Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 42(2): 316-326, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493288

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism, occlusion of dialysis catheters, circuit thrombosis in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) devices, acute limb ischemia, and isolated strokes, all in the face of prophylactic and even therapeutic anticoagulation, are features of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) coagulopathy. It seems well established at this time that a COVID-19 patient deemed sick enough to be hospitalized, should receive at least prophylactic dose anticoagulation. However, should some hospitalized patients have dosage escalation to intermediate dose? Should some be considered for full-dose anticoagulation without a measurable thromboembolic event and how should that anticoagulation be monitored? Should patients receive postdischarge anticoagulation and with what medication and for how long? What thrombotic issues are related to the various medications being used to treat this coagulopathy? Is antiphospholipid antibody part of this syndrome? What is the significance of isolated ischemic stroke and limb ischemia in this disorder and how does this interface with the rest of the clinical and laboratory features of this disorder? The aims of this article are to explore these questions and interpret the available data based on the current evidence.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Thrombophilia/drug therapy , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Ambulatory Care , Antibodies, Antiphospholipid/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antirheumatic Agents/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/therapy , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Combinations , Duration of Therapy , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Immunization, Passive , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombolytic Therapy , Thrombophilia/blood , Thrombophilia/etiology , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Thrombosis/immunology , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/immunology
2.
Lancet ; 398(10307): 1230-1238, 2021 10 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440421

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of patients with COVID-19 has changed and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has increased. We aimed to examine patient selection, treatments, outcomes, and ECMO centre characteristics over the course of the pandemic to date. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry and COVID-19 Addendum to compare three groups of ECMO-supported patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥16 years). At early-adopting centres-ie, those using ECMO support for COVID-19 throughout 2020-we compared patients who started ECMO on or before May 1, 2020 (group A1), and between May 2 and Dec 31, 2020 (group A2). Late-adopting centres were those that provided ECMO for COVID-19 only after May 1, 2020 (group B). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality in a time-to-event analysis assessed 90 days after ECMO initiation. A Cox proportional hazards model was fit to compare the patient and centre-level adjusted relative risk of mortality among the groups. FINDINGS: In 2020, 4812 patients with COVID-19 received ECMO across 349 centres within 41 countries. For early-adopting centres, the cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO initiation was 36·9% (95% CI 34·1-39·7) in patients who started ECMO on or before May 1 (group A1) versus 51·9% (50·0-53·8) after May 1 (group A2); at late-adopting centres (group B), it was 58·9% (55·4-62·3). Relative to patients in group A2, group A1 patients had a lower adjusted relative risk of in-hospital mortality 90 days after ECMO (hazard ratio 0·82 [0·70-0·96]), whereas group B patients had a higher adjusted relative risk (1·42 [1·17-1·73]). INTERPRETATION: Mortality after ECMO for patients with COVID-19 worsened during 2020. These findings inform the role of ECMO in COVID-19 for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Hospital Mortality/trends , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , Duration of Therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Selection , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Registries , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Virol J ; 18(1): 147, 2021 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1311250

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The clinical and virological course of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. We aimed to describe the clinical and virological characteristics of COVID-19 patients from 10 designated hospitals in 10 cities of Jiangsu province, China. The factors associated with the clearance of SARS-CoV-2 were investigated. METHODS: A total of 328 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were retrospectively recruited. The epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, radiology and treatment data were collected. The associated factors of SARS-CoV-2 clearance were analyzed. RESULTS: The median duration of hospitalization was 16.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 13.0-21.0 days). On multivariate Cox regression analysis, age > 60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.643, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.454-0.911, P = 0.013) was associated with the delayed SARS-CoV-2 clearance, while the atomized inhalation of interferon α-2b could improve the clearance of SARS-CoV-2 (HR, 1.357, 95% CI 1.050-1.755, P = 0.020). Twenty-six (7.9%) patients developed respiratory failure and 4 (1.2%) patients developed ARDS. Twenty (6.1%) patients were admitted to the ICU, while no patient was deceased. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that age > 60 years was associated with the delayed SARS-CoV-2 clearance, while treated with atomized inhalation of interferon α-2b could promote the clearance of SARS-CoV-2.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , China/epidemiology , Duration of Therapy , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Virus Shedding , Young Adult
6.
Glob Heart ; 16(1): 43, 2021 06 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1285506

ABSTRACT

Background: We investigated impacts of COVID-19 on cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery around the globe, including virtual delivery, as well as effects on providers and patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a piloted survey was administered to CR programs globally via REDCap from April to June 2020. The 50 members of the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (ICCPR) and personal contacts facilitated program identification. Results: Overall, 1062 (18.3% program response rate) responses were received from 70/111 (63.1% country response rate) countries in the world with existent CR programs. Of these, 367 (49.1%) programs reported they had stopped CR delivery, and 203 (27.1%) stopped temporarily (mean = 8.3 ± 2.8 weeks). Alternative models were delivered in 322 (39.7%) programs, primarily through low-tech modes (n = 226,19.3%). Furthermore, 353 (30.2%) respondents were re-deployed, and 276 (37.3%) felt the need to work due to fear of losing their job, despite the perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 (mean = 30.0% ± 27.4/100). Also, 266 (22.5%) reported anxiety, 241(20.4%) were concerned about exposing their family, 113 (9.7%) reported increased workload to transition to remote delivery, and 105 (9.0%) were juggling caregiving responsibilities during business hours. Patients were often contacting staff regarding grocery shopping for heart-healthy foods (n = 333, 28.4%), how to use technology to interact with the program (n = 329, 27.9%), having to stop their exercise because they have no place to exercise (n = 303, 25.7%), and their risk of death from COVID-19 due to pre-existing cardiovascular disease (n = 249, 21.2%). Respondents perceived staff (n = 488, 41.3%) and patient (n = 453, 38.6%) personal protective equipment, as well as COVID-19 screening (n = 414, 35.2%), and testing (n = 411, 35.0%) as paramount to in-person service resumption. Conclusion: Given the estimated number of CR programs globally, these results suggest approximately 4400 CR programs globally have ceased or temporarily stopped service delivery. Those that remain open are implementing new technologies to ensure their patients receive CR safely, despite the challenges. Highlights: - COVID-19 has impacted cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivery around the globe.- In this cross-sectional study, a survey was completed by 1062 (18.3%) CR programs from 70 (63.1%) countries.- The pandemic has resulted in at least temporary cessation of ~75% of CR programs, with others ceasing initiation of new patients, reducing components delivered, and/or changing of mode delivery with little opportunity for planning and training.- There is also significant psychosocial and economic impact on CR providers.- Alternative CR model (e.g., home-based, virtual) reimbursement advocacy is needed, to ensure safe, accessible secondary prevention delivery.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19 , Cardiac Rehabilitation/methods , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Cross-Sectional Studies , Duration of Therapy , Global Health , Humans , Reimbursement Mechanisms , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telerehabilitation/methods
9.
Adv Med Sci ; 66(2): 262-268, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1202161

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is strongly related to interstitial pneumonia with frequent development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The role of corticosteroids (CS) treatment in these patients is still controversial. Some studies evidenced a possible role of an early short-term course of CS treatment in the treatment of severe pneumonia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study considering the patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to our hospital between 9th March and 15th June 2020. Two groups were considered: early high-dose of methyl-prednisolone (eHDM; n â€‹= â€‹31) and the control group (n â€‹= â€‹52). Patients in the eHDM group received the dose of 5-8 â€‹mg/kg/day of methyl-prednisolone for 2 consecutive days. Primary outcome was the mortality evaluation; secondary outcomes were clinical improvement, side-effects and laboratory/radiographic changes. RESULTS: Significant differences between the two groups were: length of hospitalization (21.5 vs 28.4 days, p â€‹= â€‹0.026), length of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (11.5 vs 14.5 days, p â€‹= â€‹0.031), death (5 vs 12, p â€‹= â€‹0.006) and clinical improvement (16 vs 11, p=0.018). The following factors were related to in-hospital mortality in the multivariate analysis: comorbidities (OR â€‹= â€‹2.919; 95%CI â€‹= â€‹1.515-16.705; p<0.001), days from the onset of symptoms and the hospital admission (OR â€‹= â€‹1.404; 95%CI â€‹= â€‹1.069-12.492; p â€‹= â€‹0.011), PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio (OR â€‹= â€‹3.111; 95%CI â€‹= â€‹2.334-16.991; p â€‹= â€‹0.009) and eHDM treatment (OR â€‹= â€‹0.741; 95%CI â€‹= â€‹0.129-0.917; p â€‹= â€‹0.007). CONCLUSION: The eHDM is an interesting and promising approach in the ARDS related to COVID-19 pneumonia, which reduces mortality, length of hospitalization and the need for mechanical ventilation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Methylprednisolone/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/physiopathology , COVID-19/therapy , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Duration of Therapy , Early Medical Intervention/methods , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
14.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 42(2): 308-315, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1064166

ABSTRACT

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the leading preventable cause of death in hospitalized patients and data consistently show that acutely ill medical patients remain at increased risk for VTE-related morbidity and mortality in the post-hospital discharge period. Prescribing extended thromboprophylaxis for up to 45 days following an acute hospitalization in key patient subgroups that include more than one-quarter of hospitalized medically-ill patients represents a paradigm shift in the way hospital-based physicians think about VTE prevention. Advances in the field of primary thromboprophylaxis in acutely-ill medical patients using validated VTE and bleeding risk assessment models have established key patient subgroups at high risk of VTE and low risk of bleeding that may benefit from both in-hospital and extended thromboprophylaxis. The direct oral anticoagulants betrixaban and rivaroxaban are now U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved for in-hospital and extended thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients and provide net clinical benefit in these key subgroups. Coronavirus disease-2019 may predispose patients to VTE due to excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and hemostasis. The optimum preventive strategy for these patients requires further investigation. This article aims to review the latest concepts in predicting and preventing VTE and discuss the new era of extended thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medically ill patients.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Duration of Therapy , Hospitalization , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/prevention & control , Benzamides/therapeutic use , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , Critical Care , Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Humans , Medical Informatics , Patient Discharge , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Pyridines/therapeutic use , Risk Assessment , Rivaroxaban/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/etiology
15.
Chest ; 159(5): 1894-1901, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1051537

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented novel challenges for the entire health-care continuum, requiring transformative changes to hospital and post-acute care, including clinical, administrative, and physical modifications to current standards of operations. Innovative use and adaptation of long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) can safely and effectively care for patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. A framework for the rapid changes, including increasing collaboration with external health-care organizations, creating new methods for enhanced communication, and modifying processes focused on patient safety and clinical outcomes, is described for a network of 94 LTACHs. When managed and modified correctly, LTACHs can play a vital role in managing the national health-care pandemic crisis.


Subject(s)
Critical Care/methods , Intensive Care Units , Long-Term Care , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Duration of Therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/trends , Long-Term Care/methods , Long-Term Care/organization & administration , Long-Term Care/trends , Organizational Innovation , SARS-CoV-2
17.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(5): 604-611, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999444

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS on prolonged mechanical ventilation are at risk for developing endotracheal tube (ETT) obstruction that has not been previously described in patients with ARDS due to other causes. The purpose of this report is to describe a case series of patients with COVID-19 and ARDS in which ETT occlusion resulted in significant clinical consequences and to define the pathology of the obstructing material. METHODS: Incidents of ETT occlusion during mechanical ventilation of COVID-19 patients were reported by clinicians and retrospective chart review was conducted. Statistical analysis was performed comparing event rates between COVID-19 and non-COVID 19 patients on mechanical ventilation over the predefined period. Specimens were collected and submitted for pathological examination. FINDINGS: Eleven COVID-19 patients experienced endotracheal tube occlusion over a period of 2 months. Average age was 69 (14.3, range 33-85) years. Mean APACHE III score was 73.6 (17.3). All patients had AKI and cytokine storm. Nine exhibited biomarkers for hypercoagulability. Average days on mechanical ventilation before intervention for ETT occlusion was 14 (5.18) days (range of 9 to 23 days). Five patients were discharged from the ICU, and 4 expired. Average documented airway resistance on admission was 14.2 (3.0) cm H2O/L/sec. Airway resistance before tube exchange was 28.1 (8.0) cm H2O /L/sec. No similar events of endotracheal tube occlusion were identified in non-COVID patients on mechanical ventilation during the same time period. Microscopically, the material consisted of mucin admixed with necrotic cell debris, variable numbers of degenerated inflammatory cells, oral contaminants and red blood cells. INTERPRETATION: Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS on prolonged mechanical ventilation are at risk for developing ETT obstruction due to deposition of a thick, tenacious material within the tube that consists primarily of mucin and cellular debris. Clinicians should be aware of this dangerous but treatable complication.


Subject(s)
Airway Obstruction , COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , APACHE , Aged , Airway Obstruction/etiology , Airway Obstruction/pathology , Airway Obstruction/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Duration of Therapy , Equipment Failure/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Intubation, Intratracheal/instrumentation , Male , Mortality , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retreatment/methods , Retreatment/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiology
20.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 97: 106145, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-753827

ABSTRACT

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new treatment for COVID-19 vs. standard care, certain key endpoints are related to the duration of a specific event, such as hospitalization, ICU stay, or receipt of supplemental oxygen. However, since patients may die in the hospital during study follow-up, using, for example, the duration of hospitalization to assess treatment efficacy can be misleading. If the treatment tends to prolong patients' survival compared with standard care, patients in the new treatment group may spend more time in hospital. This can lead to a "survival bias" issue, where a treatment that is effective for preventing death appears to prolong an undesirable outcome. On the other hand, by using hospital-free survival time as the endpoint, we can circumvent the survival bias issue. In this article, we use reconstructed data from a recent, large clinical trial for COVID-19 to illustrate the advantages of this approach. For the analysis of ICU stay or oxygen usage, where the initiating event is potentially an outcome of treatment, standard survival analysis techniques may not be appropriate. We also discuss issues with analyzing the durations of such events.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Duration of Therapy , Patient Care Management , Survival Analysis , Bias , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Endpoint Determination , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Patient Care Management/methods , Patient Care Management/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...