Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
J Crit Care ; 71: 154062, 2022 May 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1851453

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Optimal timing of intubation is controversial. We attempted to investigate the association between timing of intubation and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. METHODS: PubMed was systematically searched for studies reporting on mortality of critically ill patients undergoing early versus late intubation. Studies involving patients with new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were excluded because a relevant meta-analysis has been published. "Early" intubation was defined according to the authors of the included studies. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021284850). RESULTS: In total, 27 studies involving 15,441 intubated patients (11,943 early, 3498 late) were included. All-cause mortality was lower in patients undergoing early versus late intubation (7338 deaths; 45.8% versus 53.5%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97; p = 0.001). This was also the case in the sensitivity analysis of studies defining "early" as intubation within 24 h from admission in the intensive care unit (6279 deaths; 45.8% versus 53.6%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98; p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Avoiding late intubation may be associated with lower mortality in critically ill patients without COVID-19.

2.
Respir Res ; 23(1): 94, 2022 Apr 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1793938

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Before the pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), rapidly improving acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mostly defined by early extubation, had been recognized as an increasingly prevalent subphenotype (making up 15-24% of all ARDS cases), associated with good prognosis (10% mortality in ARDSNet trials). We attempted to determine the prevalence and prognosis of rapidly improving ARDS and of persistent severe ARDS related to COVID-19. METHODS: We included consecutive patients with COVID-19 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in three intensive care units (ICU) during the second pandemic wave in Greece. We defined rapidly improving ARDS as extubation or a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2:FiO2) greater than 300 on the first day following intubation. We defined persistent severe ARDS as PaO2:FiO2 of equal to or less than 100 on the second day following intubation. RESULTS: A total of 280 intubated patients met criteria of ARDS with a median PaO2:FiO2 of 125.0 (interquartile range 93.0-161.0) on day of intubation, and overall ICU-mortality of 52.5% (ranging from 24.3 to 66.9% across the three participating sites). Prevalence of rapidly improving ARDS was 3.9% (11 of 280 patients); no extubation occurred on the first day following intubation. ICU-mortality of patients with rapidly improving ARDS was 54.5%. This low prevalence and high mortality rate of rapidly improving ARDS were consistent across participating sites. Prevalence of persistent severe ARDS was 12.1% and corresponding mortality was 82.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Rapidly improving ARDS was not prevalent and was not associated with good prognosis among patients with COVID-19. This is starkly different from what has been previously reported for patients with ARDS not related to COVID-19. Our results on both rapidly improving ARDS and persistent severe ARDS may contribute to our understanding of trajectory of ARDS and its association with prognosis in patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Oxygen , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
3.
Minerva Anestesiol ; 2022 Apr 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1789847

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although older adults aret ahigh risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, age is often used as a selection criterion in case of ICU beds scarcity. We sought to compare the proportion, clinical features and mortality between patients ≥70 years old and younger ICU patients with COVID-19. METHODS: All patients, consecutively admitted to our COVID ICU, where age was not used as an admission criterion, from March 2020 through April 2021, were included. Demographics, clinical and laboratory characteristics were recorded. Illness severity and Charlson comorbidity índex (CCI) were calculated. Patients≥70 years old were compared to youngers. RESULTS: Of 458 patients [68 (59-76) years, 70% males], 206 (45%) were≥70 years old. Compared to younger, older patients had higher illness severity scores [APACHE II 18 (14-23) versus 12 (9-16), p<0.001, SOFA 8 (6-10) versus 6 (2-8), p<0.001, CCI 5 (4-6) versus 2 (1-3), p <0.001], increased need for mechanical ventilation (92% vs 72%, p<0.001) and ICU mortality (74% versus. 29%, p<0.001). Age (HR: 1.045, CI: 1.02-1.07, p=0.001), CCI (HR: 1.135, CI: 1.037-1.243, p=0.006) and APACHE I I (HR: 1.070, CI: 1.013-1.130, p=0.015) were independently associated with mortality. Among comorbidities, obesity, chronic pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease were independent risk factors for death. CONCLUSIONS: When age is not used as criterion for admission to COVID ICU, patients≥70 years old represent a considerable proportion and, compared to younger ones, they have higher mortality. Age, severity of illness and CCI, and certain comorbidities are independent risk factors for mortality.

4.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 814587, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1715007

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whether vitamin C provides any benefit when administered in critically ill patients, including those with coronavirus disease (COVID-19), is controversial. We endeavored to estimate the effect of administration of vitamin C on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by performing an observational study and subsequent meta-analysis. METHODS: Firstly, we conducted an observational study of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who consecutively underwent invasive mechanical ventilation in an academic intensive care unit (ICU) during the second pandemic wave. We compared all-cause mortality of patients receiving vitamin C ("vitamin C" group) or not ("control" group) on top of standard-of-care. Subsequently, we systematically searched PubMed and CENTRAL for relevant studies, which reported on all-cause mortality (primary outcome) and/or morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19 receiving vitamin C or not treatment. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO. RESULTS: In the observational study, baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Mortality was 20.0% (2/10) in the vitamin C group vs. 47.6% (49/103; p = 0.11) in the control group. Subsequently, the meta-analysis included 11 studies (6 observational; five randomized controlled trials) enrolling 1,807 critically ill patients with COVID-19. Mortality of patients receiving vitamin C on top of standard-of-care was not lower than patients receiving standard-of-care alone (25.8 vs. 34.7%; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57-1.26; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: After combining results of our observational cohort with those of relevant studies into a meta-analysis of data from 1,807 patients, we found that administration vitamin C as opposed to standard-of-care alone might not be associated with lower of mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additional evidence is anticipated from relevant large randomized controlled trials which are currently underway. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021276655.

5.
Crit Care Explor ; 4(1): e0620, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1626696

ABSTRACT

We investigated the effect of prone ventilation on right ventricular (RV) function of intubated patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome by measuring both conventional RV functional variables (namely, tricuspid annular peak systolic velocity, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and fractional area change) and right ventricular free wall strain (RVFWS) using transthoracic speckle-tracking echocardiography at baseline (before prone positioning), 18 hours after prone positioning, and 1 hour after supine repositioning. We found that transthoracic echocardiography was feasible in a considerable proportion (nine patients, 75% of our cohort) of patients undergoing prone ventilation. Also, abnormal as opposed to normal RVFWS values (in the absence of conventional variables of RV dysfunction) at baseline were associated with higher mortality (100% vs 20%; p = 0.048). Finally, we found that, among patients without acute cor pulmonale or conventional markers of RV dysfunction, one session of prone ventilation may not affect right myocardial strain.

6.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(12): e0589, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1608099

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This report aims to characterize the kinetics of serum albumin in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with critically ill patients with sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: We analyzed two critically ill cohorts, one with coronavirus disease 2019 and another with sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome, treated in the New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center. PATIENTS: Adult patients in the coronavirus disease 2019 cohort, diagnosed through reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays performed on nasopharyngeal swabs, were admitted from March 3, 2020, to July 10, 2020. Adult patients in the sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome cohort, defined by Sepsis III criteria receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation and a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 300 were admitted from December 12, 2006, to February 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We evaluated serial serum albumin levels within 30 days after ICU admission in each cohort. We then examined the albumin progression trajectories, aligned at ICU admission time to test the relationship at a similar point in disease progression, in survivors and nonsurvivors. Albumin trajectory in all critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients show two distinct phases: phase I (deterioration) showing rapid albumin loss and phase II (recovery) showing albumin stabilization or improvement. Meanwhile, albumin recovery predicted clinical improvement in critical coronavirus disease 2019. In addition, we found a deterioration and recovery trends in survivors in the sepsis-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome cohort but did not find such two-phase trend in nonsurvivors. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in albumin associated with coronavirus disease 2019 associated respiratory failure are transient compared with sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and highlight the potential for recovery following a protracted course of severe coronavirus disease 2019.

7.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 121, 2021 03 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1154031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. "Early" was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while "late" as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). RESULTS: A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99-1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD - 0.58 days, 95% CI - 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.25, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Humans , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
8.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 614152, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1021896

ABSTRACT

Background: Optimal timing of initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is unknown. Thanks to early flattening of the epidemiological curve, ventilator demand in Greece was kept lower than supply throughout the pandemic, allowing for unbiased comparison of the outcomes of patients undergoing early intubation vs. delayed or no intubation. Methods: We conducted an observational study including all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 consecutively admitted in Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece between March 11, 2020 and April 15, 2020. Patients subsequently admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU) were categorized into the "early intubation" vs. the "delayed or no intubation" group. The "delayed or no intubation" group included patients receiving non-rebreather mask for equal to or more than 24 h or high-flow nasal oxygen for any period of time or non-invasive mechanical ventilation for any period of time in an attempt to avoid intubation. The remaining intubated patients comprised the "early intubation" group. Results: During the study period, a total of 101 patients (37% female, median age 65 years) were admitted in the hospital. Fifty-nine patients (58% of the entire cohort) were exclusively hospitalized in general wards with a mortality of 3% and median length of stay of 7 days. Forty-two patients (19% female, median age 65 years) were admitted in the ICU; all with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Of those admitted in the ICU, 62% had at least one comorbidity and 14% were never intubated. Early intubation was not associated with higher ICU-mortality (21 vs. 33%), fewer ventilator-free days (3 vs. 2 days) or fewer ICU-free days than delayed or no intubation. Conclusions: A strategy of early intubation was not associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to delayed or no intubation. Given that early intubation may presumably reduce virus aerosolization, these results may justify further research with a randomized controlled trial.

9.
PLoS One ; 15(1): e0227346, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-660587

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is heterogeneous. As an indication of the heterogeneity of ARDS, there are patients whose syndrome improves rapidly (i.e., within 24 hours), others whose hypoxemia improves gradually and still others whose severe hypoxemia persists for several days. The latter group of patients with persistent severe ARDS poses challenges to clinicians. We attempted to assess the baseline characteristics and outcomes of persistent severe ARDS and to identify which variables are useful to predict it. METHODS: A secondary analysis of patient-level data from the ALTA, EDEN and SAILS ARDSNet clinical trials was conducted. We defined persistent severe ARDS as a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (PaO2:FiO2) of equal to or less than 100 mmHg on the second study day following enrollment. Regularized logistic regression with an L1 penalty [Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO)] techniques were used to identify predictive variables of persistent severe ARDS. RESULTS: Of the 1531 individuals with ARDS alive on the second study day after enrollment, 232 (15%) had persistent severe ARDS. Of the latter, 100 (43%) individuals had mild or moderate hypoxemia at baseline. Usage of vasopressors was greater [144/232 (62%) versus 623/1299 (48%); p<0.001] and baseline severity of illness was higher in patients with versus without persistent severe ARDS. Mortality at 60 days [95/232 (41%) versus 233/1299 (18%); p<0.001] was higher, and ventilator-free (p<0.001), intensive care unit-free [0 (0-14) versus 19 (7-23); p<0.001] and non-pulmonary organ failure-free [3 (0-21) versus 20 (1-26); p<0.001] days were fewer in patients with versus without persistent severe ARDS. PaO2:FiO2, FiO2, hepatic failure and positive end-expiratory pressure at enrollment were useful predictive variables. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with persistent severe ARDS have distinct baseline characteristics and poor prognosis. Identifying such patients at enrollment may be useful for the prognostic enrichment of trials.


Subject(s)
Hypoxia/epidemiology , Prognosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Adult , Arterial Pressure/physiology , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/complications , Hypoxia/diagnosis , Hypoxia/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/metabolism , Partial Pressure , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology
10.
JCO Glob Oncol ; 6: 799-808, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-596084

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Whether cancer is associated with worse prognosis among patients with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to quantify the effect (if any) of the presence as opposed to absence of cancer on important clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19), and references of relevant articles up to April 27, 2020, to identify observational studies comparing patients with versus without cancer infected with COVID-19 and to report on mortality and/or need for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs with a random-effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181531). RESULTS: A total of 32 studies involving 46,499 patients (1,776 patients with cancer) with COVID-19 from Asia, Europe, and the United States were included. All-cause mortality was higher in patients with versus those without cancer (2,034 deaths; RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.07; P < .0001; 8 studies with 37,807 patients). The need for ICU admission was also more likely in patients with versus without cancer (3,220 events; RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.87; P < .0001; 26 studies with 15,375 patients). However, in a prespecified subgroup analysis of patients > 65 years of age, all-cause mortality was comparable between those with versus without cancer (915 deaths; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.41; P = .71; 8 studies with 5,438 patients). CONCLUSION: The synthesized evidence suggests that cancer is associated with worse clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19. However, elderly patients with cancer may not be at increased risk of death when infected with COVID-19. These findings may inform discussions of clinicians with patients about prognosis and may guide health policies.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care , Neoplasms/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Aged , COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/mortality , Observational Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Patient Admission , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL