Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 374
Filter
1.
Crit Care Med ; 48(6): e440-e469, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2152192

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/therapy
2.
Front Immunol ; 13: 964398, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2141997

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to assess whether convalescent plasma therapy could offer survival advantages for patients with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An electronic search of Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library and MedRxiv was performed from January 1st, 2020 to April 1st, 2022. We included studies containing patients with COVID-19 and treated with CCP. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and synthesized with a random-effect analysis model. The primary outcome was 28-d mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, ventilation-free days, 14-d mortality, improvements of symptoms, progression of diseases and requirements of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included the incidence of all adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 was used to assess the potential risk of bias in eligible studies. The heterogeneity of results was assessed by I^2 test and Q statistic test. The possibility of publication bias was assessed by conducting Begg and Egger test. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method were used for quality of evidence. This study had been registered on PROSPERO, CRD42021273608. 32 RCTs comprising 21478 patients with Covid-19 were included. Compared to the control group, COVID-19 patients receiving CCP were not associated with significantly reduced 28-d mortality (CCP 20.0% vs control 20.8%; risk ratio 0.94; 95% CI 0.87-1.02; p = 0.16; I² = 8%). For all secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between CCP group and control group. The incidence of AEs (26.9% vs 19.4%,; risk ratio 1.14; 95% CI 0.99-01.31; p = 0.06; I² = 38%) and SAEs (16.3% vs 13.5%; risk ratio 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.20; p = 0.76; I² = 42%) tended to be higher in the CCP group compared to the control group, while the differences did not reach statistical significance. In all, CCP therapy was not related to significantly improved 28-d mortality or symptoms recovery, and should not be viewed as a routine treatment for COVID-19 patients. Trial registration number: CRD42021273608. Registration on February 28, 2022. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42022313265.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Length of Stay , Respiration, Artificial/methods
3.
Ann Intern Med ; 173(3): 204-216, 2020 08 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2110840

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Aerosols , Animals , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/transmission , Systematic Reviews as Topic , World Health Organization
4.
N Engl J Med ; 387(19): 1759-1769, 2022 11 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2112693

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo2 target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).


Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Oxygen , Respiration, Artificial , Adult , Humans , Critical Illness/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Oxygen/blood , Oxygen/therapeutic use , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Critical Care/methods , Cross-Over Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , Academic Medical Centers , Oximetry
5.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ; 34(3): 335-341, 2022.
Article in Portuguese, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2110721

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.


OBJETIVO: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). CONCLUSÃO: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Propensity Score , COVID-19/complications , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Lung , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Mechanics
6.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 70, 2022 03 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064832

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Excessive inspiratory effort could translate into self-inflicted lung injury, thus worsening clinical outcomes of spontaneously breathing patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Although esophageal manometry is a reliable method to estimate the magnitude of inspiratory effort, procedural issues significantly limit its use in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study is to describe the correlation between esophageal pressure swings (ΔPes) and nasal (ΔPnos) as a potential measure of inspiratory effort in spontaneously breathing patients with de novo ARF. METHODS: From January 1, 2021, to September 1, 2021, 61 consecutive patients with ARF (83.6% related to COVID-19) admitted to the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (RICU) of the University Hospital of Modena (Italy) and candidate to escalation of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) were enrolled. Clinical features and tidal changes in esophageal and nasal pressure were recorded on admission and 24 h after starting NRS. Correlation between ΔPes and ΔPnos served as primary outcome. The effect of ΔPnos measurements on respiratory rate and ΔPes was also assessed. RESULTS: ΔPes and ΔPnos were strongly correlated at admission (R2 = 0.88, p < 0.001) and 24 h apart (R2 = 0.94, p < 0.001). The nasal plug insertion and the mouth closure required for ΔPnos measurement did not result in significant change of respiratory rate and ΔPes. The correlation between measures at 24 h remained significant even after splitting the study population according to the type of NRS (high-flow nasal cannulas [R2 = 0.79, p < 0.001] or non-invasive ventilation [R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with ARF, nasal pressure swings did not alter respiratory mechanics in the short term and were highly correlated with esophageal pressure swings during spontaneous tidal breathing. ΔPnos might warrant further investigation as a measure of inspiratory effort in patients with ARF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03826797 . Registered October 2016.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Respiratory Insufficiency , Humans , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
7.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 43(3): 335-345, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2004821

ABSTRACT

Computer simulation offers a fresh approach to traditional medical research that is particularly well suited to investigating issues related to mechanical ventilation. Patients receiving mechanical ventilation are routinely monitored in great detail, providing extensive high-quality data-streams for model design and configuration. Models based on such data can incorporate very complex system dynamics that can be validated against patient responses for use as investigational surrogates. Crucially, simulation offers the potential to "look inside" the patient, allowing unimpeded access to all variables of interest. In contrast to trials on both animal models and human patients, in silico models are completely configurable and reproducible; for example, different ventilator settings can be applied to an identical virtual patient, or the same settings applied to different patients, to understand their mode of action and quantitatively compare their effectiveness. Here, we review progress on the mathematical modeling and computer simulation of human anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology in the context of mechanical ventilation, with an emphasis on the clinical applications of this approach in various disease states. We present new results highlighting the link between model complexity and predictive capability, using data on the responses of individual patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome to changes in multiple ventilator settings. The current limitations and potential of in silico modeling are discussed from a clinical perspective, and future challenges and research directions highlighted.


Subject(s)
Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Computer Simulation , Humans , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Ventilators, Mechanical
8.
Anesthesiology ; 137(3): 327-339, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2001451

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms underlying oxygenation improvement after prone positioning in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome have not been fully elucidated yet. The authors hypothesized that the oxygenation increase with prone positioning is secondary to the improvement of ventilation-perfusion matching. METHODS: In a series of consecutive intubated COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients receiving volume-controlled ventilation, the authors prospectively assessed the percent variation of ventilation-perfusion matching by electrical impedance tomography before and 90 min after the first cycle of prone positioning (primary endpoint). The authors also assessed changes in the distribution and homogeneity of lung ventilation and perfusion, lung overdistention and collapse, respiratory system compliance, driving pressure, optimal positive end-expiratory pressure, as assessed by electrical impedance tomography, and the ratio of partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2/Fio2; secondary endpoints). Data are reported as medians [25th to 75th] or percentages. RESULTS: The authors enrolled 30 consecutive patients, all analyzed without missing data. Compared to the supine position, prone positioning overall improved ventilation-perfusion matching from 58% [43 to 69%] to 68% [56 to 75%] (P = 0.042), with a median difference of 8.0% (95% CI, 0.1 to 16.0%). Dorsal ventilation increased from 39% [31 to 43%] to 52% [44 to 62%] (P < 0.001), while dorsal perfusion did not significantly vary. Prone positioning also reduced lung overdistension from 9% [4 to 11%] to 4% [2 to 6%] (P = 0.025), while it did not significantly affect ventilation and perfusion homogeneity, lung collapse, static respiratory system compliance, driving pressure, and optimal positive end-expiratory pressure. Pao2/Fio2 overall improved from 141 [104 to 182] mmHg to 235 [164 to 267] mmHg (P = 0.019). However, 9 (30%) patients were nonresponders, experiencing an increase in Pao2/Fio2 less than 20% with respect to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, prone positioning overall produced an early increase in ventilation-perfusion matching and dorsal ventilation. These effects were, however, heterogeneous among patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Prone Position/physiology , Pulmonary Gas Exchange/physiology , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
9.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(8): 995-1008, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1995565

ABSTRACT

In patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung imaging is a fundamental tool in the study of the morphological and mechanistic features of the lungs. Chest computed tomography studies led to major advances in the understanding of ARDS physiology. They allowed the in vivo study of the syndrome's lung features in relation with its impact on respiratory physiology and physiology, but also explored the lungs' response to mechanical ventilation, be it alveolar recruitment or ventilator-induced lung injuries. Coupled with positron emission tomography, morphological findings were put in relation with ventilation, perfusion or acute lung inflammation. Lung imaging has always been central in the care of patients with ARDS, with modern point-of-care tools such as electrical impedance tomography or lung ultrasounds guiding clinical reasoning beyond macro-respiratory mechanics. Finally, artificial intelligence and machine learning now assist imaging post-processing software, which allows real-time analysis of quantitative parameters that describe the syndrome's complexity. This narrative review aims to draw a didactic and comprehensive picture of how modern imaging techniques improved our understanding of the syndrome, and have the potential to help the clinician guide ventilatory treatment and refine patient prognostication.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury , Artificial Intelligence , Humans , Lung , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnostic imaging , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/diagnostic imaging
10.
Eur J Med Res ; 27(1): 149, 2022 Aug 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1993388

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To investigate whether prone position can reduce the risk of patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who progress to severe or critical illness. METHODS: The prone position group was treated in prone position on the day of admission in addition to conventional treatment. Indicators such as saturation of pulse oximetry (SpO2), heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and prone position-related adverse events were recorded before prone ventilation, 5 min after prone position and 30 min after prone position. Meanwhile, the cases of severe and critical patients, the percentage of transformation and the final clinical outcome of this group were analyzed. Conversion rates and mortality were calculated for patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 retrieved from the database who received only conventional care without combined prone positioning as control group. RESULTS: (1) A total of 34 patients were included in prone position group. There were significant differences in SpO2 between the first 4 days after admission and the day of discharge (F = 3.17, P < 0.001). (2) The main complications were back and neck muscle soreness (55.9%), followed by abdominal distension (8.9%). (3) In control group, a total of 4873 cases of mild and moderate patients were included from 19 literatures, with an average deterioration rate of 22.7% and mortality rate of 1.7%. (4) In prone position group, there were no severe or critical transformation cases and also no death cases. The prone position group had a significantly lower deterioration rate when compared with the control group (χ2 = 9.962, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Prone position improves SpO2 in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19. It can also reduce the percentage of mild or moderate patients progressing to severe or critical patients. The application of prone position is a simple, feasible, safe and effective treatment method in such patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Patient Positioning/methods , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Retrospective Studies
11.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 9581, 2022 06 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1984411

ABSTRACT

Long-term sequelae of symptomatic infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 are largely undiscovered. We performed a prospective cohort study on consecutively hospitalized Sars-CoV-2 patients (March-May 2020) for evaluating COVID-19 outcomes at 6 and 12 months. After hospital discharge, patients were addressed to two follow-up pathways based on respiratory support needed during hospitalization. Outcomes were assessed by telephone consultation or ambulatory visit. Among 471 patients, 80.9% received no respiratory support during hospitalization; 19.1% received non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). 58 patients died during hospitalization, therefore 413 were enrolled for follow-up. At 6 months, among 355 patients, the 30.3% had any symptoms, 18.0% dyspnea, 6.2% neurological symptoms. Fifty-two out of 105 had major damages in interstitial computed tomography images. NIV/IMV patients had higher probability to suffer of symptoms (aOR = 4.00, 95%CI:1.99-8.05), dyspnea (aOR = 2.80, 95%CI:1.28-6.16), neurological symptoms (aOR = 9.72, 95%CI:2.78-34.00). At 12 months, among 344, the 25.3% suffered on any symptoms, 12.2% dyspnea, 10.1% neurological symptoms. Severe interstitial lesions were present in 37 out of 47 investigated patients. NIV/IMV patients in respect to no respiratory support, had higher probability of experiencing symptoms (aOR = 3.66, 95%CI:1.73-7.74), neurological symptoms (aOR = 8.96, 95%CI:3.22-24.90). COVID-19 patients showed prolonged sequelae up to 12 months, highlighting the need of follow-up pathways for post-COVID-19 syndrome.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Dyspnea/etiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Prospective Studies , Referral and Consultation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Telephone
12.
Anaesthesia ; 77(10): 1137-1151, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1978415

ABSTRACT

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is indicated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and severely impaired gas exchange despite evidence-based lung protective ventilation, prone positioning and other parts of the standard algorithm for treating such patients. Extracorporeal support can facilitate ultra-lung-protective ventilation, meaning even lower volumes and pressures than standard lung-protective ventilation, by directly removing carbon dioxide in patients needing injurious ventilator settings to maintain sufficient gas exchange. Injurious ventilation results in ventilator-induced lung injury, which is one of the main determinants of mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Marked reductions in the intensity of ventilation to the lowest tolerable levels under extracorporeal support may be achieved and could thereby potentially mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury and theoretically patient self-inflicted lung injury in spontaneously breathing patients with high respiratory drive. However, the benefits of this strategy may be counterbalanced by the use of continuous deep sedation and even neuromuscular blocking drugs, which may impair physical rehabilitation and impact long-term outcomes. There are currently a lack of large-scale prospective data to inform optimal invasive ventilation practices and how to best apply a holistic approach to patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, while minimising ventilator-induced and patient self-inflicted lung injury. We aimed to review the literature relating to invasive ventilation strategies in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving extracorporeal support and discuss personalised ventilation approaches and the potential role of adjunctive therapies in facilitating lung protection.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/prevention & control
13.
Br J Anaesth ; 129(5): 679-692, 2022 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1966391

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, which analysed the effect of tracheostomy timing and technique (surgical vs percutaneous) on mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), decannulation from tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications. METHODS: Four databases were screened between January 1, 2020 and January 10, 2022 (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane). Papers were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Population or Problem, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) guidelines. Meta-analysis and meta-regression for main outcomes were performed. RESULTS: The search yielded 9024 potentially relevant studies, of which 47 (n=5268 patients) were included. High levels of between-study heterogeneity were observed across study outcomes. The pooled mean tracheostomy timing was 16.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.7-18.4; I2=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7-25.5; I2=89.0%). Meta-regression did not show significant associations between mortality and tracheostomy timing, mechanical ventilation duration, time to decannulation, and tracheostomy technique. Pooled mean estimates for ICU and hospital LOS were 29.6 (95% CI: 24.0-35.2; I2=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1-45.6; I2=95.7%) days, both associated with mechanical ventilation duration (coefficient 0.8 [95% CI: 0.2-1.4], P=0.02 and 0.9 [95% CI: 0.4-1.4], P=0.01, respectively) but not tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess tracheostomy technique on LOS. Duration of mechanical ventilation was 23.4 days (95% CI: 19.2-27.7; I2=99.3%), not associated with tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess the effect of tracheostomy technique on mechanical ventilation duration. Time to decannulation was 23.8 days (95% CI: 19.7-27.8; I2=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021272220.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Humans , Critical Illness/therapy , Time Factors , Tracheostomy/methods , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Length of Stay
14.
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
15.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 142, 2022 05 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951298

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Critically ill COVID-19 patients may develop acute respiratory distress syndrome and the need for respiratory support, including mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. Previous observational studies have suggested early tracheotomy to be advantageous. The aim of this parallel, multicentre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the optimal timing of tracheotomy. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2-infected patients within the Region Västra Götaland of Sweden who needed intubation and mechanical respiratory support were included and randomly assigned to early tracheotomy (≤ 7 days after intubation) or late tracheotomy (≥ 10 days after intubation). The primary objective was to compare the total number of mechanical ventilation days between the groups. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients (mean age 65 years, 79% males) were included. Seventy-two patients were assigned to early tracheotomy, and 78 were assigned to late tracheotomy. One hundred two patients (68%) underwent tracheotomy of whom sixty-one underwent tracheotomy according to the protocol. The overall median number of days in mechanical ventilation was 18 (IQR 9; 28), but no significant difference was found between the two treatment regimens in the intention-to-treat analysis (between-group difference: - 1.5 days (95% CI - 5.7 to 2.8); p = 0.5). A significantly reduced number of mechanical ventilation days was found in the early tracheotomy group during the per-protocol analysis (between-group difference: - 8.0 days (95% CI - 13.8 to - 2.27); p = 0.0064). The overall correlation between the timing of tracheotomy and days of mechanical ventilation was significant (Spearman's correlation: 0.39, p < 0.0001). The total death rate during intensive care was 32.7%, but no significant differences were found between the groups regarding survival, complications or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The potential superiority of early tracheotomy when compared to late tracheotomy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not confirmed by the present randomized controlled trial but is a strategy that should be considered in selected cases where the need for MV for more than 14 days cannot be ruled out. Trial registration NCT04412356 , registered 05/24/2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Tracheotomy/methods , Treatment Outcome
16.
J Healthc Eng ; 2022: 6965083, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1950424

ABSTRACT

The upgrading of an emergency use ventilator from a single mandatory volume control mode of ventilation (VEMERS 1.0) to 8 modes of ventilation (VEMERS 2.0) is described. The original VEMERS 1.0 was developed in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis in Chile (April to August 2020) following special but nonetheless strict guidelines specified by local medical associations and national health and scientific ministries. The upgrade to 8 modes of ventilation in VEMERS 2.0 was made possible with minor but transcendental changes to the original architecture. The main contribution of this research is that starting from a functional block diagram of an ICU mechanical ventilator and carrying a systematic analysis, the main function blocks are implemented in such a way that combinations of standard off-the-shelf pneumatic and electronic components can be used. This approach has both economical and technical advantages. No special parts need to be fabricated at all, and because of a wider variety of options, the use of extensively field-proven off-the-shelf commercial components assures better availability and lower costs when compared to that of conventional ICU mechanical ventilators, without sacrificing reliability. Given the promising results obtained with VEMERS 2.0 in the subsequent national certification process, the production of 40 VEMERS 2.0 units was sponsored by the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Economy. Twenty units have been distributed among hospitals along the country. The purpose of VEMERS 2.0, as a low-cost but very reliable option, is to increase the number of mechanical ventilators available (3,000 for a population of 18,000,000) in the country to eventually reach a ratio similar to that of more developed countries. VEMERS is an open-source project for others to use the knowledge gained.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Respiration , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Ventilators, Mechanical
18.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 11085, 2022 06 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1908294

ABSTRACT

Severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) requires mechanical ventilation. While this intervention is often performed in the prone position to improve oxygenation, the underlying mechanisms responsible for the improvement in respiratory function during invasive ventilation and awake prone positioning in C-ARDS have not yet been elucidated. In this prospective observational trial, we evaluated the respiratory function of C-ARDS patients while in the supine and prone positions during invasive (n = 13) or non-invasive ventilation (n = 15). The primary endpoint was the positional change in lung regional aeration, assessed with electrical impedance tomography. Secondary endpoints included parameters of ventilation and oxygenation, volumetric capnography, respiratory system mechanics and intrapulmonary shunt fraction. In comparison to the supine position, the prone position significantly increased ventilation distribution in dorsal lung zones for patients under invasive ventilation (53.3 ± 18.3% vs. 43.8 ± 12.3%, percentage of dorsal lung aeration ± standard deviation in prone and supine positions, respectively; p = 0.014); whereas, regional aeration in both positions did not change during non-invasive ventilation (36.4 ± 11.4% vs. 33.7 ± 10.1%; p = 0.43). Prone positioning significantly improved the oxygenation both during invasive and non-invasive ventilation. For invasively ventilated patients reduced intrapulmonary shunt fraction, ventilation dead space and respiratory resistance were observed in the prone position. Oxygenation is improved during non-invasive and invasive ventilation with prone positioning in patients with C-ARDS. Different mechanisms may underly this benefit during these two ventilation modalities, driven by improved distribution of lung regional aeration, intrapulmonary shunt fraction and ventilation-perfusion matching. However, the differences in the severity of C-ARDS may have biased the sensitivity of electrical impedance tomography when comparing positional changes between the protocol groups.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04359407) and Registered 24 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04359407 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/complications , Capnography/methods , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Noninvasive Ventilation/standards , Prone Position , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial/standards , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Supine Position
19.
JAMA ; 327(21): 2104-2113, 2022 06 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1898487

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021. Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Intubation, Intratracheal , Prone Position , Respiratory Insufficiency , Wakefulness , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
20.
Front Immunol ; 13: 842453, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855354

ABSTRACT

Pulmonary surfactant constitutes an important barrier that pathogens must cross to gain access to the rest of the organism via the respiratory surface. The presence of pulmonary surfactant prevents the dissemination of pathogens, modulates immune responses, and optimizes lung biophysical activity. Thus, the application of pulmonary surfactant for the treatment of respiratory diseases provides an effective strategy. Currently, several clinical trials are investigating the use of surfactant preparations to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some factors have been considered in the application of pulmonary surfactant for the treatment COVID-19, such as mechanical ventilation strategy, timing of treatment, dose delivered, method of delivery, and preparation utilized. This review supplements this list with two additional factors: accurate measurement of surfactants in patients and proper selection of pulmonary surfactant components. This review provides a reference for ongoing exogenous surfactant trials involving patients with COVID-19 and provides insight for the development of surfactant preparations for the treatment of viral respiratory infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pulmonary Surfactants , COVID-19/drug therapy , Humans , Lung , Pulmonary Surfactants/pharmacology , Pulmonary Surfactants/therapeutic use , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Surface-Active Agents/pharmacology , Surface-Active Agents/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL