and on day 3 (OR, 0.70 [95%–CI 0.51–0.96]) were associated with 28–day mortality in a model corrected for age, pH, lactate levels and kidney dysfunction (AUROC 0.78 [0.76–0.79]). The measured PaO2/FiO2 and the PaO2/FiO2 calculated from SpO2/FiO2 were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.79). Conclusions In this cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID–19, the SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 are independently associated with and have prognostic capacity for 28–day mortality. The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful metric for risk stratification in invasively ventilated COVID–19 patients.

6.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 725265, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556062

ABSTRACT

Background: High intensity of ventilation has an association with mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure. It is uncertain whether similar associations exist in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated the association of exposure to different levels of driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) with mortality in these patients. Methods: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, retrospective observational study, performed at 22 ICUs in the Netherlands, including COVID-19 patients under invasive ventilation for ARDS. Dynamic ΔP and MP were calculated at fixed time points during the first 4 calendar days of ventilation. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. To assess the effects of time-varying exposure, Bayesian joint models adjusted for confounders were used. Results: Of 1,122 patients included in the PRoVENT-COVID study, 734 were eligible for this analysis. In the first 28 days, 29.2% of patients died. A significant increase in the hazard of death was found to be associated with each increment in ΔP (HR 1.04, 95% CrI 1.01-1.07) and in MP (HR 1.12, 95% CrI 1.01-1.36). In sensitivity analyses, cumulative exposure to higher levels of ΔP or MP resulted in increased risks for 28-day mortality. Conclusion: Cumulative exposure to higher intensities of ventilation in COVID-19 patients with ARDS have an association with increased risk of 28-day mortality. Limiting exposure to high ΔP or MP has the potential to improve survival in these patients. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04346342.

7.
J Crit Care ; 68: 31-37, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556022

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful oxygenation parameter with prognostic capacity in patients with ARDS. We investigated the prognostic capacity of SpO2/FiO2 for mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a national multicenter cohort study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: In 869 invasively ventilated patients, 28-day mortality was 30.1%. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 1 had no prognostic value. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 had prognostic capacity for death, with the best cut-offs being 179 and 199, respectively. Both SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 (OR, 0.66 [95%-CI 0.46-0.96]) and on day 3 (OR, 0.70 [95%-CI 0.51-0.96]) were associated with 28-day mortality in a model corrected for age, pH, lactate levels and kidney dysfunction (AUROC 0.78 [0.76-0.79]). The measured PaO2/FiO2 and the PaO2/FiO2 calculated from SpO2/FiO2 were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, the SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 are independently associated with and have prognostic capacity for 28-day mortality. The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful metric for risk stratification in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Oximetry , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
8.
J Clin Med ; 10(22)2021 Nov 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1524047

ABSTRACT

Driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) are associated with outcomes in critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). INTELLiVENT-ASV, a fully automated ventilatory mode, controls the settings that affect ΔP and MP. This study compared the intensity of ventilation (ΔP and MP) with INTELLiVENT-ASV versus conventional ventilation in a cohort of COVID-19 ARDS patients in two intensive care units in the Netherlands. The coprimary endpoints were ΔP and MP before and after converting from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV. Compared to conventional ventilation, INTELLiVENT-ASV delivered ventilation with a lower ΔP and less MP. With conventional ventilation, ΔP was 13 cmH2O, and MP was 21.5 and 24.8 J/min, whereas with INTELLiVENT-ASV, ΔP was 11 and 10 cmH2O (mean difference -2 cm H2O (95 %CI -2.5 to -1.2 cm H2O), p < 0.001) and MP was 18.8 and 17.5 J/min (mean difference -7.3 J/Min (95% CI -8.8 to -5.8 J/min), p < 0.001). Conversion from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV resulted in a lower intensity of ventilation. These findings may favor the use of INTELLiVENT-ASV in COVID-19 ARDS patients, but future studies remain needed to see if the reduction in the intensity of ventilation translates into clinical benefits.

9.
J Clin Med ; 10(20)2021 Oct 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488624

ABSTRACT

We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%-the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5-21.0) hours per full calendar day-the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0-23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0-19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76-1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62-1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80-1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73-1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.

10.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1377-1386, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466986

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been postulated to present with distinct respiratory subphenotypes. However, most phenotyping schema have been limited by sample size, disregard for temporal dynamics, and insufficient validation. We aimed to identify respiratory subphenotypes of COVID-19-related ARDS using unbiased data-driven approaches. METHODS: PRoVENT-COVID was an investigator-initiated, national, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study at 22 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients who had received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 (aged 18 years or older) served as the derivation cohort, and similar patients from two ICUs in the USA served as the replication cohorts. COVID-19 was confirmed by positive RT-PCR. We used latent class analysis to identify subphenotypes using clinically available respiratory data cross-sectionally at baseline, and longitudinally using 8-hourly data from the first 4 days of invasive ventilation. We used group-based trajectory modelling to evaluate trajectories of individual variables and to facilitate potential clinical translation. The PRoVENT-COVID study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, 1007 patients were admitted to participating ICUs in the Netherlands, and included in the derivation cohort. Data for 288 patients were included in replication cohort 1 and 326 in replication cohort 2. Cross-sectional latent class analysis did not identify any underlying subphenotypes. Longitudinal latent class analysis identified two distinct subphenotypes. Subphenotype 2 was characterised by higher mechanical power, minute ventilation, and ventilatory ratio over the first 4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation than subphenotype 1, but PaO2/FiO2, pH, and compliance of the respiratory system did not differ between the two subphenotypes. 185 (28%) of 671 patients with subphenotype 1 and 109 (32%) of 336 patients with subphenotype 2 had died at day 28 (p=0·10). However, patients with subphenotype 2 had fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (median 0, IQR 0-15 vs 5, 0-17; p=0·016) and more frequent venous thrombotic events (109 [32%] of 336 patients vs 176 [26%] of 671 patients; p=0·048) compared with subphenotype 1. Group-based trajectory modelling revealed trajectories of ventilatory ratio and mechanical power with similar dynamics to those observed in latent class analysis-derived trajectory subphenotypes. The two trajectories were: a stable value for ventilatory ratio or mechanical power over the first 4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation (trajectory A) or an upward trajectory (trajectory B). However, upward trajectories were better independent prognosticators for 28-day mortality (OR 1·64, 95% CI 1·17-2·29 for ventilatory ratio; 1·82, 1·24-2·66 for mechanical power). The association between upward ventilatory ratio trajectories (trajectory B) and 28-day mortality was confirmed in the replication cohorts (OR 4·65, 95% CI 1·87-11·6 for ventilatory ratio in replication cohort 1; 1·89, 1·05-3·37 for ventilatory ratio in replication cohort 2). INTERPRETATION: At baseline, COVID-19-related ARDS has no consistent respiratory subphenotype. Patients diverged from a fairly homogenous to a more heterogeneous population, with trajectories of ventilatory ratio and mechanical power being the most discriminatory. Modelling these parameters alone provided prognostic value for duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. FUNDING: Amsterdam UMC.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 283, 2021 08 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398871

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The intensity of ventilation, reflected by driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP), has an association with outcome in invasively ventilated patients with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is uncertain if a similar association exists in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We aimed to investigate the impact of intensity of ventilation on patient outcome. The PRoVENT-COVID study is a national multicenter observational study in COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation. Ventilator parameters were collected a fixed time points on the first calendar day of invasive ventilation. Mean dynamic ΔP and MP were calculated for individual patients at time points without evidence of spontaneous breathing. A Cox proportional hazard model, and a double stratification analysis adjusted for confounders were used to estimate the independent associations of ΔP and MP with outcome. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: In 825 patients included in this analysis, 28-day mortality was 27.5%. ΔP was not independently associated with mortality (HR 1.02 [95% confidence interval 0.88-1.18]; P = 0.750). MP, however, was independently associated with 28-day mortality (HR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01-1.36]; P = 0.031), and increasing quartiles of MP, stratified on comparable levels of ΔP, had higher risks of 28-day mortality (HR 1.15 [95% CI 1.01-1.30]; P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of critically ill invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure, we show an independent association of MP, but not ΔP with 28-day mortality. MP could serve as one prognostic biomarker in addition to ΔP in these patients. Efforts aiming at limiting both ΔP and MP could translate in a better outcome. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04346342).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Respiration, Artificial/trends , Retrospective Studies , Tidal Volume/physiology
12.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 38(12): 1274-1283, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1303952

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about how much positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a higher PEEP strategy is superior to a lower PEEP strategy regarding the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs). DESIGN: Multicentre observational study conducted from 1 March to 1 June 2020. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Twenty-two ICUs in The Netherlands and 933 invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorised retrospectively as having received invasive ventilation with higher (n=259) or lower PEEP (n=674), based on the high and low PEEP/FiO2 tables of the ARDS Network, and using ventilator settings and parameters in the first hour of invasive ventilation, and every 8 h thereafter at fixed time points during the first four calendar days. We also used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors that might influence outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of VFDs. Secondary outcomes included distant organ failures including acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, the higher PEEP strategy had no association with the median [IQR] number of VFDs (2.0 [0.0 to 15.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0 to 16.0] days). The median (95% confidence interval) difference was 0.21 (-3.34 to 3.78) days, P = 0.905. In the matched cohort, the higher PEEP group had an association with a lower median number of VFDs (0.0 [0.0 to 14.0] vs. 6.0 [0.0 to 17.0] days) a median difference of -4.65 (-8.92 to -0.39) days, P = 0.032. The higher PEEP strategy had associations with higher incidence of AKI (in the matched cohort) and more use of RRT (in the unmatched and matched cohorts). The higher PEEP strategy had no association with mortality. CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 ARDS, use of higher PEEP may be associated with a lower number of VFDs, and may increase the incidence of AKI and need for RRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilators, Mechanical
13.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e042302, 2021 06 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1282095

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Daily multidisciplinary rounds (DMRs) consist of systematic patient-centred discussions aiming to establish joint therapeutic goals for the next 24 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) care. The aim of the present study protocol is to evaluate whether an intervention consisting of guided DMRs, supported by a remote specialist and audit/feedback on care performance will reduce ICU length of stay compared with a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised superiority trial including 30 ICUs in Brazil (15 intervention and 15 control), from August 2019 to June 2021. In a parallel assignment, ICUs are randomised to a complex-intervention composed by daily rounds carried out through Tele-ICU by a remote ICU physician; development of local quality indicators dashboards coupled with monthly meetings with local leadership; and dissemination of evidence-based clinical protocols versus usual care. Primary outcome is ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include classification of the unit according to the profiles defined by the standardised resource use and the standardised mortality rate, hospital mortality, incidence of healthcare-associated infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation or alert and calm, rate of patients under normoxaemia. All adult patients admitted after the beginning of the study in each participant ICU will be enrolled. Inclusion criteria (clusters): public Brazilian ICUs with a minimum of 8 ICU beds interested/committed to participating in the study. Exclusion criteria (clusters): units with fully established DMRs by an intensivist, specialised or step-down units. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the coordinator centre, and by IRBs of each enrolled hospital/ICU. Statistical analysis protocol is being prepared for submission before the end of patient's enrolment. Results will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed journals and to each participating unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03920501; Pre-results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telescopes , Adult , Brazil , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
14.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 87(8): 891-902, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262728

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with elevated levels of inflammatory cytokines. We present the characteristics and outcomes of patients treated in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with immunosuppressive drugs, either tocilizumab or anakinra compared with controls. METHODS: A single-center observational prospective study on ICU invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was the clinical improvement at day 28. A Bayesian framework was employed, and all analyses were adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Sixty-one consecutive invasively ventilated patients were included, nine (14.7%) received tocilizumab and 15 (24.6%) received anakinra. Over the first seven days, tocilizumab was associated with a greater decrease in C-reactive protein (P<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, the probability of clinical improvement at day 28 compared to control was 7∙6% (OR=0.36 [95% CrI: 0.09-1.46]) for tocilizumab and 40.9% (OR=0.89 [95% CrI: 0.32-2.43]) for anakinra. At day 28, the probability of being in a better clinical category was 2.5% (OR=2.98 [95% CrI: 1.00-8.88]) for tocilizumab, and 49.5% (OR=1.00 [95% CrI: 0.42-2.42]) for anakinra. CONCLUSIONS: In invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, treatment with anakinra was associated with a higher probability of clinical improvement compared to tocilizumab; however, treatment with either drug did not result in clinically meaningful improvements compared with controls.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Bayes Theorem , Humans , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
15.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0250180, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1197383

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. Data on the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) are needed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU and to address factors associated with mobility level at the time of ICU discharge. METHODS: Single center, retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed COVID-19 infection were analyzed. The mobility status was assessed by the Perme Score at admission and discharge from ICU with higher scores indicating higher mobility level. The Perme Mobility Index (PMI) was calculated [PMI = ΔPerme Score (ICU discharge-ICU admission)/ICU length of stay]. Based on the PMI, patients were divided into two groups: "Improved" (PMI > 0) and "Not improved" (PMI ≤ 0). RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in this analysis. The hospital mortality rate was 16.2%. The Perme Score improved significantly when comparing ICU discharge with ICU admission [20.0 (7-28) points versus 7.0 (0-16) points; P < 0.001]. A total of 88 patients (64.7%) improved their mobility level during ICU stay, and the median PMI of these patients was 1.5 (0.6-3.4). Patients in the improved group had a lower duration of mechanical ventilation [10 (5-14) days versus 15 (8-24) days; P = 0.021], lower hospital length of stay [25 (12-37) days versus 30 (11-48) days; P < 0.001], and lower ICU and hospital mortality rate. Independent predictors for mobility level were lower age, lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, and not having received renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients' mobility level was low at ICU admission; however, most patients improved their mobility level during ICU stay. Risk factors associated with the mobility level were age, comorbidities, and use of renal replacement therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , Mobility Limitation , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Critical Care , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Treatment Outcome
16.
Expert Rev Respir Med ; 15(8): 1013-1023, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1180435

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: It is uncertain whether ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differs from that in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from another origin. AREAS COVERED: We undertook two literature searches in PubMed to identify observational studies reporting on ventilation management--one in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19, and one in patients with ARDS from another origin. The searches identified 14 studies in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19, and 8 studies in patients with ARDS from another origin. EXPERT OPINION: In patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19, ventilation management seems to be similar to that of patients with ARDS from another origin. The future lies in studies focused on personalized treatment of ARDS of all origins, including COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Lung , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
17.
J Clin Med ; 10(6)2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1125931

ABSTRACT

We describe the practice of ventilation and mortality rates in invasively ventilated normal-weight (18.5 ≤ BMI ≤ 24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 29.9 kg/m2), and obese (BMI > 30 kg/m2) COVID-19 ARDS patients in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilation variables and parameters over the first four calendar days of ventilation, including tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure in normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and mortality rates. Between 1 March 2020 and 1 June 2020, 1122 patients were included in the study: 244 (21.3%) normal-weight patients, 531 (47.3%) overweight patients, and 324 (28.8%) obese patients. Most patients received a tidal volume < 8 mL/kg PBW; only on the first day was the tidal volume higher in obese patients. PEEP and driving pressure were higher, and compliance of the respiratory system was lower in obese patients on all four days. Adjunctive therapies for refractory hypoxemia were used equally in the three BMI groups. Adjusted mortality rates were not different between BMI categories. The findings of this study suggest that lung-protective ventilation with a lower tidal volume and prone positioning is similarly feasible in normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients with ARDS related to COVID-19. A patient's BMI should not be used in decisions to forgo or proceed with invasive ventilation.

19.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 18(8): 1380-1389, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999862

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Both 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are transmitted by respiratory secretions and in severe cases result in a viral pneumonitis, requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. However, no studies have compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of such patients. Objectives: To report and compare the demographic characteristics, treatments, use of critical care resources, and outcomes of patients admitted to an Australian ICU with H1N1 influenza during the winter of 2009, and SARS-CoV-2 during the winter of 2020. Methods: This was a multicenter project, using national data from previous and ongoing epidemiological studies concerning severe acute respiratory infections in Australia. All ICUs admitting patients with H1N1 or coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were included and contributed data. We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with H1N1 admitted to ICU in the winter of 2009 versus patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU in the winter of 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Potential years of life lost (PYLL) were calculated according to sex-adjusted life expectancy in Australia. Results: Across the two epochs, 861 patients were admitted to ICUs; 236 (27.4%) with COVID-19 and 625 (72.6%) with H1N1 influenza. The number of ICU admissions and bed-days occupied were higher with 2009 H1N1 influenza. Patients with COVID-19 were older, more often male and overweight, and had lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores at ICU admission. The highest age-specific incidence of ICU admission was among infants (0-1 yr of age) for H1N1, and among the elderly (≥65 yr) for COVID-19. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was similar (11.5% in COVID-19 vs. 16.1% in H1N1; odds ratio, 0.68 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.42-1.06]; P = 0.10). The PYLL was greater with H1N1 influenza than with COVID-19 at 154.1 (95% CI, 148.7-159.4) versus 13.6 (95% CI, 12.2-15.1) PYLL per million inhabitants. Conclusions: In comparison with 2009 H1N1 influenza, COVID-19 admissions overwinter in Australia resulted in fewer ICU admissions, and lower bed-day occupancy. Crude in-hospital mortality was similar, but because of demographic differences in affected patients, deaths due to 2009 H1N1 influenza led to an 11-fold increase in the number of PYLL in critically ill patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza, Human , Aged , Australia/epidemiology , Critical Care , Critical Illness , Humans , Infant , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/therapy , Intensive Care Units , Male , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Blood Purif ; 50(4-5): 520-530, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-992129

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 may develop multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, including acute kidney injury (AKI). We report the incidence, risk factors, associations, and outcomes of AKI and renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between March 2020 and May 2020. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied to identify risk factors for the development of AKI and use of RRT. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality after ICU admission. RESULTS: 101 (50.2%) patients developed AKI (72% on the first day of invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV]), and thirty-four (17%) required RRT. Risk factors for AKI included higher baseline Cr (OR 2.50 [1.33-4.69], p = 0.005), diuretic use (OR 4.14 [1.27-13.49], p = 0.019), and IMV (OR 7.60 [1.37-42.05], p = 0.020). A higher C-reactive protein level was an additional risk factor for RRT (OR 2.12 [1.16-4.33], p = 0.023). Overall 60-day mortality was 14.4% {23.8% (n = 24) in the AKI group versus 5% (n = 5) in the non-AKI group (HR 2.79 [1.04-7.49], p = 0.040); and 35.3% (n = 12) in the RRT group versus 10.2% (n = 17) in the non-RRT group, respectively (HR 2.21 [1.01-4.85], p = 0.047)}. CONCLUSIONS: AKI was common among critically ill COVID-19 patients and occurred early in association with IMV. One in 6 AKI patients received RRT and 1 in 3 patients treated with RRT died in hospital. These findings provide important prognostic information for clinicians caring for these patients.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Renal Replacement Therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Acute Kidney Injury/blood , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil/epidemiology , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , Comorbidity , Creatinine/blood , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Multiple Organ Failure/etiology , Multiple Organ Failure/mortality , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/complications , Renal Replacement Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL