Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 48
Filter
1.
Crit Care Explor ; 4(5): e0684, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1831401

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To establish the epidemiological characteristics, ventilator management, and outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in the era of lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV). DESIGN: A 6-month prospective, epidemiological, observational study. SETTING: A network of 22 multidisciplinary ICUs in Spain. PATIENTS: Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with AHRF (defined as Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg on positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] ≥ 5 cm H2O and Fio2 ≥ 0.3) and followed-up until hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were prevalence of AHRF and ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of ARDS, ventilatory management, and use of adjunctive therapies. During the study period, 9,803 patients were admitted: 4,456 (45.5%) received MV, 1,271 (13%) met AHRF criteria (1,241 were included into the study: 333 [26.8%] met Berlin ARDS criteria and 908 [73.2%] did not). At baseline, tidal volume was 6.9 ± 1.1 mL/kg predicted body weight, PEEP 8.4 ± 3.1 cm H2O, Fio2 0.63 ± 0.22, and plateau pressure 21.5 ± 5.4 cm H2O. ARDS patients received higher Fio2 and PEEP than non-ARDS (0.75 ± 0.22 vs 0.59 ± 0.20 cm H2O and 10.3 ± 3.4 vs 7.7 ± 2.6 cm H2O, respectively [p < 0.0001]). Adjunctive therapies were rarely used in non-ARDS patients. Patients without ARDS had higher ventilator-free days than ARDS (12.2 ± 11.6 vs 9.3 ± 9.7 d; p < 0.001). All-cause ICU mortality was similar in AHRF with or without ARDS (34.8% [95% CI, 29.7-40.2] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 32.3-38.7]; p = 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: AHRF without ARDS is a very common syndrome in the ICU with a high mortality that requires specific studies into its epidemiology and ventilatory management. We found that the prevalence of ARDS was much lower than reported in recent observational studies.

2.
Crit Care Explor ; 2(5): e0118, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1791048

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To design and test a ventilator circuit that can be used for ventilation of two or more patients with a single ventilator, while allowing individualization of tidal volume, fractional concentration of oxygen, and positive end-expiratory pressure to each patient, irrespective of the other patient's respiratory system mechanics. DESIGN: Description and proof of concept studies. SETTINGS: Respiratory therapy laboratory. SUBJECTS: Ventilation of mechanical test lungs. INTERVENTIONS: Following a previously advocated design, we used components readily available in our hospital to assemble two "bag-in-a-box" breathing circuits. Each patient circuit consisted of a flexible bag in a rigid container connected via one-way valve to a test lung, along with an inline positive end-expiratory pressure valve, connected to the ventilator's expiratory limb. Compressed gas fills the bags during "patient" exhalation. During inspiration, gas from the ventilator, in pressure control mode, enters the containers and displaces gas from the bags to the test lungs. We varied tidal volume, "respiratory system" compliance, and positive end-expiratory pressure in one lung and observed the effect on the tidal volume of the other. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We were able to obtain different tidal volume, dynamic driving pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure in the two lungs under widely different compliances in both lungs. Complete obstruction, or disconnection at the circuit connection to one test lung, had minimal effect (< 5% on average) on the ventilation to the co-ventilated lung. CONCLUSIONS: A secondary circuit "bag-in-the-box" system enables individualized ventilation of two lungs overcoming many of the concerns of ventilating more than one patient with a single ventilator.

3.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(1): 1-15, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800370

ABSTRACT

Rates of survival with functional recovery for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are notably low. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is emerging as a modality to improve prognosis by augmenting perfusion to vital end-organs by utilizing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during conventional CPR and stabilizing the patient for interventions aimed at reversing the aetiology of the arrest. Implementing this emergent procedure requires a substantial investment in resources, and even the most successful ECPR programs may nonetheless burden healthcare systems, clinicians, patients, and their families with unsalvageable patients supported by extracorporeal devices. Non-randomized and observational studies have repeatedly shown an association between ECPR and improved survival, versus conventional CPR, for in-hospital cardiac arrest in select patient populations. Recently, randomized controlled trials suggest benefit for ECPR over standard resuscitation, as well as the feasibility of performing such trials, in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest within highly coordinated healthcare delivery systems. Application of these data to clinical practice should be done cautiously, with outcomes likely to vary by the setting and system within which ECPR is initiated. ECPR introduces important ethical challenges, including whether it should be considered an extension of CPR, at what point it becomes sustained organ replacement therapy, and how to approach patients unable to recover or be bridged to heart replacement therapy. The economic impact of ECPR varies by health system, and has the potential to outstrip resources if used indiscriminately. Ideally, studies should include economic evaluations to inform health care systems about the cost-benefits of this therapy.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy
4.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 Feb 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714499

ABSTRACT

The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severe acute respiratory failure, including the acute respiratory distress syndrome, has become better defined in recent years in light of emerging high-quality evidence and technological advances. Utilization of ECMO has consequently increased throughout many parts of the world. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has highlighted deficiencies in organizational capacity, research capability, knowledge sharing and resource utilization. While governments, medical societies, hospital systems and clinicians were collectively unprepared for the scope of this pandemic, the use of ECMO - a highly resource-intensive and specialized form of life support - presented specific logistical and ethical challenges. As the pandemic has evolved, there has been greater collaboration in the use of ECMO across centers and regions, along with more robust data-reporting through international registries and observational studies. Nevertheless, centralization of ECMO capacity is lacking in many regions of the world and equitable use of ECMO resources remains uneven. There are no widely available mechanisms to conduct large-scale, rigorous clinical trials in real-time. In this Critical Care Perspective, we outline lessons learned during COVID-19 and prior respiratory pandemics in which ECMO was used, and how we might apply these lessons going forward both during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as well as in the future.

5.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(2): e2146798, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1694847

ABSTRACT

Importance: The incidence of infection during SARS-CoV-2 viral waves, the factors associated with infection, and the durability of antibody responses to infection among Canadian adults remain undocumented. Objective: To assess the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 2 viral waves in Canada by measuring seropositivity among adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Action to Beat Coronavirus study conducted 2 rounds of an online survey about COVID-19 experience and analyzed immunoglobulin G levels based on participant-collected dried blood spots (DBS) to assess the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first and second viral waves in Canada. A sample of 19 994 Canadian adults (aged ≥18 years) was recruited from established members of the Angus Reid Forum, a public polling organization. The study comprised 2 phases (phase 1 from May 1 to September 30, 2020, and phase 2 from December 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021) that generally corresponded to the first (April 1 to July 31, 2020) and second (October 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021) viral waves. Main Outcomes and Measures: SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G seropositivity (using a chemiluminescence assay) by major geographic and demographic variables and correlation with COVID-19 symptom reporting. Results: Among 19 994 adults who completed the online questionnaire in phase 1, the mean (SD) age was 50.9 (15.4) years, and 10 522 participants (51.9%) were female; 2948 participants (14.5%) had self-identified racial and ethnic minority group status, and 1578 participants (8.2%) were self-identified Indigenous Canadians. Among participants in phase 1, 8967 had DBS testing. In phase 2, 14 621 adults completed online questionnaires, and 7102 of those had DBS testing. Of 19 994 adults who completed the online survey in phase 1, fewer had an educational level of some college or less (4747 individuals [33.1%]) compared with the general population in Canada (45.0%). Survey respondents were otherwise representative of the general population, including in prevalence of known risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among unvaccinated adults increased from 1.9% in phase 1 to 6.5% in phase 2. The seropositivity pattern was demographically and geographically heterogeneous during phase 1 but more homogeneous by phase 2 (with a cumulative incidence ranging from 6.4% to 7.0% in most regions). The exception was the Atlantic region, in which cumulative incidence reached only 3.3% (odds ratio [OR] vs Ontario, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.02). A total of 47 of 188 adults (25.3%) reporting COVID-19 symptoms during phase 2 were seropositive, and the OR of seropositivity for COVID-19 symptoms was 6.15 (95% CI, 2.02-18.69). In phase 2, 94 of 444 seropositive adults (22.2%) reported having no symptoms. Of 134 seropositive adults in phase 1 who were retested in phase 2, 111 individuals (81.8%) remained seropositive. Participants who had a history of diabetes (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90) had lower odds of having detectable antibodies in phase 2. Conclusions and Relevance: The Action to Beat Coronavirus study found that the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canada was modest until March 2021, and this incidence was lower than the levels of population immunity required to substantially reduce transmission of the virus. Ongoing vaccination efforts remain central to reducing viral transmission and mortality. Assessment of future infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity is practicable through the use of serial online surveys and participant-collected DBS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/immunology , Canada/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
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
10.
Lancet ; 398(10307): 1230-1238, 2021 10 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440421

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres-ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020-we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups. FINDINGS: In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1-39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0-53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4-62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70-0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17-1·73]). INTERPRETATION: Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Hospital Mortality/trends , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Duration of Therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Registries , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , SARS-CoV-2
11.
J Clin Med ; 10(19)2021 Sep 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438633

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, and observational study with the aim of describing physiological characteristics, respiratory management, and outcomes of children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) from different etiologies receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) compared with those affected by SARS-CoV-2. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria: 9 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and 19 patients without COVID-19. Non-COVID-19 patients had more pre-existing comorbidities (78.9% vs. 44.4%) than COVID-19 patients. At AHRF onset, non-COVID-19 patients had worse oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 = 95 mmHg (65.5-133) vs. 150 mmHg (105-220), p = 0.04), oxygenation index = 15.9 (11-28.4) vs. 9.3 (6.7-10.6), p = 0.01), and higher PaCO2 (48 mmHg (46.5-63) vs. 41 mmHg (40-45), p = 0.07, that remained higher at 48 h: 54 mmHg (43-58.7) vs. 41 (38.5-45.5), p = 0.03). In 12 patients (5 COVID-19 and 7 non-COVID-19), AHRF evolved to pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS). All non-COVID-19 patients had severe PARDS, while 3 out of 5 patients in the COVID-19 group had mild or moderate PARDS. Overall Pediatric Intensive Care Medicine (PICU) mortality was 14.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Children with AHRF due to SARS-CoV2 infection had fewer comorbidities and better oxygenation than patients with non-COVID-19 AHRF. In this study, progression to severe PARDS was rarely observed in children with COVID-19.

12.
Biomedicines ; 9(9)2021 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1408456

ABSTRACT

The synergic combination of D-dimer (as proxy of thrombotic/vascular injury) and static compliance (as proxy of parenchymal injury) in predicting mortality in COVID-19-ARDS has not been systematically evaluated. The objective is to determine whether the combination of elevated D-dimer and low static compliance can predict mortality in patients with COVID-19-ARDS. A "training sample" (March-June 2020) and a "testing sample" (September 2020-January 2021) of adult patients invasively ventilated for COVID-19-ARDS were collected in nine hospitals. D-dimer and compliance in the first 24 h were recorded. Study outcome was all-cause mortality at 28-days. Cut-offs for D-dimer and compliance were identified by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Mutually exclusive groups were selected using classification tree analysis with chi-square automatic interaction detection. Time to death in the resulting groups was estimated with Cox regression adjusted for SOFA, sex, age, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and sample (training/testing). "Training" and "testing" samples amounted to 347 and 296 patients, respectively. Three groups were identified: D-dimer ≤ 1880 ng/mL (LD); D-dimer > 1880 ng/mL and compliance > 41 mL/cmH2O (LD-HC); D-dimer > 1880 ng/mL and compliance ≤ 41 mL/cmH2O (HD-LC). 28-days mortality progressively increased in the three groups (from 24% to 35% and 57% (training) and from 27% to 39% and 60% (testing), respectively; p < 0.01). Adjusted mortality was significantly higher in HD-LC group compared with LD (HR = 0.479, p < 0.001) and HD-HC (HR = 0.542, p < 0.01); no difference was found between LD and HD-HC. In conclusion, combination of high D-dimer and low static compliance identifies a clinical phenotype with high mortality in COVID-19-ARDS.

13.
N Engl J Med ; 385(9): 790-802, 2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1343498

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Heparin/administration & dosage , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Adult , Aged , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Survival Analysis
14.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 80(9): 1236-1240, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203948

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Reports of severe COVID-19 being associated with thrombosis, antiphospholipid antibodies (APLA), and antiphospholipid syndrome have yielded disparate conclusions. Studies comparing patients with COVID-19 with contemporaneous controls of similar severity are lacking. METHODS: 22 COVID-19+ and 20 COVID-19- patients with respiratory failure admitted to intensive care were studied longitudinally. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from the day of admission. APLA testing included anticardiolipin (aCL), anti-ß2glycoprotien 1 (ß2GP1), antidomain 1 ß2GP1 and antiphosphatidyl serine/prothrombin complex. Antinuclear antibodies (ANAs) were detected by immunofluorescence and antibodies to cytokines by a commercially available multiplexed array. Analysis of variance was used for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables with α=0.05 and the false discovery rate at q=0.05. RESULTS: APLAs were predominantly IgG aCL (48%), followed by IgM (21%) in all patients, with a tendency towards higher frequency among the COVID-19+. aCL was not associated with surrogate markers of thrombosis but IgG aCL was strongly associated with worse disease severity and higher ANA titres regardless of COVID-19 status. An association between aCL and anticytokine autoantibodies tended to be higher among the COVID-19+. CONCLUSIONS: Positive APLA serology was associated with more severe disease regardless of COVID-19 status. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04747782.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Anticardiolipin/immunology , Antibodies, Antiphospholipid/immunology , Antiphospholipid Syndrome/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Aged , Antibodies, Anticardiolipin/blood , Antibodies, Antiphospholipid/blood , Antiphospholipid Syndrome/blood , Antiphospholipid Syndrome/complications , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
17.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(3): e166-e174, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1149618

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive respiratory strategies (NIRS) including high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) have become widely used in patients with COVID-19 who develop acute respiratory failure. However, use of these therapies, if ineffective, might delay initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in some patients. We aimed to determine early predictors of NIRS failure and develop a simple nomogram and online calculator that can identify patients at risk of NIRS failure. METHODS: We did a retrospective, multicentre observational study in 23 hospitals designated for patients with COVID-19 in China. Adult patients (≥18 years) with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and acute respiratory failure receiving NIRS were enrolled. A training cohort of 652 patients (21 hospitals) was used to identify early predictors of NIRS failure, defined as subsequent need for IMV or death within 28 days after intensive care unit admission. A nomogram was developed by multivariable logistic regression and concordance statistics (C-statistics) computed. C-statistics were validated internally by cross-validation in the training cohort, and externally in a validation cohort of 107 patients (two hospitals). FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Jan 1 and Feb 29, 2020. NIV failed in 211 (74%) of 286 patients and HFNC in 204 (56%) of 366 patients in the training cohort. NIV failed in 48 (81%) of 59 patients and HFNC in 26 (54%) of 48 patients in the external validation cohort. Age, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate-oxygenation index (ratio of pulse oximetry oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate), Glasgow coma scale score, and use of vasopressors on the first day of NIRS in the training cohort were independent risk factors for NIRS failure. Based on the training dataset, the nomogram had a C-statistic of 0·80 (95% CI 0·74-0·85) for predicting NIV failure, and a C-statistic of 0·85 (0·82-0·89) for predicting HFNC failure. C-statistic values were stable in both internal validation (NIV group mean 0·79 [SD 0·10], HFNC group mean 0·85 [0·07]) and external validation (NIV group value 0·88 [95% CI 0·72-0·96], HFNC group value 0·86 [0·72-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: We have developed a nomogram and online calculator that can be used to identify patients with COVID-19 who are at risk of NIRS failure. These patients might benefit from early triage and more intensive monitoring. FUNDING: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China, Key Research and Development Plan of Jiangsu Province, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Nomograms , Noninvasive Ventilation , Treatment Failure , Adult , Aged , China , Comorbidity , Female , Forecasting , Humans , Male , Medical Records , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
20.
EMBO Mol Med ; 13(1): e13426, 2021 01 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1024813

ABSTRACT

There is a critical need for safe and effective drugs for COVID-19. Only remdesivir has received authorization for COVID-19 and has been shown to improve outcomes but not decrease mortality. However, the dose of remdesivir is limited by hepatic and kidney toxicity. ACE2 is the critical cell surface receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Here, we investigated additive effect of combination therapy using remdesivir with recombinant soluble ACE2 (high/low dose) on Vero E6 and kidney organoids, targeting two different modalities of SARS-CoV-2 life cycle: cell entry via its receptor ACE2 and intracellular viral RNA replication. This combination treatment markedly improved their therapeutic windows against SARS-CoV-2 in both models. By using single amino-acid resolution screening in haploid ES cells, we report a singular critical pathway required for remdesivir toxicity, namely, Adenylate Kinase 2. The data provided here demonstrate that combining two therapeutic modalities with different targets, common strategy in HIV treatment, exhibit strong additive effects at sub-toxic concentrations. Our data lay the groundwork for the study of combinatorial regimens in future COVID-19 clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/pharmacology , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Adenosine Monophosphate/pharmacology , Alanine/pharmacology , Animals , Cells, Cultured , Chlorocebus aethiops , Drug Synergism , Humans , Models, Molecular , Recombinant Proteins/pharmacology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Vero Cells , Virus Internalization/drug effects , Virus Replication/drug effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL