Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 17(1): e0262315, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622359

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in severe COVID-19 remains a matter of debate. Therefore, the utilization and outcome of NIV in COVID-19 in an unbiased cohort was determined. AIM: The aim was to provide a detailed account of hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring non-invasive ventilation during their hospital stay. Furthermore, differences of patients treated with NIV between the first and second wave are explored. METHODS: Confirmed COVID-19 cases of claims data of the Local Health Care Funds with non-invasive and/or invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the spring and autumn pandemic period in 2020 were comparable analysed. RESULTS: Nationwide cohort of 17.023 cases (median/IQR age 71/61-80 years, 64% male) 7235 (42.5%) patients primarily received IMV without NIV, 4469 (26.3%) patients received NIV without subsequent intubation, and 3472 (20.4%) patients had NIV failure (NIV-F), defined by subsequent endotracheal intubation. The proportion of patients who received invasive MV decreased from 75% to 37% during the second period. Accordingly, the proportion of patients with NIV exclusively increased from 9% to 30%, and those failing NIV increased from 9% to 23%. Median length of hospital stay decreased from 26 to 21 days, and duration of MV decreased from 11.9 to 7.3 days. The NIV failure rate decreased from 49% to 43%. Overall mortality increased from 51% versus 54%. Mortality was 44% with NIV-only, 54% with IMV and 66% with NIV-F with mortality rates steadily increasing from 62% in early NIV-F (day 1) to 72% in late NIV-F (>4 days). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of NIV rapidly increased during the autumn period, which was associated with a reduced duration of MV, but not with overall mortality. High NIV-F rates are associated with increased mortality, particularly in late NIV-F.

2.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295101

ABSTRACT

Rationale The role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in severe COVID-19 remains a matter of debate. Objectives To determine the utilization and outcome of NIV in COVID-19 in an unbiased cohort. Methods Observational study of confirmed COVID-19 cases of claims data of the Local Health Care Funds comparing patients with non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) between spring versus autumn period 2020. Measurements and Main Results Nationwide cohort of 7490 cases (median/IQR age 70/60–79 years, 66% male) 3851 (51%) patients primarily received IMV without NIV, 1614 (22%) patients received NIV without subsequent intubation, and 1247 (17%) patients had NIV failure (NIV-F), defined by subsequent endotracheal intubation. The proportion of patients who received invasive MV decreased from 74% to 39% during the second period. Accordingly, the proportion of patients with NIV exclusively increased from 10% to 28%, and those failing NIV increased from 9% to 21%. Median length of hospital stay decreased from 26 to 22 days, and duration of MV decreased from 11.6 to 7.6 days. The NIV failure rate decreased from 49% to 42%. Overall mortality remained unchanged (51% versus 53%). Mortality was 39% with NIV-only, 52% with IMV and 66% with NIV-F with mortality rates steadily increasing from 58% in early NIV-F (day 1) to 75% in late NIV-F (>4 days). Conclusion Utilization of NIV rapidly increased during the autumn period, which was associated with a reduced duration of MV, but not with overall mortality. High NIV-F rates are associated with increased mortality, particularly in late NIV-F. Funding Institutional support and physical resources were provided by the University Witten/Herdecke and Kliniken der Stadt Köln and the Federal Association of the Local Health Care Funds. At a Glance Commentary Scientific Knowledge on the Subject Current management of ventilatory support in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure is heterogeneous. Despite increasing use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV), defining intubation criteria still remains a matter of uncertainty and discussion, especially with regard to the balance between the NIV benefits and the risk of NIV failure. In addition, robust data concerning the influence of the duration and failure of NIV on intubation and mortality rates are still missing, although the time span between initiation of NIV and subsequent intubation in case of respiratory failure progression is suggested to influence patient outcome. What This Study Adds to the Field This is the first large observational study describing differences of ventilatory strategies between the spring and autumn period of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany and provides the in-hospital mortality rate of 7,490 patients who received mechanical ventilation. The increased utilization of NIV from 10% (first period) to 29% (second period) was associated with overall reduced durations of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay, but overall mortality remained comparably high and reached 51%, 53% respectively. Patients succeeding with NIV had lower mortality rates than those getting intubated without preceding NIV attempts, but those failing NIV had higher mortality rates, respectively, and this became even more predominant in late NIV failure. The present observational study shows the increasing role of NIV in the concert of ICU medicine related to COVID-19, but also clearly addresses its risks in addition to its benefits, both impacting on mortality.

5.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-291159

ABSTRACT

Background: COVID-19 frequently necessitates inpatient treatment and inpatient mortality is high. Less is known about long-term outcomes in terms of mortality and readmissions. We provide a detailed account of hospitalised COVID-19 patients until 180 days after their initial hospital admission. Methods: An observational study with claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds of adult patients hospitalised in Germany between Feb 1 and April 30, 2020&nbsp;with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and&nbsp;a related principal diagnosis, for whom follow-up data for 180 days after admission or until death was available.&nbsp;A multivariable logistic regression model identified independent risk factors for 180-day mortality. Findings: Of&nbsp;8679 patients with a median age of 72 years,&nbsp;2161 (24·9%) died during the index hospitalisation. 30-day mortality was 23·9% (2073/8679), 90-day 27·9% (2425/8679), and 180-day 29·6% (2566/8679). The latter was&nbsp;52·3% (1472/2817) for patients aged ≥80 years, 23·6% (1621/6865) if not ventilated during index hospitalisation but 53·0% in those ventilated invasively (853/1608). Risk factors for 180-day mortality included coagulopathy, BMI ≥40 and age, while female sex was a protective factor beyond fewer prevalence of comorbidities. Of 6235 patients discharged alive, 1668 patients were readmitted a total of 2551 times within 180 days, resulting in an overall readmission rate of 26·8%. Interpretation: 180 day-follow up data of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in a nationwide&nbsp;cohort representing almost one-third of the&nbsp;German population show considerable long-term mortality and readmission rates, especially among patients with coagulopathy, whereas women have a profound and long-lasting better clinical outcome compared to men. Funding: Funding Institutional support and physical resources were provided by the University Witten/Herdecke and Kliniken der Stadt Köln, the Federal Association of the Local Health Care Funds and the Technical University of Berlin. The latter also received a grant from the Berlin University Alliance (112_PreEP_Corona). Declaration of Interest: Dr. Busse reports grants from Berlin University Alliance, during the conduct of the study;grants from Federal Ministry of Research and Education, grants from Federal Ministry of Health, grants from Innovation Fonds of the Federal Joint Committee, grants from World Health Organization, outside the submitted work, Dr. Schuppert reports grants from Bayer AG, outside the submitted work. Dr. Karagiannidis reports personal fees from Maquet, personal fees from Xenios, personal fees from Bayer, non-financial support from Speaker of the German register of ICUs, grants from German Ministry of Research and Education, during the conduct of the study. Christian Günster, Melissa Spoden, Steffen Weber-Carstens, Gerhard Schillinger, Tanja Rombey and Dr. Hofmann have nothing to disclose. Ethical Approval: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Witten/Herdecke University (research ethics board number 92/2020).<br>

7.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 2021 Aug 09.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347434

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing vaccination rates against SARS-CoV­2, there is a risk of a renewed wave of infections in autumn 2021 due to the high seasonality of the pathogen, with the associated renewed possible heavy burden on intensive care. In the following manuscript we simulated different scenarios using defined mathematical models to estimate the burden of intensive care treatment by COVID-19 patients within certain limits during the coming autumn. METHODS: The simulation of the scenarios uses a stationary model supplemented by the effect of vaccinations. The age group-specific risk profile for intensive care unit (ICU)-associated disease progression is calculated using third wave ICU admission data from sentinel hospitals, local DIVI registry occupancy data and the corresponding local incidence rates by linear regression with time lag. We simulated vaccination rates of 15% for the over 18-year-old cohort, 70% for the 15-34 year cohort, 75%/80%/85% for the 35-59 year cohort and 85%/90%/95% for the over 60-year-old cohort. The simulations take into account that vaccination provides 100% protection against disease progression requiring intensive care. Regarding protection against infection in vaccinated persons the simulations are depicted for the scenario of 70% protection against infection in vaccinated persons and for the scenario of 85% protection against infection in vaccinated persons. RESULTS: The incidence is proportional to ICU bed occupancy. The proportionality factor is higher than in the second and third waves, so that comparable ICU bed occupancy is only achieved at a higher incidence. A 10% increase in vaccination rates of the over 35-year-olds to 85% and of the over 60-year-olds to 95% leads to a significant reduction in ICU bed occupancy. DISCUSSION: There will continue to be a close and linear relationship between SARS-CoV­2 incidence and ICU bed occupancy in the coming months. Even above incidences of 200/100,000 a considerable burden of ICUs with more than 3000 COVID-19 patients can be expected again, unless the vaccination rate is significantly increased. A few percentage points in the vaccination rate have a significant impact on potential ICU occupancy in the autumn, so efforts to increase vaccination acceptance should be a priority in the coming weeks. For intensive care medicine, the vaccination rate of those over 35 years of age is crucial.

8.
PLoS One ; 16(8): e0255427, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1344154

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 frequently necessitates in-patient treatment and in-patient mortality is high. Less is known about the long-term outcomes in terms of mortality and readmissions following in-patient treatment. AIM: The aim of this paper is to provide a detailed account of hospitalized COVID-19 patients up to 180 days after their initial hospital admission. METHODS: An observational study with claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds of adult patients hospitalized in Germany between February 1 and April 30, 2020, with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 and a related principal diagnosis, for whom 6-month all-cause mortality and readmission rates for 180 days after admission or until death were available. A multivariable logistic regression model identified independent risk factors for 180-day all-cause mortality in this cohort. RESULTS: Of the 8,679 patients with a median age of 72 years, 2,161 (24.9%) died during the index hospitalization. The 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.9% (2,073/8,679), the 90-day rate was 27.9% (2,425/8,679), and the 180-day rate, 29.6% (2,566/8,679). The latter was 52.3% (1,472/2,817) for patients aged ≥80 years 23.6% (1,621/6,865) if not ventilated during index hospitalization, but 53.0% in case of those ventilated invasively (853/1,608). Risk factors for the 180-day all-cause mortality included coagulopathy, BMI ≥ 40, and age, while the female sex was a protective factor beyond a fewer prevalence of comorbidities. Of the 6,235 patients discharged alive, 1,668 were readmitted a total of 2,551 times within 180 days, resulting in an overall readmission rate of 26.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The 180-day follow-up data of hospitalized COVID-19 patients in a nationwide cohort representing almost one-third of the German population show significant long-term, all-cause mortality and readmission rates, especially among patients with coagulopathy, whereas women have a profoundly better and long-lasting clinical outcome compared to men.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Patient Readmission/trends , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality/trends , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge/trends , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Time Factors
9.
Infection ; 2021 Jul 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1296979

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This executive summary of a national living guideline aims to provide rapid evidence based recommendations on the role of drug interventions in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The guideline makes use of a systematic assessment and decision process using an evidence to decision framework (GRADE) as recommended standard WHO (2021). Recommendations are consented by an interdisciplinary panel. Evidence analysis and interpretation is supported by the CEOsys project providing extensive literature searches and living (meta-) analyses. For this executive summary, selected key recommendations on drug therapy are presented including the quality of the evidence and rationale for the level of recommendation. RESULTS: The guideline contains 11 key recommendations for COVID-19 drug therapy, eight of which are based on systematic review and/or meta-analysis, while three recommendations represent consensus expert opinion. Based on current evidence, the panel makes strong recommendations for corticosteroids (WHO scale 5-9) and prophylactic anticoagulation (all hospitalized patients with COVID-19) as standard of care. Intensified anticoagulation may be considered for patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolisms (VTE) and a low bleeding risk. The IL-6 antagonist tocilizumab may be added in case of high supplemental oxygen requirement and progressive disease (WHO scale 5-6). Treatment with nMABs may be considered for selected inpatients with an early SARS-CoV-2 infection that are not hospitalized for COVID-19. Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care. CONCLUSION: For COVID-19 drug therapy, there are several options that are sufficiently supported by evidence. The living guidance will be updated as new evidence emerges.

10.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 13205, 2021 06 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281734

ABSTRACT

In a pandemic with a novel disease, disease-specific prognosis models are available only with a delay. To bridge the critical early phase, models built for similar diseases might be applied. To test the accuracy of such a knowledge transfer, we investigated how precise lethal courses in critically ill COVID-19 patients can be predicted by a model trained on critically ill non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia patients. We trained gradient boosted decision tree models on 718 (245 deceased) non-COVID-19 viral pneumonia patients to predict individual ICU mortality and applied it to 1054 (369 deceased) COVID-19 patients. Our model showed a significantly better predictive performance (AUROC 0.86 [95% CI 0.86-0.87]) than the clinical scores APACHE2 (0.63 [95% CI 0.61-0.65]), SAPS2 (0.72 [95% CI 0.71-0.74]) and SOFA (0.76 [95% CI 0.75-0.77]), the COVID-19-specific mortality prediction models of Zhou (0.76 [95% CI 0.73-0.78]) and Wang (laboratory: 0.62 [95% CI 0.59-0.65]; clinical: 0.56 [95% CI 0.55-0.58]) and the 4C COVID-19 Mortality score (0.71 [95% CI 0.70-0.72]). We conclude that lethal courses in critically ill COVID-19 patients can be predicted by a machine learning model trained on non-COVID-19 patients. Our results suggest that in a pandemic with a novel disease, prognosis models built for similar diseases can be applied, even when the diseases differ in time courses and in rates of critical and lethal courses.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , Machine Learning , Models, Theoretical , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
11.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(2)2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186553

ABSTRACT

This correspondence argues that the conclusion given in the article "Conservative management of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemia" is not supported by the data https://bit.ly/3qAn7la.

12.
Kidney Int Rep ; 6(4): 905-915, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1169160

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is an important complication in COVID-19, but its precise etiology has not fully been elucidated. Insights into AKI mechanisms may be provided by analyzing the temporal associations of clinical parameters reflecting disease processes and AKI development. Methods: We performed an observational cohort study of 223 consecutive COVID-19 patients treated at 3 sites of a tertiary care referral center to describe the evolvement of severe AKI (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stage 3) and identify conditions promoting its development. Descriptive statistics and explanatory multivariable Cox regression modeling with clinical parameters as time-varying covariates were used to identify risk factors of severe AKI. Results: Severe AKI developed in 70 of 223 patients (31%) with COVID-19, of which 95.7% required kidney replacement therapy. Patients with severe AKI were older, predominantly male, had more comorbidities, and displayed excess mortality. Severe AKI occurred exclusively in intensive care unit patients, and 97.3% of the patients developing severe AKI had respiratory failure. Mechanical ventilation, vasopressor therapy, and inflammatory markers (serum procalcitonin levels and leucocyte count) were independent time-varying risk factors of severe AKI. Increasing inflammatory markers displayed a close temporal association with the development of severe AKI. Sensitivity analysis on risk factors of AKI stage 2 and 3 combined confirmed these findings. Conclusion: Severe AKI in COVID-19 was tightly coupled with critical illness and systemic inflammation and was not observed in milder disease courses. These findings suggest that traditional systemic AKI mechanisms rather than kidney-specific processes contribute to severe AKI in COVID-19.

15.
EClinicalMedicine ; 28: 100579, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-845228

ABSTRACT

Background: In face of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic, best practice for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is intensely debated. Specifically, the rationale for high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning in early COVID-19 ARDS has been questioned. Methods: The first 23 consecutive patients with COVID-19 associated respiratory failure transferred to a single ICU were assessed. Eight were excluded: five were not invasively ventilated and three received veno-venous ECMO support. The remaining 15 were assessed over the first 15 days of mechanical ventilation. Best PEEP was defined by maximal oxygenation and was determined by structured decremental PEEP trials comprising the monitoring of oxygenation, airway pressures and trans-pulmonary pressures. In nine patients the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation was investigated. Additionally, the effects of high PEEP and prone positioning on pulmonary opacities in serial chest x-rays were determined by applying a semiquantitative scoring-system. This investigation is part of the prospective observational PA-COVID-19 study. Findings: Patients responded to initiation of invasive high PEEP ventilation with markedly improved oxygenation, which was accompanied by reduced pulmonary opacities within 6 h of mechanical ventilation. Decremental PEEP trials confirmed the need for high PEEP (17.9 (SD ± 3.9) mbar) for optimal oxygenation, while driving pressures remained low. Prone positioning substantially increased oxygenation (p<0.01). Interpretation: In early COVID-19 ARDS, substantial PEEP values were required for optimizing oxygenation. Pulmonary opacities resolved during mechanical ventilation with high PEEP suggesting recruitment of lung volume. Funding: German Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

17.
Dtsch Arztebl Int ; 117(31-32): 528-533, 2020 08 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-750754

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The reported high mortality of COVID-19 patients in intensive care has given rise to a debate over whether patients with this disease are being intubated too soon and might instead benefit from more non-invasive ventilation. METHODS: This review is based on articles published up to 12 June 2020 that were retrieved by a selective literature search on the topic of invasive and non-invasive ventilation for respiratory failure in COVID-19. Guideline recommendations and study data on patients with respiratory failure in settings other than COVID-19 are also considered, as are the current figures of the intensive care registry of the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin). RESULTS: The high mortality figures among patients receiving invasive ventilation that have been reported in studies from abroad cannot be uncritically applied to the current situation in Germany. Study data on ventilation specifically in COVID-19 patients would be needed to do justice to the special pathophysiology of this disease, but such data are lacking. Being intubated too early is evidently associated with risks for the patient, but being intubated too late is as well. A particularly im - portant consideration is the potential harm associated with prolonged spontaneous breathing, with or without non-invasive assistance, as any increase in respiratory work can seriously worsen respiratory failure. On the other hand, it is clearly unacceptable to intubate patients too early merely out of concern that the medical staff might become infected with COVID-19 if they were ventilated non-invasively. CONCLUSION: Nasal high flow, non-invasive ventilation, and invasive ventilation with intubation should be carried out in a stepwise treatment strategy, under appropriate intensive-care monitoring and with the observance of all relevant anti-infectious precautions. Germany is better prepared that other countries to provide COVID-19 patients with appropriate respiratory care, in view of the high per capita density of intensive-care beds and the availability of a nationwide, interdisciplinary intensive care registry for the guidance and coordination of intensive care in patients who need it.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Noninvasive Ventilation , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology
18.
Lancet Respir Med ; 8(9): 853-862, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-698963

ABSTRACT

Background Nationwide, unbiased, and unselected data of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 are scarce. Our aim was to provide a detailed account of case characteristics, resource use, and outcomes of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in Germany, where the health-care system has not been overwhelmed by the pandemic. METHODS: In this observational study, adult patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, who were admitted to hospital in Germany between Feb 26 and April 19, 2020, and for whom a complete hospital course was available (ie, the patient was discharged or died in hospital) were included in the study cohort. Claims data from the German Local Health Care Funds were analysed. The data set included detailed information on patient characteristics, duration of hospital stay, type and duration of ventilation, and survival status. Patients with adjacent completed hospital stays were grouped into one case. Patients were grouped according to whether or not they had received any form of mechanical ventilation. To account for comorbidities, we used the Charlson comorbidity index. FINDINGS: Of 10 021 hospitalised patients being treated in 920 different hospitals, 1727 (17%) received mechanical ventilation (of whom 422 [24%] were aged 18-59 years, 382 [22%] were aged 60-69 years, 535 [31%] were aged 70-79 years, and 388 [23%] were aged ≥80 years). The median age was 72 years (IQR 57-82). Men and women were equally represented in the non-ventilated group, whereas twice as many men than women were in the ventilated group. The likelihood of being ventilated was 12% for women (580 of 4822) and 22% for men (1147 of 5199). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (5575 [56%] of 10 021), diabetes (2791 [28%]), cardiac arrhythmia (2699 [27%]), renal failure (2287 [23%]), heart failure (1963 [20%]), and chronic pulmonary disease (1358 [14%]). Dialysis was required in 599 (6%) of all patients and in 469 (27%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The Charlson comorbidity index was 0 for 3237 (39%) of 8294 patients without ventilation, but only 374 (22%) of 1727 ventilated patients. The mean duration of ventilation was 13·5 days (SD 12·1). In-hospital mortality was 22% overall (2229 of 10 021), with wide variation between patients without ventilation (1323 [16%] of 8294) and with ventilation (906 [53%] of 1727; 65 [45%] of 145 for non-invasive ventilation only, 70 [50%] of 141 for non-invasive ventilation failure, and 696 [53%] of 1318 for invasive mechanical ventilation). In-hospital mortality in ventilated patients requiring dialysis was 73% (342 of 469). In-hospital mortality for patients with ventilation by age ranged from 28% (117 of 422) in patients aged 18-59 years to 72% (280 of 388) in patients aged 80 years or older. INTERPRETATION: In the German health-care system, in which hospital capacities have not been overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality has been high for patients receiving mechanical ventilation, particularly for patients aged 80 years or older and those requiring dialysis, and has been considerably lower for patients younger than 60 years. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Resources/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pandemics , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
19.
Infection ; 48(4): 619-626, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-597401

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide causing a global health emergency. Pa-COVID-19 aims to provide comprehensive data on clinical course, pathophysiology, immunology and outcome of COVID-19, to identify prognostic biomarkers, clinical scores, and therapeutic targets for improved clinical management and preventive interventions. METHODS: Pa-COVID-19 is a prospective observational cohort study of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection treated at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. We collect data on epidemiology, demography, medical history, symptoms, clinical course, and pathogen testing and treatment. Systematic, serial blood sampling will allow deep molecular and immunological phenotyping, transcriptomic profiling, and comprehensive biobanking. Longitudinal data and sample collection during hospitalization will be supplemented by long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Outcome measures include the WHO clinical ordinal scale on day 15 and clinical, functional, and health-related quality-of-life assessments at discharge and during follow-up. We developed a scalable dataset to (i) suit national standards of care, (ii) facilitate comprehensive data collection in medical care facilities with varying resources, and (iii) allow for rapid implementation of interventional trials based on the standardized study design and data collection. We propose this scalable protocol as blueprint for harmonized data collection and deep phenotyping in COVID-19 in Germany. CONCLUSION: We established a basic platform for harmonized, scalable data collection, pathophysiological analysis, and deep phenotyping of COVID-19, which enables rapid generation of evidence for improved medical care and identification of candidate therapeutic and preventive strategies. The electronic database accredited for interventional trials allows fast trial implementation for candidate therapeutic agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at the German registry for clinical studies (DRKS00021688).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Registries , Berlin/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , Biological Specimen Banks , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Management , Humans , Observational Studies as Topic , Pandemics , Phenotype , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , World Health Organization
20.
Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed ; 115(Suppl 3): 111-114, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-72019

ABSTRACT

Since December 2019, a novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread around the world resulting in an acute respiratory illness pandemic. The majority of patients presents with mild symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, about 5% become critically ill and require intensive care treatment. Acute hypoxemic failure with severe dyspnea and an increased respiratory rate (>30/min) usually leads to ICU admission. At that point, bilateral pulmonary infiltrates are typically seen. Patients often develop a severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). To date there is no specific treatment available-the main goal of supportive therapy is to ascertain adequate oxygenation. Early intubation and repeated prone positioning are key elements in treating hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. Strict adherence to basic infection control measures (including hand hygiene) and use of personal protection equipment (PPE) are essential in the care of patients. Procedures that lead to formation of aerosols should be avoided where possible and carried out with utmost precaution.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Critical Illness , Humans , Pandemics , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...