ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at the earliest and safest possible time may improve outcomes and reduce cost. Yet, no prospective studies have compared weaning strategies for liberation from ECMO. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is a protocolized daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO safe and feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm safety and feasibility study of a protocol for daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO among consecutive adult patients receiving venovenous ECMO across four ICUs at a single center between June 20, 2020, and November 24, 2020. The ECMO-free protocol included three phases: (1) the safety screening, (2) non-ECMO Fio2 titration, and (3) the ECMO-free trial. Enrollment, interventions, and data collection were performed prospectively by trained study staff. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients received the ECMO-free protocol on 385 patient-days. The safety screening was passed during a total of 59 ECMO-free daily assessments (15.3%) among 20 patients. Every passed safety screening proceeded to an ECMO-free trial. Twenty-eight passed ECMO-free trials (47.5%) occurred among 16 patients (61.5%). No missed safety screenings, protocol deviations, or adverse events occurred. Of the 16 patients who passed an ECMO-free trial, 14 patients (87.5%) were decannulated. Among decannulated patients, 12 patients (85.7%) were decannulated on the same day as a passed ECMO-free trial, 6 patients (42.9%) were decannulated on the first day that they passed an ECMO-free trial, and 6 patients (42.9%) passed an ECMO-free trial at least twice consecutively before decannulation. The median time from first passed ECMO-free trial to decannulation was 2 days (interquartile range, 0-3 days). INTERPRETATION: The ECMO-free protocol is feasible and may identify patients for decannulation earlier than gradual approaches to weaning.
Subject(s)
Clinical Protocols , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Risk Adjustment/methods , Symptom Assessment/methods , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/standards , Duration of Therapy , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Patient Safety , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , Withholding Treatment/standardsSubject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Cytokine Release Syndrome/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Psoriasis/drug therapy , Withholding Treatment/standards , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects , Biological Factors/administration & dosage , Biological Factors/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Clinical Decision-Making , Comorbidity , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Dermatology/standards , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/administration & dosage , Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects , Patient Selection , Psoriasis/epidemiology , Psoriasis/immunology , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Societies, Medical/standards , Thalidomide/administration & dosage , Thalidomide/adverse effects , Thalidomide/analogs & derivativesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which uses angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE-2) as a receptor for cellular entry. It is theorized that ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 by upregulating ACE-2 expression, but ACE-I/ARB discontinuation is associated with clinical deterioration. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ACE-I and ARB use is associated with acute kidney injury (AKI), macrovascular thrombosis and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre study of 558 hospital inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted from 1 March to 30 April 2020, followed up until 24 May 2020. AKI and macrovascular thrombosis were primary end-points, and in-hospital mortality was a secondary end-point. RESULTS: AKI occurred in 126 (23.1%) patients, 34 (6.1%) developed macrovascular thrombi, and 200 (35.9%) died. Overlap propensity score-weighted analysis showed no significant effect of ACE-I/ARB use on the risk of occurrence of the specified end-points. On exploratory analysis, severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases odds of macrovascular thrombi (OR: 8.237, 95% CI: 1.689-40.181, P = 0.009). The risk of AKI increased with advancing age (OR: 1.028, 95% CI: 1.011-1.044, P = 0.001) and diabetes (OR: 1.675, 95% CI: 1.065-2.633, P = 0.025). Immunosuppression was associated with lower risk of AKI (OR: 0.160, 95% CI: 0.029-0.886, P = 0.036). Advancing age, dependence on care, male gender and eGFR < 60 mL min-1 /1.73 m2 increased odds of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: We did not identify an association between ACE-I/ARB use and AKI, macrovascular thrombi or mortality. This supports the recommendations of the European and American Societies of Cardiology that ACE-Is and ARBs should not be discontinued during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Hypertension , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic , Thrombosis , Acute Kidney Injury/diagnosis , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Comorbidity , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Female , Glomerular Filtration Rate , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Hypertension/epidemiology , Male , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/epidemiology , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/therapy , Risk Adjustment/methods , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Thrombosis/diagnosis , Thrombosis/etiology , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Withholding Treatment/standards , Withholding Treatment/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
On April 12, 2020, a bioethics guide for allocating scarce hospital resources during the current Covid-19 pandemic was posted on the website of the Consejo de Salubridad General(CSG) of the Government of Mexico. The guide, entitled Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia, was intended as a preliminary document, but the website posting did not describe it as a first step in the process. The publicity resulted in a wide array of comments and criticisms. That first version posted on the CSG website contained an age-based criterion for breaking a tie between two or more medically eligible patients who needed of a ventilator: younger patients would have prefer-ence over older ones. The final version of the guide eliminated that criterion and instead, relied on the leading public health principle, "save the most lives", without regard to personal characteristics other than the possibility of benefitting from the scarce medical resources.
El 12 de abril de 2020, se publicó en el sitio web del Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) del Gobierno de México una guía de bioética para asignar recursos hospitalarios escasos durante la actual pandemia de Covid-19. La guía titulada Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia pretendía ser un documento pre-liminar, pero la publicación en el sitio web no lo describió como un primer paso en el proceso. La publicación resultó en una amplia gama de comentarios y críticas. La primera versión publicada en el sitio web del CSG contenía un cri-terio basado en la edad para romper el empate entre dos o más pacientes médicamente elegibles que necesitaran un ventilador: los pacientes más jóvenes tendrían preferencia sobre los de mayor edad. La versión final de la guía eliminó ese criterio y, en cambio, se basó en el principio principal de salud pública, "salvar la mayoría de las vidas", sin tener en cuenta las características personales que no sean la posibilidad de beneficiarse de los escasos recursos médicos.
Subject(s)
Bioethical Issues/standards , Coronavirus Infections , Health Resources/supply & distribution , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Resource Allocation/ethics , Triage/ethics , Ageism , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Decision Making , Dissent and Disputes , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Life Expectancy , Mexico , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Justice , Triage/standards , Value of Life , Ventilators, Mechanical/supply & distribution , Withholding Treatment/ethics , Withholding Treatment/standards , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentABSTRACT
The bioethical inquiry about allocating fairly scarce health resources is not new, all countries around the world that were seriously afflicted by SARS-CoV-2 have issued triage guidelines in order to address the dilemmas raised by the pandemic. There is no question about the need to create bioethical guidelines, since its creation provides a degree of certainty that fair and ethical decisions are taken. This also prevents that decisions are made in solitary and maybe motivated by corrupted actions. In Mexico, the creation of this guideline was a proactive and preventive measure to what was unavoidable, the exponential contagion phase of the pandemical scenario caused by Covid-19. On April 30, 2020 the General Sanitary Council published the Bioethical Guide to Allocate Scarce Resources on Critical Care Medicine in Emergency Situation. This guide has at its core that principle of utmost importance in social justice which main thesis is: "All lives have the same value". The aim of this contribution is to provide the ethical and legal principles established in the aforementioned bioethi-cal guideline. In sum, a brief exploration of the ethical reasons that support a specific way to allocate scarce health resources is provided, as well as the foundations of the procedural part from a human rights-based approach.
El tema bioético sobre la asignación de recursos escasos no es nuevo, todos los países que han sido gravemente afectados por el SARS-CoV-2 han tenido que desarrollar y utilizar guías de triaje. Esto resulta más adecuado pues así la asignación de recursos limitados se hace de manera ética y justa, y no de manera discrecional y abierta a la corrupción. En México, en anticipación a la fase exponencial de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, el 30 de abril el Consejo de Salubridad General publicó la Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia. Dicha guía tiene como base criterios de justicia social y parte de la tesis: todas las vidas tienen el mismo valor. Este texto tiene como objetivo propor-cionar las razones bioéticas y biojurídicas que conforman esta guía de triaje en nuestro país. En resumen, proporciona una breve exploración de las razones éticas que justifican cierta manera específica de asignar recursos escasos en medicina crítica, así como del sustento procedimental apegado a los estándares en materia de derechos humanos.