Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(5): 507-519, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560818

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Alveolar and endothelial injury may be differentially associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity over time. Objectives: To describe alveolar and endothelial injury dynamics and associations with COVID-19 severity, cardiorenovascular injury, and outcomes. Methods: This single-center observational study enrolled patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support at emergency department presentation. More than 40 markers of alveolar (including receptor for advanced glycation endproducts [RAGE]), endothelial (including angiopoietin-2), and cardiorenovascular injury (including renin, kidney injury molecule-1, and troponin-I) were serially compared between invasively and spontaneously ventilated patients using mixed-effects repeated-measures models. Ventilatory ratios were calculated for intubated patients. Associations of biomarkers with modified World Health Organization scale at Day 28 were determined with multivariable proportional-odds regression. Measurements and Main Results: Of 225 patients, 74 (33%) received invasive ventilation at Day 0. RAGE was 1.80-fold higher in invasive ventilation patients at Day 0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.17) versus spontaneous ventilation, but decreased over time in all patients. Changes in alveolar markers did not correlate with changes in endothelial, cardiac, or renal injury markers. In contrast, endothelial markers were similar to lower at Day 0 for invasive ventilation versus spontaneous ventilation, but then increased over time only among intubated patients. In intubated patients, angiopoietin-2 was similar (fold difference, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17) to nonintubated patients at Day 0 but 1.80-fold higher (95% CI, 1.56-2.06) at Day 3; cardiorenovascular injury markers showed similar patterns. Endothelial markers were not consistently associated with ventilatory ratios. Endothelial markers were more often significantly associated with 28-day outcomes than alveolar markers. Conclusions: Alveolar injury markers increase early. Endothelial injury markers increase later and are associated with cardiorenovascular injury and 28-day outcome. Alveolar and endothelial injury likely contribute at different times to disease progression in severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Alveolar Epithelial Cells , COVID-19/physiopathology , Endothelium/injuries , Patient Acuity , Pulmonary Alveoli/injuries , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , Biomarkers/analysis , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Renin-Angiotensin System , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 19245, 2021 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1442808

ABSTRACT

There is a paucity of studies investigating the impact of chronic corticosteroid use for coexisting conditions in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Additionally, the information regarding the impact of chronic liver disease (CLD) on COVID-19 outcomes is evolving. Our study aims to investigate hospitalization outcomes of patients with COVID-19 on long term corticosteroids for coexisting conditions while also seeking to compare outcomes between such patients with a history of CLD to analyze the impact on mortality. We conducted a retrospective chart review across our 10-hospital network identifying patients on chronic corticosteroids (Prednisone ≥ 5 mg daily dose or equivalent dose of another steroid, for a duration of 30 days or more) who were hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020. Of these patients who met inclusion criteria, patients were then divided into groups based upon their history of CLD. Primary outcomes of the study looked to investigate the hospitalization outcomes of patients with a history of CLD and comorbid conditions requiring chronic corticosteroid use. Secondary outcomes sought to further investigate risk factors for mortality in our study sample. 837 charts were reviewed. 139 patients met inclusion criteria of which 34 patients had a history of CLD. Statistical analysis demonstrated no difference in length of hospital stay but increased ICU admission rate in the CLD group (41.2% vs 23.8%). No statistically significant difference was seen in between the CLD and non-CLD groups in term of complication rates and 28-day mortality. However, chronic corticosteroids patients were found to have higher rates of ICU admission and overall 28-day and ICU mortality in comparison to patients who were not on chronic corticosteroids prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. The larger contributor to COVID-19 severity was likely chronic corticosteroid use rather than CLD and thus chronic corticosteroid use should be limited throughout the COVID-19 pandemic especially in patients with additional speculated risk factors for COVID-19 such as CLD.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/adverse effects , COVID-19 , End Stage Liver Disease , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Austria/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/pathology , Comorbidity , Critical Care Outcomes , End Stage Liver Disease/drug therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
3.
Nutrients ; 13(9)2021 Aug 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374478

ABSTRACT

We aimed to study the possible association of stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 critically ill patients with prognosis, artificial nutrition, circulating osteocalcin, and other serum markers of inflammation and compare them with non-COVID-19 patients. Fifty-two critical patients at the intensive care unit (ICU), 26 with COVID-19 and 26 non-COVID-19, were included. Glycemic control, delivery of artificial nutrition, serum osteocalcin, total and ICU stays, and mortality were recorded. Patients with COVID-19 had higher ICU stays, were on artificial nutrition for longer (p = 0.004), and needed more frequently insulin infusion therapy (p = 0.022) to control stress hyperglycemia. The need for insulin infusion therapy was associated with higher energy (p = 0.001) and glucose delivered through artificial nutrition (p = 0.040). Those patients with stress hyperglycemia showed higher ICU stays (23 ± 17 vs. 11 ± 13 days, p = 0.007). Serum osteocalcin was a good marker for hyperglycemia, as it inversely correlated with glycemia at admission in the ICU (r = -0.476, p = 0.001) and at days 2 (r = -0.409, p = 0.007) and 3 (r = -0.351, p = 0.049). In conclusion, hyperglycemia in critically ill COVID-19 patients was associated with longer ICU stays. Low circulating osteocalcin was a good marker for stress hyperglycemia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Hyperglycemia/blood , Osteocalcin/blood , Parenteral Nutrition/mortality , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Care Outcomes , Critical Illness/mortality , Female , Humans , Hyperglycemia/mortality , Hyperglycemia/virology , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis
5.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): 437-448, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1298993

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care Outcomes , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Registries , Adult , Aged , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Renal Replacement Therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Vasoconstrictor Agents
6.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(4): e24443, 2021 Jan 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1298407

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: The main aim of this study is to compare the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) via helmet versus face mask where different interfaces and masks can apply NIV. However, some of the limitations of the NIV face mask were air leak, face mask intolerance, and requirement of high positive end expiratory pressure, which could be resolved with the use of the helmet NIV. NIV facemask will be applied as per the facial contour of the patient. NIV helmet is a transparent hood and size will be measured as per the head size. Both groups will have a standard protocol for titration of NIV.Patients aged more than 18 years old and diagnosed with acute respiratory distress syndrome as per Berlin definition will be enrolled in the study after signing the informed consent. Subjects who met the inclusion criteria will receive 1 of the 2 interventions; blood gases, oxygenation status [Po2/Fio2] will be monitored in both groups. The time of intubation will be the main comparison factor among the 2 groups. The primary and secondary outcomes will be measured by the number of patients requiring endotracheal intubation after application of helmet device, Improvement of oxygenation defined as PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 200 or increase from baseline by 100, duration of mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube, intensive care unit length of stay, death from any cause during hospitalization at the time of enrolment, need for proning during the hospital stay, intensive care unit mortality, and the degree to which overt adverse effects of a drug can be tolerated by a patient including feeding tolerance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04507802. PROTOCOL VERSION: May 2020.


Subject(s)
Head Protective Devices , Masks , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
7.
Respir Med ; 184: 106453, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230752

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Over 66 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Therefore, understanding their clinical evolution beyond hospital discharge is essential not only from an individual standpoint, but from a populational level. OBJECTIVES: Our primary aim was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 3 months after hospital discharge. Additionally, we screened for anxiety and depression and assessed important clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study performed in Sao Paulo (Brazil), in which participants were contacted by telephone to answer a short survey. EQ-5D-3L was used to assess HRQoL and clinical data from patients' index admission were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: We contacted 251 participants (59.8% males, mean age 53 years old), 69.7% of which had presented with severe COVID-19. At 3 months of follow-up, 6 patients had died, 51 (20.3%) had visited the emergency department again and 17 (6.8%) had been readmitted to hospital. Seventy patients (27.9%) persisted with increased dyspnoea and 81 had a positive screening for anxiety/depression. Similarly, patients reported an overall worsening of EQ-5D-3L single summary index at 3 months compared to before the onset of COVID-19 symptoms (0.8012 (0.7368 - 1.0) vs. 1.0(0.7368 - 1.0), p < 0.001). This affected all 5 domains, but especially pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Only female sex and intensive care requirement were independently associated with worsening of HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Patients hospitalized for COVID-19 frequently face persistent clinical and mental health problems up to 3 months following hospital discharge, with significant impact on patients' HRQoL.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Critical Care Outcomes , Mental Health , Patient Discharge , Quality of Life , Survivors , Anxiety , Brazil , Cohort Studies , Depression , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sex Factors , Surveys and Questionnaires , Time Factors
8.
J Clin Pharmacol ; 61(10): 1286-1300, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1204756

ABSTRACT

The interaction of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) with the majority of common prescriptions is broadly unknown. The purpose of this study is to identify medications associated with altered disease outcomes in COVID-19. A retrospective cohort composed of all adult inpatient admissions to our center with COVID-19 was analyzed. Data concerning all antecedent prescriptions were collected and agents brought forward for analysis if prescribed to at least 20 patients in our cohort. Forty-two medications and 22 classes of medication were examined. Groups were propensity score matched and analyzed by logistic and linear regression. The majority of medications did not show a statistically significant relationship with altered disease outcomes. Lower mortality was associated with use of pregabalin (hazard ratio [HR], 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.92; P = .049) and inhalers of any type (HR, 0.33; 95%CI, 0.14-0.80; P = .015), specifically beclomethasone (HR, 0.10; 95%CI, 0.01-0.82; P = .032), tiotropium (HR, 0.07; 95%CI, 0.01-0.83; P = .035), and steroid-containing inhalers (HR, 0.35; 95%CI, 0.15-0.79; P = .013). Gliclazide (HR, 4.37; 95%CI, 1.26-15.18; P = .020) and proton pump inhibitor (HR, 1.72; 95%CI, 1.06-2.79; P = .028) use was associated with greater mortality. Diuretic (HR, 0.07; 95%CI, 0.01-0.37; P = .002) and statin (HR, 0.35; 95%CI, 0.17-0.73; P = .006) use was associated with lower rates of critical care admission. Our data lends confidence to observing usual practice in patients with COVID-19 by continuing antecedent prescriptions in the absence of an alternative acute contraindication. We highlight potential benefits in investigation of diuretics, inhalers, pregabalin, and statins as therapeutic agents for COVID-19 and support further assessment of the safety of gliclazide and proton pump inhibitors in the acute illness.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Prescription Drugs , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Testing/methods , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , Humans , Male , Prescription Drugs/classification , Prescription Drugs/therapeutic use , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , United Kingdom/epidemiology
9.
Nutr Clin Pract ; 36(2): 275-281, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1139279

ABSTRACT

Iatrogenic malnutrition and underfeeding are ubiquitous in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide for prolonged periods after ICU admission. A major driver leading to the lack of emphasis on timely ICU nutrition delivery is lack of objective data to guide nutrition care. If we are to ultimately overcome current fundamental challenges to effective ICU nutrition delivery, we must all adopt routine objective, longitudinal measurement of energy targets via indirect calorimetry (IC). Key evidence supporting the routine use of IC in the ICU includes (1) universal societal ICU nutrition guidelines recommending IC to determine energy requirements; (2) data showing predictive equations or body weight calculations that are consistently inaccurate and correlate poorly with measured energy expenditure, ultimately leading to routine overfeeding and underfeeding, which are both associated with poor ICU outcomes; (3) recent development and worldwide availability of a new validated, accurate, easy-to-use IC device; and (4) recent data in ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showing progressive hypermetabolism throughout ICU stay, emphasizing the inaccuracy of predictive equations and marked day-to-day variability in nutrition needs. Thus, given the availability of a new validated IC device, these findings emphasize that routine longitudinal IC measures should be considered the new standard of care for ICU and post-ICU nutrition delivery. As we would not deliver vasopressors without accurate blood pressure measurements, the ICU community is only likely to embrace an increased focus on the importance of early nutrition delivery when we can consistently provide objective IC measures to ensure personalized nutrition care delivers the right nutrition dose, in the right patient, at the right time to optimize clinical outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Calorimetry, Indirect/standards , Critical Care/standards , Malnutrition/diagnosis , Nutrition Assessment , COVID-19/physiopathology , Calorimetry, Indirect/methods , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care Outcomes , Critical Illness/therapy , Energy Metabolism , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Malnutrition/prevention & control , Malnutrition/virology , Nutrition Therapy/methods , Nutrition Therapy/standards , Nutritional Requirements , Nutritional Status , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): 482-489, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135906

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential influence of racial differences in outcomes of patients infected by coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients who require intensive care in an urban hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Henry Ford Health System Multidisciplinary ICU, a total of 156 beds spread throughout the hospital in Detroit, MI. PATIENTS: We obtained data from the electronic medical record of all adult severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-positive patients managed in the ICU of Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI, between March 13, 2020, and July 31, 2020. Included patients were divided into two groups: people of color (including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Arab) and White. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were evaluated: 219 were Black (60.0%), 129 were White (35.3%), two were Asian (0.6%), eight were Hispanic/Latino (2.2%), and seven were Arab (1.9%). People of color were younger (62.8 vs 67.1; p = 0.007), with equal distribution of sex. People of color had less coronary artery disease (34 [14.4%] vs 35 [27.1%]; p =0.003) and less self-reported use of regular alcohol consumption (50 [21.2%] vs 12 [9.3%]; p = 0.004) than Whites, with no differences in diabetes (125 [53.0%] vs 66 [51.2%]; p = 0.742), hypertension (188 [79.7%] vs 99 [76.8%]; p = 0.516), congestive heart failure (41 [17.4%] vs 32 [24.8%]; p = 0.090), or chronic kidney disease (123 [54.1%] vs 55 [42.6%]; p = 0.083).There was no difference in ICU length of stay between people of color (18 d [CI, 7-47 d]) and Whites (18 d [CI, 6-48 d]; p = 0. 0.979). Neither frequency (72.5% vs 71.3%; p = ns) nor median time to mechanical ventilation between people of color (9 d [CI, 6-15 d]) and Whites (10 d [CI, 5-16 d]; p = 0.733) was different. Overall, 188 patients (51.5 %) died in the hospital. The 28-day mortality was lower in people of color (107/236; 45.3%) versus Whites (73/129; 56.6%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.60; p = 0.034), and there was an increased median survival time in people of color (20 d) versus Whites (13.5 d; hazard ratio 0.62; p = 0.002). The inhospital mortality was lower in people of color versus White, but the difference was not statistically significant (113 [47.9%] vs 75 [58.1%], respectively; p = 0.061). Finally, there was no significant difference in days of symptoms prior to admission, frequency of presenting symptoms, or frequency or severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019, people of color had a lower 28-day mortality than Whites with no difference in hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, or rates of intubation. These findings are contrary to previously held beliefs surrounding the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/ethnology , Critical Care Outcomes , Critical Care , Hospitalization , Race Factors , Aged , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Michigan/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers , Time-to-Treatment
12.
Nutr Clin Pract ; 36(2): 440-448, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1111239

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nutrition therapy is essential in critically ill adults. Little is known about appropriate nutrition therapy in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study in adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection receiving mechanical ventilation. Data regarding patient demographics and nutrition therapy were collected. Patients that received enteral nutrition within 24 hours of starting mechanical ventilation were compared with patients starting enteral nutrition later. The primary outcome was inpatient length of stay. Propensity score matching was conducted to control for baseline differences in patient groups. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five patients were included in final analysis. Patients who received enteral nutrition within 24 hours received a significantly greater daily amount of calories (17.5 vs 15.2 kcal/kg, P = .015) and protein (1.04 vs 0.85 g/kg, P = .003). There was no difference in length of stay (18.5 vs 23.5 days, P = .37). The propensity score analysis included 100 patients. Following propensity scoring, significant differences in daily calorie (17.7 [4.6] vs 15.1 [5.1] kcal/kg/d, P = .009) and protein (1.03 [0.35] vs 0.86 [0.38] g/kg/d, P = .014) provision remained. No differences in length of stay or other outcomes were noted in the propensity score analysis. CONCLUSION: Initiation of enteral nutrition within 24 hours was not associated with improved outcomes in mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19. No harm was detected either. Future research should seek to clarify optimal timing of enteral nutrition initiation in patients with COVID-19 who require mechanical ventilation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Enteral Nutrition/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Time-to-Treatment/statistics & numerical data , Critical Care Outcomes , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Propensity Score , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
13.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(3): 295-304, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1047863

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have an excess of inflammation and increased concentrations of cytokines including interleukin-1 (IL-1). We aimed to determine whether anakinra, a recombinant human IL-1 receptor antagonist, could improve outcomes in patients in hospital with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, Bayesian randomised clinical trial (CORIMUNO-ANA-1), nested within the CORIMUNO-19 cohort, we recruited patients from 16 University hospitals in France with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by real-time RT-PCR, requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen by mask or nasal cannula but without ventilation assistance, a score of 5 on the WHO Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS), and a C-reactive protein serum concentration of more than 25 mg/L not requiring admission to the intensive care unit at admission to hospital. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based secure centralised system, stratified by centre and blocked with varying block sizes (randomly of size two or four), to either usual care plus anakinra (200 mg twice a day on days 1-3, 100 mg twice on day 4, 100 mg once on day 5) or usual care alone. Usual care was provided at the discretion of the site clinicians. The two coprimary outcomes were the proportion of patients who had died or needed non-invasive or mechanical ventilation by day 4 (ie, a score of >5 on the WHO-CPS) and survival without need for mechanical or non-invasive ventilation (including high-flow oxygen) at day 14. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04341584, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between April 8 and April 26, 2020, we screened 153 patients. The study was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, after the recruitment of 116 patients: 59 were assigned to the anakinra group, and 57 were assigned to the usual care group. Two patients in the usual care group withdrew consent and were not analysed. In the analysable population, the median age was 66 years (IQR 59 to 76) and 80 (70%) participants were men. In the anakinra group, 21 (36%) of 59 patients had a WHO-CPS score of more than 5 at day 4 versus 21 (38%) of 55 in the usual care group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -2·5%, 90% credible interval [CrI] -17·1 to 12·0), with a posterior probability of ARD of less than 0 (ie, anakinra better than usual care) of 61·2%. At day 14, 28 (47%; 95% CI 33 to 59) patients in the anakinra group and 28 (51%; 95% CI 36 to 62) in the usual care group needed ventilation or died, with a posterior probability of any efficacy of anakinra (hazard ratio [HR] being less than 1) of 54·5% (median posterior HR 0·97; 90% CrI 0·62 to 1·52). At day 90, 16 (27%) patients in the anakinra group and 15 (27%) in the usual care group had died. Serious adverse events occurred in 27 (46%) patients in the anakinra group and 21 (38%) in the usual care group (p=0·45). INTERPRETATION: Anakinra did not improve outcomes in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Further studies are needed to assess the efficacy of anakinra in other selected groups of patients with more severe COVID-19. FUNDING: The Ministry of Health, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Foundation for Medical Research, and AP-HP Foundation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein/therapeutic use , Aged , Bayes Theorem , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , France , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
14.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): 482-489, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998510

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential influence of racial differences in outcomes of patients infected by coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients who require intensive care in an urban hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Henry Ford Health System Multidisciplinary ICU, a total of 156 beds spread throughout the hospital in Detroit, MI. PATIENTS: We obtained data from the electronic medical record of all adult severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-positive patients managed in the ICU of Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI, between March 13, 2020, and July 31, 2020. Included patients were divided into two groups: people of color (including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Arab) and White. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were evaluated: 219 were Black (60.0%), 129 were White (35.3%), two were Asian (0.6%), eight were Hispanic/Latino (2.2%), and seven were Arab (1.9%). People of color were younger (62.8 vs 67.1; p = 0.007), with equal distribution of sex. People of color had less coronary artery disease (34 [14.4%] vs 35 [27.1%]; p =0.003) and less self-reported use of regular alcohol consumption (50 [21.2%] vs 12 [9.3%]; p = 0.004) than Whites, with no differences in diabetes (125 [53.0%] vs 66 [51.2%]; p = 0.742), hypertension (188 [79.7%] vs 99 [76.8%]; p = 0.516), congestive heart failure (41 [17.4%] vs 32 [24.8%]; p = 0.090), or chronic kidney disease (123 [54.1%] vs 55 [42.6%]; p = 0.083).There was no difference in ICU length of stay between people of color (18 d [CI, 7-47 d]) and Whites (18 d [CI, 6-48 d]; p = 0. 0.979). Neither frequency (72.5% vs 71.3%; p = ns) nor median time to mechanical ventilation between people of color (9 d [CI, 6-15 d]) and Whites (10 d [CI, 5-16 d]; p = 0.733) was different. Overall, 188 patients (51.5 %) died in the hospital. The 28-day mortality was lower in people of color (107/236; 45.3%) versus Whites (73/129; 56.6%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.60; p = 0.034), and there was an increased median survival time in people of color (20 d) versus Whites (13.5 d; hazard ratio 0.62; p = 0.002). The inhospital mortality was lower in people of color versus White, but the difference was not statistically significant (113 [47.9%] vs 75 [58.1%], respectively; p = 0.061). Finally, there was no significant difference in days of symptoms prior to admission, frequency of presenting symptoms, or frequency or severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019, people of color had a lower 28-day mortality than Whites with no difference in hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, or rates of intubation. These findings are contrary to previously held beliefs surrounding the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/ethnology , Critical Care Outcomes , Critical Care , Hospitalization , Race Factors , Aged , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Michigan/epidemiology , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers , Time-to-Treatment
15.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(4): 484-493, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-977608

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: While fever may be a presenting symptom of COVID-19, fever at hospital admission has not been identified as a predictor of mortality. However, hyperthermia during critical illness among ventilated COVID-19 patients in the ICU has not yet been studied. We sought to determine mortality predictors among ventilated COVID-19 ICU patients and we hypothesized that fever in the ICU is predictive of mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 103 ventilated COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 14 and May 27, 2020. Final follow-up was June 5, 2020. Patients discharged from the ICU or who died were included. Patients still admitted to the ICU at final follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: 103 patients were included, 40 survived and 63(61.1%) died. Deceased patients were older {66 years[IQR18] vs 62.5[IQR10], (p = 0.0237)}, more often male {48(68%) vs 22(55%), (p = 0.0247)}, had lower initial oxygen saturation {86.0%[IQR18] vs 91.5%[IQR11.5], (p = 0.0060)}, and had lower pH nadir than survivors {7.10[IQR0.2] vs 7.30[IQR0.2] (p < 0.0001)}. Patients had higher peak temperatures during ICU stay as compared to hospital presentation {103.3°F[IQR1.7] vs 100.0°F[IQR3.5], (p < 0.0001)}. Deceased patients had higher peak ICU temperatures than survivors {103.6°F[IQR2.0] vs 102.9°F[IQR1.4], (p = 0.0008)}. Increasing peak temperatures were linearly associated with mortality. Febrile patients who underwent targeted temperature management to achieve normothermia did not have different outcomes than those not actively cooled. Multivariable analysis revealed 60% and 75% higher risk of mortality with peak temperature greater than 103°F and 104°F respectively; it also confirmed hyperthermia, age, male sex, and acidosis to be predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to identify ICU hyperthermia as predictive of mortality in ventilated COVID-19 patients. Additional predictors included male sex, age, and acidosis. With COVID-19 cases increasing, identification of ICU mortality predictors is crucial to improve risk stratification, resource management, and patient outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Fever/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , Fever/virology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
16.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(4): 494-499, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-841801

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: COVID-19 has been associated with a dysregulated inflammatory response. Patients who have received solid-organ transplants are more susceptible to infections in general due to the use of immunosuppressants. We investigated factors associated with mechanical ventilation and outcomes in solid-organ transplant recipients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all solid-organ transplant recipients admitted with a diagnosis of COVID-19 in our 23-hospital health system over a 1-month period. Descriptive statistics were used to describe hospital course and laboratory results and bivariate comparisons were performed on variables to determine differences. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with solid-organ transplants and COVID-19 were identified. Eight patients were admitted to the ICU, of which 7 were intubated. Admission values of CRP (p = 0.045) and N/L ratio (p = 0.047) were associated with the need for mechanical ventilation. Seven patients (32%) died during admission, including 86% (n = 6) of patients who received mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: In solid-organ transplant recipients with COVID-19, initial CRP and N/L ratio were associated with need for mechanical ventilation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Organ Transplantation/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , APACHE , Adult , Aged , C-Reactive Protein/analysis , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , Humans , Leukocyte Count , Lymphocytes , Male , Middle Aged , Neutrophils , Postoperative Complications/blood , Retrospective Studies
17.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(4): 477-483, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-788460

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV2 can cause pulmonary failure requiring prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Lung protective ventilation strategies are recommended in order to minimize ventilator induced lung injury. Whether patients with COVID-19 have the same risk for complications including barotrauma is still unknown. Therefore, we investigated barotrauma in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring prolonged MV. METHODS: All patients meeting diagnosis criteria for ARDS according to the Berlin Definition, with PCR positive SARS-CoV2 infection and prolonged mechanical ventilation, defined as ≥2 days, treated at our ARDS referral center between March and April 2020 were included in a retrospective registry analysis. Complications were detected by manual review of all patient data including respiratory data, imaging studies, and patient files. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients with severe COVID-19 pulmonary failure (Overall characteristics: median age: 61 years, female gender 6, median duration of MV 22 days) were analyzed. Eight patients (40%) developed severe barotrauma during MV (after median 18 days, range: 1-32) including pneumothorax (5/20), pneumomediastinum (5/20), pneumopericard (1/20), and extended subcutaneous emphysema (5/20). Median respirator settings 24 hours before barotrauma were: Peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak) 29 cm H2O (range: 27-35), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 14 cm H2O (range: 5-24), tidal volume (VT) 5.4ml/kg predicted body weight (range 0.4-8.6), plateau pressure (Pplateau) 27 cm H2O (range: 19-30). Mechanical ventilation was significantly more invasive on several occasions in patients without barotrauma. CONCLUSION: Barotrauma in COVID-19 induced respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation was found in 40% of patients included in this registry. Our data suggest that barotrauma in COVID-19 may occur even when following recommendations for lung protective MV.


Subject(s)
Barotrauma/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Ventilators, Mechanical/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Barotrauma/etiology , Case-Control Studies , Critical Care Outcomes , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
20.
J Acad Nutr Diet ; 121(9): 1841-1854, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-665305

ABSTRACT

Probiotics have been suggested as a potential intervention for improving outcomes, particularly ventilatory-associated pneumonia, in patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, with the rapid development of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is little direct evidence available in infected patients. The objective of this scoping review is to examine the availability and nature of literature describing the effect of probiotics in adults with conditions or infections similar to COVID-19 infection on related health outcomes. MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies published from 1999 to May 1, 2020, examining the effect of probiotics in conditions applicable to individuals infected with COVID-19, including, but not limited to, other forms of coronavirus, critical illness, and mechanical ventilation. The databases search identified 1925 unique articles, 77 full-text articles were reviewed, and 48 studies were included in this scoping review, including 31 primary studies and 17 systematic reviews. Primary studies examined a range of interventions that varied by probiotic diversity and types, including 8 studies that focused on synbiotics, which include both pre- and probiotics. Several systematic reviews examined the effect of probiotics on ventilator-associated pneumonia and other infections. Although most systematic reviews concluded probiotics may improve these outcomes, most systematic review authors concluded that the evidence was low in quality and high in heterogeneity. In the absence of direct evidence with patients infected with COVID-19, studies in comparable populations are currently the best resource to guide probiotics interventions in conjunction with clinical expertise and multidisciplinary health care planning.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diet therapy , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/diet therapy , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Respiratory Tract Infections/diet therapy , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diet therapy , Critical Care Outcomes , Critical Illness , Humans , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL