Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 41
Filter
1.
J Int Med Res ; 50(11): 3000605221138487, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2138613

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: During March 2020 in the United States, demand for sedatives increased by 91%, that for analgesics rose by 79%, and demand for neuromuscular blockers increased by 105%, all owing to the number of COVID-19 cases requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). We hypothesize that analgesic and sedative requirements decrease following tracheotomy in this patient population. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we conducted a retrospective chart review to identify patients with COVID-19 who underwent tracheotomy (T) at an academic medical center between March 2020 and January 2021. We used a paired Student t-test to compare total oral morphine equivalents (OMEs), total lorazepam equivalents, 24-hour average dexmedetomidine dosage in µg/kg/hour, and 24-hour average propofol dosage in µg/kg/minute on days T-1 and T+2 for each patient. RESULTS: Of 50 patients, 46 required opioids before and after tracheotomy (mean decrease of 49.4 mg OMEs). Eight patients required benzodiazepine infusion (mean decrease of 45.1 mg lorazepam equivalents. Fifteen patients required dexmedetomidine infusion (mean decrease 0.34 µg/kg/hour). Seventeen patients required propofol (mean decrease 20.5 µg/kg/minute). CONCLUSIONS: When appropriate personal protective equipment is available, use of tracheotomy in patients with COVID-19 who require MV may help to conserve medication supplies in times of extreme shortages.


Subject(s)
Analgesia , COVID-19 , Dexmedetomidine , Propofol , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Tracheotomy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Lorazepam , Retrospective Studies , Pain/drug therapy , Ventilators, Mechanical , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Morphine
2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(22)2022 Nov 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2110097

ABSTRACT

In March 2020, the WHO announced the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been ongoing for over 2 years. To stop the spread of the virus, the governments of many countries decided to introduce reasonable social restrictions that were suitable for pandemic waves. This led to radical changes in people's lives, especially among students, who are very active in society. Before COVID-19, being of student age was associated with the highest frequency of stimulants use. It is important to note that drugs are taken disparately in various areas. Therefore, using the Computer-Assisted Web Interview type of study, the impact of the pandemic on the use of alcohol, cannabinoids, psychostimulants (e.g., amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy) and sedatives (e.g., zolpidem, zopiclone, alprazolam, lorazepam, etc.) was assessed among students from European countries. The questionnaire included single- and multiple-answer questions. The first part concerned sociodemographic questions, while the second included questions about the use of stimulants in the last 3 months prior to participation in the study. Distribution of the survey covered the period from 31 January 2016 to 30 April 2021. A total of 17,594 European students participated in the study. The vast majority of participants were women (80.4%) and students of non-medical universities (77.2%) living in Eastern European countries (86.1%). Of all students, 15,613 (89.6%) reported alcohol drinking, 2538 (14.1%) the use of cannabinoids, 650 (3.6%) psychostimulants, and 2252 (12.5%) sedatives in the past three months. It has been shown that women are far less likely to use alcohol (OR 0.81), psychostimulants (OR 0.44) and cannabinoids (OR 0.49), while they are more likely to use sedatives (OR 1.41). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the consumption of alcohol (OR 0.55) and psychostimulants (OR 0.72) decreased and that of sleep medications increased (OR 1.17). To conclude, the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the pattern of stimulants used by students in European countries. The restriction of social interactions contributed to the decrease in the consumption of alcohol and psychostimulants but increased the use of sedatives and the frequency of their use. Women were found to use sedatives more often, while men preferred to drink alcohol and use cannabinoids or psychostimulants. It has also been shown that students of Central and Eastern Europe more often use alcohol and sedatives, while in Southern European countries psychostimulants and cannabinoids are preferred.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cannabinoids , Humans , Female , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Cannabinoids/therapeutic use , Students
4.
AACN Adv Crit Care ; 33(3): 253-261, 2022 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2024642

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical assessments of depth of sedation are insufficient for patients undergoing neuromuscular blockade during treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This quality initiative was aimed to augment objective assessment and improve sedation during therapeutic paralysis using the bispectral index (BIS). METHODS: This quality improvement intervention provided education and subsequent implementation of a BIS monitoring and sedation/analgesia bundle in a large, urban, safety-net intensive care unit. After the intervention, a retrospective review of the first 70 admissions with ARDS assessed use and documented sedation changes in response to BIS. RESULTS: Therapeutic neuromuscular blockade was initiated for 58 of 70 patients (82.8%) with ARDS, of whom 43 (74%) had BIS monitoring and 29.3% had bundled BIS sedation-titration orders. Explicit documentation of sedation titration in response to BIS values occurred in 27 (62.8%) of those with BIS recordings. CONCLUSIONS: BIS sedation/analgesia bundled order sets are underused, but education and access to BIS monitoring led to high use of monitoring alone and subsequent sedation changes.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia , Neuromuscular Blockade , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Conscious Sedation , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Monitoring, Physiologic , Pain , Paralysis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy
6.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 66(9): 1099-1106, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1961458

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy of sedatives (PP) is a potentially modifiable, iatrogenic risk factor for ICU delirium. The extent to which sedative PP influenced development of high rates of delirium among critically ill COVID-19 patients is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that PP, defined as the use of four or more classes of intravenous agents, is a mediator in the causal pathway of mechanical ventilation and delirium. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of adults admitted with a primary diagnosis of RT-PCR+ for SARS-CoV2 to ICUs of a tertiary-level academic medical center between February 2020 and April 2021. Mediation analysis was conducted with bootstrap estimation to assess whether an association between mechanical ventilation and delirium was mediated by PP. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders related to mechanical ventilation, mediator, and outcome, including age, gender, vasopressor use, median RASS scores, SOFA score within 24 h of admission, and maximum CRP levels. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients were included in the analysis. Of total patients, 72.6%(154/212) of patients had delirium (CAM-ICU+) during ICU stay. 54.7%(116/212) patients received PP. Mechanical ventilation (OR 3.81 [1.16-12.52]) and PP (OR 7.38 [2.4-22.68]) were identified as risk factors for development of ICU delirium after adjusting for prespecified confounders. PP acts as a mediator in the causal pathway between mechanical ventilation and delirium. 39% (95% CI: 17%-94%) of the effect of mechanical ventilation on delirium was mediated through PP. CONCLUSION: PP mediates approximately 39% of the effect of mechanical ventilation on delirium, which is clinically and statistically significant. Studies should assess whether mitigating PP could lead to reduction in ICU delirium. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: PP of sedatives (defined as use of four or more intravenous agents) mediates approximately 39% of the effect of mechanical ventilation on development of ICU delirium. Avoidance of sedative PP may represent a viable strategy for reduction of ICU delirium.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delirium , Adult , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Delirium/diagnosis , Delirium/epidemiology , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Polypharmacy , RNA, Viral , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 179, 2022 06 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951304

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. RESULTS: 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Deep Sedation , Adult , Cohort Studies , Deep Sedation/methods , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Retrospective Studies
8.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(8)2022 04 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1792719

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this research was to analyze whether there were changes in the use of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and hypnotic-sedative drugs, in the context of primary health care, during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic period. We further sought to study consumption in vulnerable population groups. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was performed in a primary health district of Spain. The data were obtained from the Andalusian Public Health System database, for the pre-COVID-19 period, from March 2019 to February 2020, and for the COVID-19 period, from March 2020 to February 2021. Univariant and bivariant analyses were performed. The effect size was measured using the Rosenthal test. RESULTS: While the total number of medical prescriptions decreased by 2.5% in the COVID-19 period, the prescriptions of psychiatric drugs increased by 6.1%. The increase in the dose consumption per 1000 inhabitants (DHD) was highest for anxiolytics (7.2%), followed by hypnotic-sedatives (5.6%) and antidepressants (3.7%). The consumption of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and sedative-hypnotic drugs was higher in women, older people, and rural areas and lower in areas with social transformation needs, with these differences being statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The consumption of psychiatric drugs has increased over the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in women, older people, and rural areas. Thus, we should reflect on the adequate use of these drugs.


Subject(s)
Anti-Anxiety Agents , COVID-19 , Aged , Anti-Anxiety Agents/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Pandemics , Primary Health Care
10.
Br J Psychiatry ; 221(1): 417-424, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1731562

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions. AIMS: We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (ORadj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (ORadj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (ORadj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.


Subject(s)
Anti-Anxiety Agents , Antipsychotic Agents , COVID-19 , Adult , Anti-Anxiety Agents/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies , Psychotropic Drugs/therapeutic use , Vaccination
11.
Chest ; 162(2): 367-374, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1682979

ABSTRACT

Sedation is an essential component of treatment for some patients admitted to the ICU, but it carries a risk of sedation-related delirium. Sedation-related delirium is associated with higher mortality and increased length of stay, but pharmacologic treatments for delirium can lead to oversedation or other adverse effects. Therefore, nonpharmacologic treatments are recommended in the literature; however, these recommendations are quite general and do not provide structured interventions. To establish a structured nonpharmacologic intervention that could improve indications of delirium after sedation, we combined evidence-based interventions including recordings of sensory-rich stories told by the patient's family and patient-specific music into our novel positive stimulation for medically sedated patients (PSMSP) protocol. The positive listening stimulation playlist organized by a board-certified music therapist (MT-BC) within the PSMSP protocol can be used in carefully monitored sessions with the MT-BC potentially to decrease agitation and stabilize arousal, as well as being played by nursing staff throughout the patient's recovery from sedation. Further controlled studies will be necessary, but the PSMSP protocol has the potential to reduce agitation and increase arousal during listening, as highlighted by the case of a patient recovering from sedation during treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia. It is important for the entire critical care team to be aware of nonpharmacologic treatments like PSMSP that are available for delirium mitigation so that, where applicable, these therapies can be incorporated into the patient's treatment regimen.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delirium , Music Therapy , Music , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Delirium/etiology , Delirium/therapy , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects
13.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(10): e2131012, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482078

ABSTRACT

Importance: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures have disrupted access to psychiatric medications, particularly for women. Objective: To assess the sex differences in trends in the prescribing of benzodiazepines, Z-hypnotics and serotonergic (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]), which are commonly prescribed for anxiety, insomnia, and depression. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from Clinformatics Data Mart, one of the largest commercial health insurance databases in the US. Enrollees 18 years or older were required to have complete enrollment in a given month during our study period, January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021, to be included for that month. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescription of a benzodiazepine, Z-hypnotic, or SSRI or SNRI. For each month, the percentage of patients with benzodiazepine, Z-hypnotic, or SSRI or SNRI prescriptions by sex was calculated. Results: The records of 17 255 033 adults (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [19.5] years; 51.3% female) were examined in 2018, 17 340 731 adults (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [19.7] years; 51.6% female) in 2019, 16 916 910 adults (mean [SD] age, 53.7 [19.8] years; 51.9% female) in 2020, and 15 135 998 adults (mean [SD] age, 56.2 [19.8] years; 52.5% female) in 2021. Compared with men, women had a higher rate of prescriptions for all 3 drugs classes and had larger changes in prescription rates over time. Benzodiazepine prescribing decreased from January 2018 (women: 5.61%; 95% CI, 5.60%-5.63%; men: 3.03%; 95% CI, 3.02%-3.04%) to March 2021 (women: 4.91%; 95% CI, 4.90%-4.93%; men: 2.66%; 95% CI, 2.65%-2.67%), except for a slight increase in April 2020 among women. Z-hypnotic prescribing increased from January 2020 for women (1.39%; 95% CI, 1.38%-1.40%) and February 2020 for men (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.96%-0.98%) to October 2020 (women: 1.46%; 95% CI, 1.46%-1.47%; men: 1.00%; 95% CI, 0.99%-1.01%). Prescribing of SSRIs and SNRIs increased from January 2018 (women: 12.77%; 95% CI; 12.75%-12.80%; men: 5.56%; 95% CI, 5.44%-5.58%) to April 2020 for men (6.73%; 95% CI, 6.71%-6.75%) and October 2020 for women (15.18%; 95% CI, 15.16%-15.21%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic onset was an increase in Z-hypnotic as well as SSRI and SNRI prescriptions in both men and women along with an increase in benzodiazepine prescriptions in women, findings that suggest a substantial mental health impact of COVID-19-associated mitigation measures.


Subject(s)
Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/psychology , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Distribution
14.
J Epidemiol Community Health ; 76(4): 335-340, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463027

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the population's mental health. However, its impact on the consumption of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants remains to be evaluated. Hence, this article aims to assess the prescription trends of these drugs in Portugal, from January 2018 to March 2021, while critically examining whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on these prescription trends or not. METHODS: A nationwide interrupted time-series analysis of the prescription data of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants in outpatient setting of the public health sector was conducted. The data encompassed the defined daily dose per month, age range and sex and were analysed following a segmented regression approach. RESULTS: The pandemic preceded an immediate reduction in the prescription of anxiolytics, sedatives and hypnotics for children and adolescents. However, an increasing trend throughout the pandemic has been noted in the prescription of these drugs, especially among adults aged 65 years or above. A drop in antidepressant prescription was observed as an immediate effect of the pandemic among male and female adolescents and elderly women. From March 2020 to March 2021, a decreasing prescription trend has been noted among men. CONCLUSIONS: When analysing specific genders and age ranges, differences can be noted, in terms of both immediate impact and prescribing trends throughout 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on mental health and its association with the consumption trends of psychoactive drugs, and with the access to mental health treatments, should be further assessed.


Subject(s)
Anti-Anxiety Agents , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anti-Anxiety Agents/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Drug Prescriptions , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Male , Outpatients , Pandemics , Portugal/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): 1684-1693, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1452742

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacokinetics , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Congresses as Topic , Consensus , Delphi Technique , District of Columbia , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Time Factors
16.
Int J Obstet Anesth ; 48: 103212, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401518

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 in pregnancy increases the risk of caesarean section. We present two cases of late gestation pregnant women with severe COVID-19. Both were successfully treated with mechanical ventilation without termination of pregnancy and, following recovery from COVID-19, had vaginal deliveries at term. These two cases demonstrate the possibility of treating pregnant women with severe COVID-19 with mechanical ventilation in the late second and early third trimesters without them having a pre-term delivery. With a multidisciplinary approach, such management could avoid the maternal risks of surgery during a severe infection and, at the same time, enable term birth with a lower risk of neonatal complications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Live Birth , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Adult , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents/therapeutic use , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/physiopathology , Pregnancy Outcome , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
18.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 57(9)2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374457

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: Descriptions of end-of-life in COVID-19 are limited to small cross-sectional studies. We aimed to assess end-of-life care in inpatients with COVID-19 at Alicante General University Hospital (ALC) and compare differences according to palliative and non-palliative sedation. Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in inpatients included in the ALC COVID-19 Registry (PCR-RT or antigen-confirmed cases) who died during conventional admission from 1 March to 15 December 2020. We evaluated differences among deceased cases according to administration of palliative sedation. Results: Of 747 patients evaluated, 101 died (13.5%). Sixty-eight (67.3%) died in acute medical wards, and 30 (44.1%) received palliative sedation. The median age of patients with palliative sedation was 85 years; 44% were women, and 30% of cases were nosocomial. Patients with nosocomial acquisition received more palliative sedation than those infected in the community (81.8% [9/11] vs 36.8% [21/57], p = 0.006), and patients admitted with an altered mental state received it less (20% [6/23] vs. 53.3% [24/45], p = 0.032). The median time from admission to starting palliative sedation was 8.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3.0-14.5). The main symptoms leading to palliative sedation were dyspnea at rest (90%), pain (60%), and delirium/agitation (36.7%). The median time from palliative sedation to death was 21.8 h (IQR 10.4-41.1). Morphine was used in all palliative sedation perfusions: the main regimen was morphine + hyoscine butyl bromide + midazolam (43.3%). Conclusions: End-of-life palliative sedation in patients with COVID-19 was initiated quite late. Clinicians should anticipate the need for palliative sedation in these patients and recognize the breathlessness, pain, and agitation/delirium that foreshadow death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Terminal Care , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
19.
J ECT ; 37(1): 71-73, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352357

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: We describe the case of a patient, hospitalized in a California community medical ICU for over a month, with severe neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), unresponsive to medical management, but responsive to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We discuss the medical, logistical, and legal challenges in providing ECT in this setting. We also describe a previously unpublished use of dexmedetomidine, which aided in the safe and rapid reduction of benzodiazepines and permitted a successful ECT course. The rapid delivery and efficacy of ECT were essential because of the burgeoning coronavirus pandemic. The patient's treatment required exemplary efforts by providers across multiple disciplines, ongoing medicolegal consultation with the county mental health medical director, as well as consultation with expert members of the International Society for ECT and Neurostimulation. We conclude with a discussion of the unique challenges of providing emergency ECT to patients in California, including during a serious pandemic, when courts are closed. This case illustrates the importance of cultivating and maintaining high-quality ECT expertise in community hospitals and keeping ECT services available even during pandemics. Also, this case demonstrates that ECT is not "merely an elective procedure" but a vital, life-saving treatment, even during the era of COVID-19. To our knowledge, this is the first such published case of emergency ECT performed in California.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Electroconvulsive Therapy , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome/therapy , California/epidemiology , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Pediatr Blood Cancer ; 68(11): e29272, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1333028

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sedation for lumbar punctures (LPs) in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients has been the standard for decades to reduce pain and anxiety. Recent studies on the potential long-term neurocognitive effects of cumulative propofol exposure have raised concerns about this practice. The recent pandemic introduced additional burdens to patients, with the requirement of a negative COVID-19 test prior to each sedated procedure. PROCEDURE: These factors prompted a quality improvement intervention at our institution where we aimed to reduce postinduction sedated LPs by 50%. Our intervention included patient and family education, followed by a simulation of the procedure for selected patients. Those converted to unsedated LPs were queried for their preference. Comparative cost, clinical time, and LP success rates were collected for sedated and unsedated LPs. RESULTS: Following the intervention, the percentage of LPs performed with sedation dropped from 100% to 48%. All LPs were successful using both techniques. Most patients who experienced the unsedated LP technique, and their guardians, strongly preferred this approach. Unsedated LPs significantly reduced clinical time (169 vs. 83 minutes) for families, decreased expenditures ($5736 reduction per procedure), and improved institutional opportunity cost due to a decrease in last-minute cancelations. CONCLUSION: We have shown that it is feasible to significantly reduce the use of sedation for LPs in patients with ALL, which has the potential to improve health and patient experience at a lower cost.


Subject(s)
Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Pain Management , Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma/diagnosis , Spinal Puncture , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Male , Pain Management/adverse effects , Pain Management/methods , Propofol/adverse effects , Propofol/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spinal Puncture/methods , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL