Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 384
Filter
1.
Crit Care Med ; 50(4): 595-606, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764676

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate healthcare system-driven variation in general characteristics, interventions, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the ICU within one Western European region across three countries. DESIGN: Multicenter observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: Consecutive COVID-19 patients supported in the ICU during the first pandemic wave. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory values, and outcome data were retrieved after ethical approval and data-sharing agreements. Descriptive statistics were performed to investigate country-related practice variation. From March 2, 2020, to August 12, 2020, 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, and 29% were female. At admission, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 15.0 ± 5.5, 16.8 ± 5.5, and 15.8 ± 5.3 (p = 0.002), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 4.4 ± 2.7, 7.4 ± 2.2, and 7.7 ± 3.2 (p < 0.001) in the Belgian, Dutch, and German parts of Euregio, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 22%, 42%, and 44%, respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences were observed in the frequency of organ support, antimicrobial/inflammatory therapy application, and ICU capacity. Mixed-multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that differences in ICU mortality were independent of age, sex, disease severity, comorbidities, support strategies, therapies, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within one region, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, differed significantly in general characteristics, applied interventions, and outcomes despite presumed genetic and socioeconomic background, admission diagnosis, access to international literature, and data collection are similar. Variances in healthcare systems' organization, particularly ICU capacity and admission criteria, combined with a rapidly spreading pandemic might be important drivers for the observed differences. Heterogeneity between patient groups but also healthcare systems should be presumed to interfere with outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Intensive Care Units , APACHE , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Cohort Studies , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Patient Transfer , Treatment Outcome
2.
Adv Skin Wound Care ; 35(4): 202-212, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1752184

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends and risk factors for pressure injuries (PIs) in adult critical care patients proned to alleviate acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to COVID-19 and examine the effectiveness of products and strategies used to mitigate PIs. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review between April 9 and June 8, 2020. Demographic data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Differences between groups with and without PIs were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 147 patients, significant PI risk factors included male sex (P = .019), high body mass index (>40 kg/m2; P = .020), low Braden Scale score (<12; P = .018), and low-dose vasopressor therapy (P = .020). Taping endotracheal tubes (ETTs) caused significantly fewer facial PIs than commercial ETT holders (P < .0001). Maximum prone duration/session was a significant risk factor for anterior PIs (P = .016), which dropped 71% with newer pressure redistribution products. d-Dimer greater than 3,200 µg/mL (P = .042) was a significant risk factor for sacrococcygeal PIs while supine. Mortality was 30%; significant risk factors included age older than 60 years (P = .005), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score greater than 11 (P = .003), and comorbid congestive heart failure (P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Taping the ETT, limiting the maximum duration of prone positioning to less than 32 hours, and frequent repositioning while supine may reduce the number of modifiable risk factors for PIs. Standardized methods for testing products for PI prevention will inform individualized patient care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Critical Care/methods , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies
3.
PLoS One ; 17(3): e0263688, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1736501

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 surge in Taiwan, the Far East Memorial Hospital established a system including a centralized quarantine unit and triage admission protocol to facilitate acute care surgical inpatient services, prevent nosocomial COVID-19 infection and maintain the efficiency and quality of health care service during the pandemics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing acute care surgery. The triage admission protocol was based on rapid antigen tests, Liat® PCR and RT-PCT tests. Type of surgical procedure, patient characteristics, and efficacy indices of the centralized quarantine unit and emergency department (ED) were collected and analyzed before (Phase I: May 11 to July 2, 2021) and after (Phase II: July 3 to July 31, 2021) the system started. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients (105 in Phase I and 182 in Phase II) were enrolled. Nosocomial COVID-19 infection occur in 27 patients in phase I but zero in phase II. More patients received traumatological, orthopedic, and neurologic surgeries in phase II than in phase I. The patients' surgical risk classification, median total hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and the number of patients requiring postoperative ICU care were similar in both groups. The duration of ED stay and waiting time for acute care surgery were longer in Phase II (397 vs. 532 minutes, p < 0.0001). The duration of ED stay was positively correlated with the number of surgical patients visiting the ED (median = 66 patients, Spearman's ρ = 0.207) and the occupancy ratio in the centralized quarantine unit on that day (median = 90.63%, Spearman's ρ = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: The triage admission protocol provided resilient quarantine needs and sustainable acute care surgical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The efficiency was related to the number of medical staff dedicated to the centralized quarantine unit and number of surgical patients visited in ED.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Care/methods , Triage/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Admission/standards , Quarantine , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Taiwan/epidemiology , Tertiary Care Centers , Time-to-Treatment , Young Adult
4.
Turk J Med Sci ; 51(SI-1): 3350-3358, 2021 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1726155

ABSTRACT

Although we have enough and cumulative information about acute effects of COVID-19, our knowledge is extremely limited about long-term consequences of COVID-19, in terms of its impacts and burdens on patients, families, and the health system. Considering the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms affecting all of the organ systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients who are admitted to intensive care units, the development of post-intensive care syndrome is inevitable. This situation brings along the development of long-COVID. These patients should be followed regarding cognitive, physical, and psychiatric aspects and necessary specialist referrals should be carried out. In this article, we are presenting the experience and recommendations of our center, as a guide for the establishment process of post-intensive care outpatient clinics for the critically ill patients who required intensive care admission due to COVID-19 and could be discharged.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Critical Care/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Ambulatory Care Facilities , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Survivors , Treatment Outcome
5.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 22(1): 59, 2022 03 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1724413

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on the lung respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in the time course of COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is limited. This study aimed to explore respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, the lung recruitability and risk of overdistension during the time course of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients (n = 116) with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units of Sechenov University. The primary endpoints were: «optimum¼ positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level balanced between the lowest driving pressure and the highest SpO2 and number of patients with recruitable lung on Days 1 and 7 of mechanical ventilation. We measured driving pressure at different levels of PEEP (14, 12, 10 and 8 cmH2O) with preset tidal volume, and with the increase of tidal volume by 100 ml and 200 ml at preset PEEP level, and calculated static respiratory system compliance (CRS), PaO2/FiO2, alveolar dead space and ventilatory ratio on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 and 21. RESULTS: The «optimum¼ PEEP levels on Day 1 were 11.0 (10.0-12.8) cmH2O and 10.0 (9.0-12.0) cmH2O on Day 7. Positive response to recruitment was observed on Day 1 in 27.6% and on Day 7 in 9.2% of patients. PEEP increase from 10 to 14 cmH2O and VT increase by 100 and 200 ml led to a significant decrease in CRS from Day 1 to Day 14 (p < 0.05). Ventilatory ratio was 2.2 (1.7-2,7) in non-survivors and in 1.9 (1.6-2.6) survivors on Day 1 and decreased on Day 7 in survivors only (p < 0.01). PaO2/FiO2 was 105.5 (76.2-141.7) mmHg in non-survivors on Day 1 and 136.6 (106.7-160.8) in survivors (p = 0.002). In survivors, PaO2/FiO2 rose on Day 3 (p = 0.008) and then between Days 7 and 10 (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Lung recruitability was low in COVID-19 and decreased during the course of the disease, but lung overdistension occurred at «intermediate¼ PEEP and VT levels. In survivors gas exchange improvements after Day 7 mismatched CRS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04445961 . Registered 24 June 2020-Retrospectively registered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Lung/physiopathology , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Aged , COVID-19/physiopathology , Critical Care/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/statistics & numerical data , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Mechanics , Russia/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Tidal Volume , Treatment Failure
6.
N Engl J Med ; 386(9): 815-826, 2022 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1721751

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whether the use of balanced multielectrolyte solution (BMES) in preference to 0.9% sodium chloride solution (saline) in critically ill patients reduces the risk of acute kidney injury or death is uncertain. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned critically ill patients to receive BMES (Plasma-Lyte 148) or saline as fluid therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) for 90 days. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were receipt of new renal-replacement therapy and the maximum increase in the creatinine level during ICU stay. RESULTS: A total of 5037 patients were recruited from 53 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand - 2515 patients were assigned to the BMES group and 2522 to the saline group. Death within 90 days after randomization occurred in 530 of 2433 patients (21.8%) in the BMES group and in 530 of 2413 patients (22.0%) in the saline group, for a difference of -0.15 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.60 to 3.30; P = 0.90). New renal-replacement therapy was initiated in 306 of 2403 patients (12.7%) in the BMES group and in 310 of 2394 patients (12.9%) in the saline group, for a difference of -0.20 percentage points (95% CI, -2.96 to 2.56). The mean (±SD) maximum increase in serum creatinine level was 0.41±1.06 mg per deciliter (36.6±94.0 µmol per liter) in the BMES group and 0.41±1.02 mg per deciliter (36.1±90.0 µmol per liter) in the saline group, for a difference of 0.01 mg per deciliter (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.06) (0.5 µmol per liter [95% CI, -4.7 to 5.7]). The number of adverse and serious adverse events did not differ meaningfully between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the risk of death or acute kidney injury among critically ill adults in the ICU was lower with the use of BMES than with saline. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; PLUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02721654.).


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/prevention & control , Critical Illness/therapy , Saline Solution/therapeutic use , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Adult , Aged , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/mortality , Double-Blind Method , Female , Fluid Therapy , Gluconates/adverse effects , Gluconates/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Magnesium Chloride/adverse effects , Magnesium Chloride/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Potassium Chloride/adverse effects , Potassium Chloride/therapeutic use , Saline Solution/adverse effects , Sodium Acetate/adverse effects , Sodium Acetate/therapeutic use , Sodium Chloride/adverse effects , Sodium Chloride/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
7.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e057804, 2022 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714417

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing heart valve surgery are predominantly transferred postoperatively to the intensive care unit (ICU) under continuous sedation. Volatile anaesthetics are an increasingly used treatment alternative to intravenous substances in the ICU. As subject to inhalational uptake and elimination, the resulting pharmacological benefits have been repeatedly demonstrated. Therefore, volatile anaesthetics appear suitable to meet the growing demands of fast-track cardiac surgery. However, their use requires special preparation at the bedside and trained medical and nursing staff, which might limit the pharmacological benefits. The aim of our work is to assess whether the temporal advantages of recovery under volatile sedation outweigh the higher effort of special preparation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is designed to evaluate the differences between intravenous sedatives (n=48) and volatile sedatives (n=48) in continued intensive care sedation. This study will be conducted as a prospective, randomised, controlled, single-blinded, monocentre trial at a German university hospital in consenting adult patients undergoing heart valve surgery at a university hospital. This observational study will examine the necessary preparation time, staff consultation and overall feasibility of the chosen sedation method. For this purpose, the continuation of sedation in the ICU with volatile sedatives is considered as one study arm and with intravenous sedatives as the comparison group. Due to rapid elimination and quick awakening after the termination of sedation, closer consultation between the attending physician and the ICU nursing staff is required, in addition to a prolonged setup time. Study analysis will include the required setup time, time from admission to extubation as primary outcome and neurocognitive assessability. In addition, possible operation-specific (blood loss, complications), treatment parameters (catecholamine dosages, lung function) and laboratory results (acute kidney injury, acid base balance (lactataemia), liver failure) as influencing factors will be collected. The study-relevant data will be extracted from the continuous digital records of the patient data management system after the patient has been discharged from the ICU. For statistical evaluation, 95% CIs will be calculated for the median time to extubation and neurocognitive assessability, and the association will be assessed with a Cox regression model. In addition, secondary binary outcome measures will be evaluated using Fisher's exact tests. Further descriptive and exploratory statistical analyses are also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Board of the University of Frankfurt, Germany (#20-1050). Informed consent of all individual patients will be obtained before randomisation. Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Heart Valves , Adult , Critical Care/methods , Heart Valves/surgery , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Observational Studies as Topic , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
8.
Front Immunol ; 12: 738532, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1686470

ABSTRACT

Background: The benefits of intravenous immunoglobulin administration are controversial for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: We analyzed retrospectively the effects of immunoglobulin administration for critically ill COVID-19 patients. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with propensity score was used to account for baseline confounders. Cluster analysis was used to perform phenotype analysis. Results: Between January 1 and February 29, 2020, 754 patients with complete data from 19 hospitals were enrolled. Death at 28 days occurred for 408 (54.1%) patients. There were 392 (52.0%) patients who received intravenous immunoglobulin, at 11 (interquartile range (IQR) 8, 16) days after illness onset; 30% of these patients received intravenous immunoglobulin prior to intensive care unit (ICU) admission. By unadjusted analysis, no difference was observed for 28-day mortality between the immunoglobulin and non-immunoglobulin groups. Similar results were found by propensity score matching (n = 506) and by IPTW analysis (n = 731). Also, IPTW analysis did not reveal any significant difference between hyperinflammation and hypoinflammation phenotypes. Conclusion: No significant association was observed for use of intravenous immunoglobulin and decreased mortality of severe COVID-19 patients. Phenotype analysis did not show any survival benefit for patients who received immunoglobulin therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , Aged , China , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Immunization, Passive/methods , Immunization, Passive/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Treatment Outcome
9.
Respir Physiol Neurobiol ; 299: 103868, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671098

ABSTRACT

Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure automatically receive oxygen therapy to improve inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2). Supplemental oxygen is the most prescribed drug for critically ill patients regardless of altitude of residence. In high altitude dwellers (i.e. in La Paz [≈3,400 m] and El Alto [≈4,150 m] in Bolivia), a peripheral oxygen saturation (SatpO2) of 89-95% and an arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) of 50-67 mmHg (lower as altitude rises), are considered normal values ​​for arterial blood. Consequently, it has been suggested that limiting oxygen therapy to maintain SatpO2 around normoxia may help avoid episodes of hypoxemia, hyperoxemia, intermittent hypoxemia, and ultimately, mortality. In this study, we evaluated the impact of oxygen therapy on the mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients who permanently live at high altitudes. A multicenter cross-sectional descriptive observational study was performed on 100 patients admitted to the ICU at the "Clinica Los Andes" (in La Paz city) and "Agramont" and "Del Norte" Hospitals (in El Alto city). Our results show that: 1) as expected, fatal cases were detected only in patients who required intubation and connection to invasive mechanical ventilation as a last resort to overcome their life-threatening desaturation; 2) among intubated patients, prolonged periods in normoxia are associated with survival, prolonged periods in hypoxemia are associated with death, and time spent in hyperoxemia shows no association with survival or mortality; 3) the oxygenation limits required to effectively support the intubated patients' survival in the ICU are between 89% and 93%; 4) among intubated patients with similar periods of normoxemic oxygenation, those with better SOFA scores survive; and 5) a lower frequency of observable reoxygenation events is not associated with survival. In conclusion, our findings indicate that high-altitude patients entering an ICU at altitudes of 3,400 - 4,150 m should undergo oxygen therapy to maintain oxygenation levels between 89 and 93 %.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/standards , /physiology , Adult , Aged , Altitude , Bolivia , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods
10.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261024, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1623650

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy has been proposed as an option to help organize the healthcare system to face the unprecedented number of patients hospitalized for a COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in intensive care units (ICU). It is, however, considered a particularly high-risk procedure for contamination. This paper aims to provide our experience in performing tracheostomies on COVID-19 critically ill patients during the pandemic and its long-term local complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients tracheostomized for a COVID-19-related ARDS in two university hospitals in the Paris region between January 27th (date of first COVID-19 admission) and May 18th, 2020 (date of last tracheostomy performed). We focused on tracheostomy technique (percutaneous versus surgical), timing (early versus late) and late complications. RESULTS: Forty-eight tracheostomies were performed with an equal division between surgical and percutaneous techniques. There was no difference in patients' characteristics between surgical and percutaneous groups. Tracheostomy was performed after a median of 17 [12-22] days of mechanical ventilation (MV), with 10 patients in the "early" group (≤ day 10) and 38 patients in the "late" group (> day 10). Survivors required MV for a median of 32 [22-41] days and were ultimately decannulated with a median of 21 [15-34] days spent on cannula. Patients in the early group had shorter ICU and hospital stays (respectively 15 [12-19] versus 35 [25-47] days; p = 0.002, and 21 [16-28] versus 54 [35-72] days; p = 0.002) and spent less time on MV (respectively 17 [14-20] and 35 [27-43] days; p<0.001). Interestingly, patients in the percutaneous group had shorter hospital and rehabilitation center stays (respectively 44 [34-81] versus 92 [61-118] days; p = 0.012, and 24 [11-38] versus 45 [22-71] days; p = 0.045). Of the 30 (67%) patients examined by a head and neck surgeon, 17 (57%) had complications with unilateral laryngeal palsy (n = 5) being the most prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy seems to be a safe procedure that could help ICU organization by delegating work to a separate team and favoring patient turnover by allowing faster transfer to step-down units. Following guidelines alone was found sufficient to prevent the risk of aerosolization and contamination of healthcare professionals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/surgery , Tracheostomy/methods , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitals, University , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Paris , Personnel, Hospital , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Tracheostomy/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
11.
J Neurol Sci ; 434: 120118, 2022 03 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1623388

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We highlight the peripheral neurologic complications of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), an ongoing global health emergency. METHODS: We evaluated twenty-five patients admitted to the COVID-19 Recovery Unit (CRU) at New York-Presbyterian Weill Cornell University Medical Center after intensive care hospitalization with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), whom neurology was consulted for weakness and/or paresthesias. All patients were clinically evaluated by a neuromuscular neurologist who performed electrodiagnostic (EDX) studies when indicated. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the affected regions, along with nerve and muscle biopsies were obtained in select patients to better elucidate the underlying diagnosis. RESULTS: We found fourteen out of twenty-five patients with prolonged hospitalization for COVID-19 infection to have peripheral neurological complications, identified as plexopathies, peripheral neuropathies and entrapment neuropathies. The other eleven patients were not found to have peripheral neurologic causes for their symptoms. Patients with peripheral neurological complications often exhibited more than one type of concurrently. Specifically, there were four cases of plexopathies, nine cases of entrapment neuropathies, and six cases of peripheral neuropathies, which included cranial neuropathy, sciatic neuropathy, and multiple mononeuropathies. CONCLUSIONS: We explore the possibility that the idiopathic peripheral neurologic complications could be manifestations of the COVID-19 disease spectrum, possibly resulting from micro-thrombotic induced nerve ischemia.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nervous System Diseases , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases , COVID-19/complications , Critical Care/methods , Humans , Nervous System Diseases/diagnostic imaging , Nervous System Diseases/etiology , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/complications , Peripheral Nervous System Diseases/etiology , SARS-CoV-2
12.
BMJ ; 376: e068407, 2022 01 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612964

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of statin treatment versus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients with covid-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: INSPIRATION/INSPIRATION-S was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design. Results for the anticoagulation randomization have been reported previously. Results for the double blind randomization to atorvastatin versus placebo are reported here. SETTING: 11 hospitals in Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥18 years with covid-19 admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTION: Atorvastatin 20 mg orally once daily versus placebo, to be continued for 30 days from randomization irrespective of hospital discharge status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality within 30 days from randomization. Prespecified safety outcomes included increase in liver enzyme levels more than three times the upper limit of normal and clinically diagnosed myopathy. A clinical events committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated the efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Of 605 patients randomized between 29 July 2020 and 4 April 2021 for statin randomization in the INSPIRATION-S trial, 343 were co-randomized to intermediate dose versus standard dose prophylactic anticoagulation with heparin based regimens, whereas 262 were randomized after completion of the anticoagulation study. 587 of the 605 participants were included in the primary analysis of INSPIRATION-S, reported here: 290 were assigned to atorvastatin and 297 to placebo (median age 57 years (interquartile range 45-68 years); 256 (44%) women). The primary outcome occurred in 95 (33%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and 108 (36%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.21). Death occurred in 90 (31%) patients in the atorvastatin group and 103 (35%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.22). Rates for venous thromboembolism were 2% (n=6) in the atorvastatin group and 3% (n=9) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 2.06). Myopathy was not clinically diagnosed in either group. Liver enzyme levels were increased in five (2%) patients assigned to atorvastatin and six (2%) assigned to placebo (odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 2.81). CONCLUSIONS: In adults with covid-19 admitted to the ICU, atorvastatin was not associated with a significant reduction in the composite of venous or arterial thrombosis, treatment with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or all cause mortality compared with placebo. Treatment was, however, found to be safe. As the overall event rates were lower than expected, a clinically important treatment effect cannot be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04486508.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Atorvastatin/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Critical Care/methods , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Double-Blind Method , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/statistics & numerical data , Female , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Iran/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/virology , Young Adult
15.
16.
Nutrients ; 14(1)2021 Dec 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1580548

ABSTRACT

The outbreak of the new coronavirus strain SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) highlighted the need for appropriate feeding practices among critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This study aimed to describe feeding practices of intubated COVID-19 patients during their second week of hospitalization in the First Department of Critical Care Medicine, Evaggelismos General Hospital, and evaluate potential associations with all cause 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. We enrolled adult intubated COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between September 2020 and July 2021 and prospectively monitored until their hospital discharge. Of the 162 patients analyzed (52.8% men, 51.6% overweight/obese, mean age 63.2 ± 11.9 years), 27.2% of patients used parenteral nutrition, while the rest were fed enterally. By 30 days, 34.2% of the patients in the parenteral group had died compared to 32.7% of the patients in the enteral group (relative risk (RR) for the group receiving enteral nutrition = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.88-1.06, p = 0.120). Those in the enteral group demonstrated a lower duration of hospital stay (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.85-0.97, p = 0.036) as well as mechanical ventilation support (RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89-0.99, p = 0.043). Enteral feeding during second week of ICU hospitalization may be associated with a shorter duration of hospitalization and stay in mechanical ventilation support among critically ill intubated patients with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Enteral Nutrition/statistics & numerical data , Parenteral Nutrition/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Critical Illness , Enteral Nutrition/methods , Enteral Nutrition/mortality , Female , Greece/epidemiology , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Parenteral Nutrition/methods , Parenteral Nutrition/mortality , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
17.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 522-532, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. METHODS: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. FINDINGS: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference -1·7 [-9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [-6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI -7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , International Cooperation , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
18.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 511-521, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537197

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Global randomised controlled trials of the anti-IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have shown conflicting results but potential decreases in time to discharge and burden on intensive care. Tocilizumab reduced progression to mechanical ventilation and death in a trial population enriched for racial and ethnic minorities. We aimed to investigate whether tocilizumab treatment could prevent COVID-19 progression in the first multicentre randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab done entirely in a lower-middle-income country. METHODS: COVINTOC is an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial done at 12 public and private hospitals across India. Adults (aged ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 (Indian Ministry of Health grading) confirmed by positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result were randomly assigned (1:1 block randomisation) to receive tocilizumab 6 mg/kg plus standard care (the tocilizumab group) or standard care alone (the standard care group). The primary endpoint was progression of COVID-19 (from moderate to severe or from severe to death) up to day 14 in the modified intention-to-treat population of all participants who had at least one post-baseline assessment for the primary endpoint. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients. The trial is completed and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/05/025369). FINDINGS: 180 patients were recruited between May 30, 2020, and Aug 31, 2020, and randomly assigned to the tocilizumab group (n=90) or the standard care group (n=90). One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group inadvertently received tocilizumab at baseline and was included in the tocilizumab group for all analyses. One patient randomly assigned to the standard care group withdrew consent after the baseline visit and did not receive any study medication and was not included in the modified intention-to-treat population but was still included in safety analyses. 75 (82%) of 91 in the tocilizumab group and 68 (76%) of 89 in the standard care group completed 28 days of follow-up. Progression of COVID-19 up to day 14 occurred in eight (9%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 11 (13%) of 88 in the standard care group (difference -3·71 [95% CI -18·23 to 11·19]; p=0·42). 33 (36%) of 91 patients in the tocilizumab group and 22 (25%) of 89 patients in the standard care group had adverse events; 18 (20%) and 15 (17%) had serious adverse events. The most common adverse event was acute respiratory distress syndrome, reported in seven (8%) patients in each group. Grade 3 adverse events were reported in two (2%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (6%) patients in the standard care group. There were no grade 4 adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in 18 (20%) patients in the tocilizumab group and 15 (17%) in the standard care group; 13 (14%) and 15 (17%) patients died during the study. INTERPRETATION: Routine use of tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with moderate to severe COVID-19 is not supported. However, post-hoc evidence from this study suggests tocilizumab might still be effective in patients with severe COVID-19 and so should be investigated further in future studies. FUNDING: Medanta Institute of Education and Research, Roche India, Cipla India, and Action COVID-19 India.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , India , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
19.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 487-497, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537196

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation is a life-saving treatment for patients with end-stage lung disease; however, it is infrequently considered for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) attributable to infectious causes. We aimed to describe the course of disease and early post-transplantation outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who failed to show lung recovery despite optimal medical management and were deemed to be at imminent risk of dying due to pulmonary complications. METHODS: We established a multi-institutional case series that included the first consecutive transplants for severe COVID-19-associated ARDS known to us in the USA, Italy, Austria, and India. De-identified data from participating centres-including information relating to patient demographics and pre-COVID-19 characteristics, pretransplantation disease course, perioperative challenges, pathology of explanted lungs, and post-transplantation outcomes-were collected by Northwestern University (Chicago, IL, USA) and analysed. FINDINGS: Between May 1 and Sept 30, 2020, 12 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS underwent bilateral lung transplantation at six high-volume transplant centres in the USA (eight recipients at three centres), Italy (two recipients at one centre), Austria (one recipient), and India (one recipient). The median age of recipients was 48 years (IQR 41-51); three of the 12 patients were female. Chest imaging before transplantation showed severe lung damage that did not improve despite prolonged mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The lung transplant procedure was technically challenging, with severe pleural adhesions, hilar lymphadenopathy, and increased intraoperative transfusion requirements. Pathology of the explanted lungs showed extensive, ongoing acute lung injury with features of lung fibrosis. There was no recurrence of SARS-CoV-2 in the allografts. All patients with COVID-19 could be weaned off extracorporeal support and showed short-term survival similar to that of transplant recipients without COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: The findings from our report show that lung transplantation is the only option for survival in some patients with severe, unresolving COVID-19-associated ARDS, and that the procedure can be done successfully, with good early post-transplantation outcomes, in carefully selected patients. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health. VIDEO ABSTRACT.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness/therapy , Lung Transplantation/methods , Lung , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Blood Transfusion/methods , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/surgery , Critical Care/methods , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Female , Humans , Intraoperative Care/methods , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Lung/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Pulmonary Fibrosis/etiology , Pulmonary Fibrosis/pathology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/surgery , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
20.
Br J Anaesth ; 128(3): 482-490, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536454

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is performed in patients expected to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, but to date optimal timing of tracheostomy has not been established. The evidence concerning tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients is particularly scarce. We aimed to describe the relationship between early tracheostomy (≤10 days since intubation) and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study performed in 152 centres across 16 European countries from February to December 2020. We included patients aged ≥70 yr with confirmed COVID-19 infection admitted to an intensive care unit, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the association between early tracheostomy and clinical outcomes including 3-month mortality, intensive care length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1740 patients with a mean age of 74 yr. Tracheostomy was performed in 461 (26.5%) patients. The tracheostomy rate varied across countries, from 8.3% to 52.9%. Early tracheostomy was performed in 135 (29.3%) patients. There was no difference in 3-month mortality between early and late tracheostomy in either our primary analysis (hazard ratio [HR]=0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.33) or a secondary landmark analysis (HR=0.78; 95% CI, 0.57-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation across Europe in the timing of tracheostomy for critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, we found no evidence that early tracheostomy is associated with any effect on survival amongst older critically ill patients with COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04321265.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Critical Illness/mortality , Tracheostomy/mortality , Tracheostomy/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Correlation of Data , Europe , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay , Male , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Survival Rate/trends , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL