Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol ; 2021 Dec 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560816

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted many facets of critical care delivery. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to explore the pandemic's perceived impact on neurocritical care delivery between June 2020 and March 2021. Variables were stratified by World Bank country income level, presence of a dedicated neurocritical care unit (NCCU) and experiencing a COVID-19 patient surge. RESULTS: Respondents from 253 hospitals (78.3% response rate) from 47 countries (45.5% low/middle income countries; 54.5% with a dedicated NCCU; 78.6% experienced a first surge) participated in the study. Independent of country income level, NCCU and surge status, participants reported reductions in NCCU admissions (67%), critical care drug shortages (69%), reduction in ancillary services (43%) and routine diagnostic testing (61%), and temporary cancellation of didactic teaching (44%) and clinical/basic science research (70%). Respondents from low/middle income countries were more likely to report lack of surge preparedness (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-5.8) and struggling to return to prepandemic standards of care (OR, 12.2; 95% CI, 4.4-34) compared with respondents from high-income countries. Respondents experiencing a surge were more likely to report conversion of NCCUs and general-mixed intensive care units (ICUs) to a COVID-ICU (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.9-7.3), conversion of non-ICU beds to ICU\ beds (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.8-6.5), and deviations in critical care and pharmaceutical practices (OR, 4.2; 95% CI 2.1-8.2). Respondents from hospitals with a dedicated NCCU were less likely to report conversion to a COVID-ICU (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9) or conversion of non-ICU to ICU beds (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9). CONCLUSION: This study reports the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global neurocritical care delivery, and highlights shortcomings of health care infrastructures and the importance of pandemic preparedness.

2.
Ann Am Thorac Soc ; 2021 Nov 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1533430
3.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 382, 2021 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506095

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months. METHODS: In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM. RESULTS: Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51-70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06-13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, - 0.19 [- 0.28 to - 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty. CONCLUSIONS: At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning. Clinical trial registration NCT04401254 May 26, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Disabled Persons , Recovery of Function/physiology , Return to Work/trends , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Status , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Prospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
5.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 106, 2021 03 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1136238

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Consensus , Delphi Technique , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Humans
6.
Med J Aust ; 214(1): 23-30, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067923

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) during the initial months of the pandemic in Australia. DESIGN, SETTING: Prospective, observational cohort study in 77 ICUs across Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to participating ICUs with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during 27 February - 30 June 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ICU mortality and resource use (ICU length of stay, peak bed occupancy). RESULTS: The median age of the 204 patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care was 63.5 years (IQR, 53-72 years); 140 were men (69%). The most frequent comorbid conditions were obesity (40% of patients), diabetes (28%), hypertension treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (24%), and chronic cardiac disease (20%); 73 patients (36%) reported no comorbidity. The most frequent source of infection was overseas travel (114 patients, 56%). Median peak ICU bed occupancy was 14% (IQR, 9-16%). Invasive ventilation was provided for 119 patients (58%). Median length of ICU stay was greater for invasively ventilated patients than for non-ventilated patients (16 days; IQR, 9-28 days v 3 days; IQR, 2-5 days), as was ICU mortality (26 deaths, 22%; 95% CI, 15-31% v four deaths, 5%; 95% CI, 1-12%). Higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) scores on ICU day 1 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21) and chronic cardiac disease (aHR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.46-7.83) were each associated with higher ICU mortality. CONCLUSION: Until the end of June 2020, mortality among patients with COVID-19 who required invasive ventilation in Australian ICUs was lower and their ICU stay longer than reported overseas. Our findings highlight the importance of ensuring adequate local ICU capacity, particularly as the pandemic has not yet ended.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , APACHE , Aged , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Survival Analysis
8.
Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine ; 2020.
Article in English | WHO COVID | ID: covidwho-637917
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...