Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 73
Filter
1.
J Clin Med ; 10(8)2021 Apr 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526831

ABSTRACT

A clinical interpretation of the Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) study was performed to provide a useful tool to understand whether, when, and to whom dexamethasone should be administered during hospitalization for COVID-19. A post hoc analysis of data published in the preliminary report of the RECOVERY study was performed to calculate the person-based number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) of 6 mg dexamethasone once daily for up to 10 days vs. usual care with respect to mortality. At day 28, the NNT of dexamethasone vs. usual care was 36.0 (95%CI 24.9-65.1, p < 0.05) in all patients, 8.3 (95%CI 6.0-13.1, p < 0.05) in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and 34.6 (95%CI 22.1-79.0, p < 0.05) in patients receiving oxygen only (with or without noninvasive ventilation). Dexamethasone increased mortality compared with usual care in patients not requiring oxygen supplementation, leading to a NNH value of 26.7 (95%CI 18.1-50.9, p < 0.05). NNT of dexamethasone vs. usual care was 17.3 (95%CI 14.9-20.6) in subjects <70 years, 27.0 (95%CI 18.5-49.8) in men, and 16.2 (95%CI 13.2-20.8) in patients in which the onset of symptoms was >7 days. Dexamethasone is effective in male subjects < 70 years that require invasive mechanical ventilation experiencing symptoms from >7 days and those patients receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation; it should be avoided in patients not requiring respiratory support.

2.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 204(5): 546-556, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416749

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, as compared with influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes.Methods: A multicenter retrospective European cohort was performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48 hours were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture within 48 hours after intubation in endotracheal aspirates, BAL, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,050 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2 and 482 in influenza groups). The prevalence of bacterial identification was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia compared with patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs. 33.6%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.30; adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16-0.33; P < 0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of coinfection in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia, respectively. Bacterial identification was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.44; P = 0.043). However, no significant difference was found in the heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of coinfection on mortality was not different between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza.Conclusions: Bacterial identification within 48 hours after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than patients with influenza pneumonia.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359693).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Influenza, Human , Adult , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Influenza, Human/complications , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(2): 188-198, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384370

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection have several risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI), the reported incidence of hospital-acquired infections is low. We aimed to determine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, and the incidence of VA-LRTI. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation > 48 h were eligible if they had: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection at ICU admission. VA-LRTI, including ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), were diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. All VA-LRTI were prospectively identified, and chest-X rays were analyzed by at least two physicians. Cumulative incidence of first episodes of VA-LRTI was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, and compared using Fine-and Gray models. RESULTS: 1576 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2, 482 in influenza, and 526 in no viral infection groups). VA-LRTI incidence was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 patients (287, 50.5%), as compared to influenza patients (146, 30.3%, adjusted sub hazard ratio (sHR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.04)) or patients with no viral infection (133, 25.3%, adjusted sHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.39)). Gram-negative bacilli were responsible for a large proportion (82% to 89.7%) of VA-LRTI, mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of VA-LRTI is significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection after statistical adjustment, but residual confounding may still play a role in the effect estimates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Respiratory Tract Infections , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe , Female , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Ventilators, Mechanical
4.
Crit Care Med ; 49(7): 1026-1037, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1307563

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Therapies for patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 are urgently needed. Early implementation of prone positioning ventilation improves survival in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, but studies examining the effect of proning on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are lacking. Our objective was to estimate the effect of early proning initiation on survival in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated respiratory failure. DESIGN: Data were derived from the Study of the Treatment and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients with coronavirus disease 2019, a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to 68 U.S. hospitals. Using these data, we emulated a target trial of prone positioning ventilation by categorizing mechanically ventilated hypoxemic (ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg) patients as having been initiated on proning or not within 2 days of ICU admission. We fit an inverse probability-weighted Cox model to estimate the mortality hazard ratio for early proning versus no early proning. Patients were followed until death, hospital discharge, or end of follow-up. SETTING: ICUs at 68 U.S. sites. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with ratio of Pao2 over the corresponding Fio2 less than or equal to 200 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 2,338 eligible patients, 702 (30.0%) were proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission. After inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity of illness characteristics were well-balanced between groups. A total of 1,017 (43.5%) of the 2,338 patients were discharged alive, 1,101 (47.1%) died, and 220 (9.4%) were still hospitalized at last follow-up. Patients proned within the first 2 days of ICU admission had a lower adjusted risk of death compared with nonproned patients (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality was lower in mechanically ventilated hypoxemic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 treated with early proning compared with patients whose treatment did not include early proning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Hypoxia/therapy , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Time-to-Treatment , United States/epidemiology
5.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): 437-448, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1298993

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care Outcomes , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Patient Discharge/statistics & numerical data , Registries , Adult , Aged , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Renal Replacement Therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Vasoconstrictor Agents
6.
BMJ Open ; 11(5): e045041, 2021 05 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259009

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diet, Protein-Restricted , Adult , Critical Illness , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
7.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg ; 147(7): 646-655, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1245338

ABSTRACT

Importance: Approximately 5% to 15% of patients with COVID-19 require invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and, at times, tracheostomy. Details regarding the safety and use of tracheostomy in treating COVID-19 continue to evolve. Objective: To evaluate the association of tracheostomy with COVID-19 patient outcomes and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among health care professionals (HCPs). Data Sources: EMBASE (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science from January 1, 2020, to March 4, 2021. Study Selection: English-language studies investigating patients with COVID-19 who were receiving IMV and undergoing tracheostomy. Observational and randomized clinical trials were eligible (no randomized clinical trials were found in the search). All screening was performed by 2 reviewers (P.S. and M.L.). Overall, 156 studies underwent full-text review. Data Extraction and Synthesis: We performed data extraction in accordance with Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. We used a random-effects model, and ROBINS-I was used for the risk-of-bias analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: SARS-CoV-2 transmission between HCPs and levels of personal protective equipment, in addition to complications, time to decannulation, ventilation weaning, and intensive care unit (ICU) discharge in patients with COVID-19 who underwent tracheostomy. Results: Of the 156 studies that underwent full-text review, only 69 were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 14 of these 69 studies (20.3%) were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 4669 patients were included in the 69 studies, and the mean (range) patient age across studies was 60.7 (49.1-68.8) years (43 studies [62.3%] with 1856 patients). We found that in all studies, 1854 patients (73.8%) were men and 658 (26.2%) were women. We found that 28 studies (40.6%) investigated either surgical tracheostomy or percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. Overall, 3 of 58 studies (5.17%) identified a small subset of HCPs who developed COVID-19 that was associated with tracheostomy. Studies did not consistently report the number of HCPs involved in tracheostomy. Among the patients, early tracheostomy was associated with faster ICU discharge (mean difference, 6.17 days; 95% CI, -11.30 to -1.30), but no change in IMV weaning (mean difference, -2.99 days; 95% CI, -8.32 to 2.33) or decannulation (mean difference, -3.12 days; 95% CI, -7.35 to 1.12). There was no association between mortality or perioperative complications and type of tracheostomy. A risk-of-bias evaluation that used ROBINS-I demonstrated notable bias in the confounder and patient selection domains because of a lack of randomization and cohort matching. There was notable heterogeneity in study reporting. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that enhanced personal protective equipment is associated with low rates of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 may reduce ICU stay, but this finding is limited by the observational nature of the included studies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Tracheostomy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 10727, 2021 05 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238019

ABSTRACT

Corticosteroids use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial, especially in mild to severe patients who do not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation. Moreover, many factors remain unclear regarding the appropriate use of corticosteroids for COVID-19. In this context, this multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-matched study was launched to evaluate the efficacy of systemic corticosteroid administration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 ranging in the degree of severity from mild to critically-ill disease. This multicenter, retrospective study enrolled consecutive hospitalized COVID-19 patients diagnosed January-April 2020 across 30 institutions in Japan. Clinical outcomes were compared for COVID-19 patients who received or did not receive corticosteroids, after adjusting for propensity scores. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio (OR) for improvement on a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15. Of 1092 COVID-19 patients analyzed, 118 patients were assigned to either the corticosteroid and non-corticosteroid group, after propensity score matching. At baseline, most patients did not require invasive/noninvasive ventilation (85.6% corticosteroid group vs. 89.8% non-corticosteroid group). The odds of improvement in a 7-point ordinal score on Day 15 was significantly lower for the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (OR, 0.611; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.388-0.962; p = 0.034). The time to improvement in radiological findings was significantly shorter in the corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.758; 95% CI, 1.323-2.337; p < 0.001), regardless of baseline clinical status. The duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in corticosteroid versus non-corticosteroid group (HR, 1.466; 95% CI, 0.841-2.554; p = 0.177). Of the 106 patients who received methylprednisolone, the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the pulse/semi-pulse versus standard dose group (HR, 2.831; 95% CI, 1.347-5.950; p = 0.006). In conclusion, corticosteroids for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 did not improve clinical status on Day 15, but reduced the time to improvement in radiological findings for all patients regardless of disease severity and also reduced the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients who required intubation.Trial registration: This study was registered in the University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry on April 21, 2020 (ID: UMIN000040211).


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , COVID-19/therapy , Hospitalization , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/pathology , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies
9.
Transplantation ; 105(1): 177-186, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1226606

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A concern about the susceptibility of immunocompromised patients to the worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been raised. We aimed at describing COVID-19 infections in the French cohort of lung transplant (LT) patients. METHODS: Multicenter nationwide cohort study of all LT recipients with COVID-19 diagnosed from March 1 to May 19, 2020. Recipient main characteristics and their management were retrieved. Hospitalization characteristics, occurrence of complications and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-five LT patients with a COVID-19 infection were included. Median age was 50.4 (40.6-62.9) years, 16 (45.7%) were female, and 80% were double-LT recipients. Infection was community-acquired in 25 (71.4%). Thirty-one (88.6%) required hospitalization, including 13 (41.9%) in the intensive care unit. The main symptoms of COVID-19 were fever, cough, and diarrhea, present in 71.4%, 54.3%, and 31.4% of cases, respectively. Extension of pneumonia on chest CT was moderate to severe in 51.4% of cases. Among the 13 critically ill patients, 7 (53.9%) received invasive mechanical ventilation. Thrombotic events occurred in 4 patients. Overall survival rate was 85.7% after a median follow-up of 50 days (41.0-56.5). Four of 5 nonsurvivors had had bronchial complications or intensification of immunosuppression in the previous weeks. On univariate analysis, overweight was significantly associated with risk of death (odds ratio, 16.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-170.6; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: For the 35 LT recipients with COVID-19, the presentation was severe, requiring hospitalization in most cases, with a survival rate of 85.7%.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Lung Transplantation/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Transplant Recipients
10.
J Clin Med Res ; 13(4): 237-244, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1225972

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have shown a range of clinical outcomes. Previous studies have reported that patient comorbidities are predictive of worse clinical outcomes, especially when patients have multiple chronic diseases. We aim to: 1) derive a simplified comorbidity evaluation and determine its accuracy of predicting clinical outcomes (i.e., hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ventilation, and in-hospital mortality); and 2) determine its performance accuracy in comparison to well-established comorbidity indexes. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective observational study. We enrolled all emergency department (ED) patients with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. A simplified comorbidity evaluation (COVID-related high-risk chronic condition (CCC)) was derived to predict different clinical outcomes using multivariate logistic regressions. In addition, chronic diseases included in the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) were scored, and its accuracy of predicting COVID-19 clinical outcomes was also compared with the CCC. RESULTS: Data were retrieved from 90,549 ED patient visits during the study period, among which 3,864 patients were COVID-19 positive. Forty-seven point nine percent (1,851/3,864) were admitted to the hospital, 9.4% (364) patients were admitted to the ICU, 6.2% (238) received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 4.6% (177) patients died in the hospital. The CCC evaluation correlated well with the four studied clinical outcomes. The adjusted odds ratios of predicting in-hospital death from CCC was 2.84 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.81 - 4.45, P < 0.001). C-statistics of CCC predicting in-hospital all-cause mortality was 0.73 (0.69 - 0.76), similar to those of the CCI's (0.72) and ECI's (0.71, P = 0.0513). CONCLUSIONS: CCC can accurately predict clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19. Its performance accuracies for such predictions are not inferior to those of the CCI or ECI's.

11.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(5): 549-565, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1222758

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The trajectory of mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for clinical decisions, yet the focus so far has been on admission characteristics without consideration of the dynamic course of the disease in the context of applied therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We included adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with complete clinical data until ICU death or discharge. We examined the importance of factors associated with disease progression over the first week, implementation and responsiveness to interventions used in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and ICU outcome. We used machine learning (ML) and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to characterise the evolution of clinical parameters and our ICU data visualisation tool is available as a web-based widget ( https://www.CovidUK.ICU ). RESULTS: Data for 633 adults with COVID-19 who underwent IMV between 01 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.3% and highest with non-resolution of hypoxaemia [60.4% vs17.6%; P < 0.001; median PaO2/FiO2 on the day of death was 12.3(8.9-18.4) kPa] and non-response to proning (69.5% vs.31.1%; P < 0.001). Two ML models using weeklong data demonstrated an increased predictive accuracy for mortality compared to admission data (74.5% and 76.3% vs 60%, respectively). XAI models highlighted the increasing importance, over the first week, of PaO2/FiO2 in predicting mortality. Prone positioning improved oxygenation only in 45% of patients. A higher peak pressure (OR 1.42[1.06-1.91]; P < 0.05), raised respiratory component (OR 1.71[ 1.17-2.5]; P < 0.01) and cardiovascular component (OR 1.36 [1.04-1.75]; P < 0.05) of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and raised lactate (OR 1.33 [0.99-1.79]; P = 0.057) immediately prior to application of prone positioning were associated with lack of oxygenation response. Prone positioning was not applied to 76% of patients with moderate hypoxemia and 45% of those with severe hypoxemia and patients who died without receiving proning interventions had more missed opportunities for prone intervention [7 (3-15.5) versus 2 (0-6); P < 0.001]. Despite the severity of gas exchange deficit, most patients received lung-protective ventilation with tidal volumes less than 8 mL/kg and plateau pressures less than 30cmH2O. This was despite systematic errors in measurement of height and derived ideal body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Refractory hypoxaemia remains a major association with mortality, yet evidence based ARDS interventions, in particular prone positioning, were not implemented and had delayed application with an associated reduced responsiveness. Real-time service evaluation techniques offer opportunities to assess the delivery of care and improve protocolised implementation of evidence-based ARDS interventions, which might be associated with improvements in survival.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiration, Artificial , Adult , Artificial Intelligence , Humans , Prone Position , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
12.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 89(6): 1092-1098, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1214720

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a lifesaving strategy for critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aim to report the case series of critical patients receiving IMV in Wuhan and to discuss the timing of IMV in these patients. METHODS: Data of 657 patients admitted to emergency intensive care unit of Zhongnan Hospital and isolated isolation wards of Wuhan Union Hospital from January 1 to March 10, 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. All medical records of 40 COVID-19 patients who required IMV were collected at different time points, including baseline (at admission), before receiving IMV, and before death or hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among 40 COVID-19 patients with IMV, 31 died, and 9 survived and was discharged. The median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR], 62-76 years), and nonsurvivors were older than survivors. The median period from the noninvasive mechanic ventilation (NIV) or high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) to intubation was 7 hours (IQR, 2-42 hours) in IMV survivors and 54 hours (IQR, 28-143 hours) in IMV nonsurvivors. We observed that, when the time interval from NIV/HFNC to intubation was less than 50 hours (about 2 calendar days), together with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score of less than 10 or pneumonia severity index (PSI) score of less than 100, mortality can be reduced to 60% or less. Prolonged interval from NIV/HFNC to intubation and high levels of APACHE II and PSI before intubation were associated with higher mortality in critically ill patients. Multiple organ damage was common among these nonsurvivors in the course of treatment. CONCLUSION: Early initial intubation after NIV/HFNC might have a beneficial effect in reducing mortality for critically ill patients meeting IMV indication. Considering APACHE II and PSI scores might help physicians in decision making about timing of intubation for curbing subsequent mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Oxygen/administration & dosage , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , APACHE , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Critical Illness/mortality , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
13.
South Med J ; 114(5): 305-310, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196141

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Mississippi recorded the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on March 11, 2020. This report describes the initial COVID-19 experience of the single healthcare system serving Jackson County, Mississippi. The intent of this retrospective review of COVID-19 hospitalized patients was to identify any characteristics or interventions amenable to improving care management and clinical outcomes for patients within our community hospital. METHODS: All hospitalized patients 18 years of age and older in our health system with positive tests for COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 [SARS CoV-2]) by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction between March 15 and April 10, 2020 are included in this retrospective observational report. RESULTS: During the study period, 158 patients of the 1384 tested (11.4%) were positive for COVID-19 infection. Of the 158 patients, 41 (26%) were hospitalized, with 17 (41%) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The remaining 24 patients did not require ICU admission. The mean age of the 158 COVID-19-positive patients was 55 years (range 2-103). Obesity was noted in 68% of the hospitalized patients, including 13 (54%) of the non-ICU patients and 15 (88%) of the ICU patients. All 9 deceased patients were obese. Twelve of 17 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and 3 patients received only high-flow nasal cannula oxygen. Only 25% (3 of 12) of the IMV patients were successfully extubated during the study period. The median duration on IMV was 17 days (range 4-35). The mortality in the 158 COVID-19-positive patients was 5.7% (9 of 158). None of the 24 non-ICU patients died. The ICU mortality rate was 53% (9 of 17). CONCLUSIONS: This report describes a community hospital experience with COVID-19. Patient outcome was comparable to that reported at larger centers. Obesity was a major comorbidity and correlated with adverse outcomes. Amidst the initial wave of COVID-19 with high demand for inpatient treatment, it is reassuring that appropriate care can be provided in a community health system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Hospitals, Community , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Child , Child, Preschool , Critical Care/organization & administration , Female , Hospitals, Community/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mississippi/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
14.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(16): e25619, 2021 Apr 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1195757

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. Specific information about critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is rare.To describe the clinical course and complications of critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received IMV and were successfully weaned from it.This retrospective study included patients admitted to 3 intensive care units (ICUs) and 1 sub-ICU of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University and Wuhan Jin Yin-tan Hospital between December 24, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Eleven patients who had been diagnosed with critically ill COVID-19 according to the World Health Organization interim guidance, received invasive ventilation, and were finally successfully weaned from it, were enrolled in our study. Their presenting symptoms, comorbidity conditions, laboratory values, ICU course, ventilator parameters, treatments, and relative complications were recorded.Of 108 critically ill COVID-19 patients who received invasive ventilation, 11 patients who underwent tracheal extubation or terminal weaning were included. The mean age of the 11 patients was 52.8 years (range, 38-70 years), 8 (72.7%) were male, and 2 were health care workers. The median time from onset of symptoms to dyspnea was 6.6 days (range, 3-13 days), and the median duration of IMV was 15.7 days (range, 6-29 days). All 11 patients presented with acute severe hypoxemic respiratory failure and received IMV, and 1 patient switched to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation assistance. A lung-protective strategy with lower tidal volume ventilation and proper driving pressure is the main strategy of IMV. All patients had extrapulmonary manifestations, including acute kidney injury, hepatic dysfunction, myocardial damage, and/or lymphopenia. Hospital-acquired infections occurred in 7 (63.6%) patients.Critical COVID-19 illness is characterized by acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and subsequent dysfunction of other organs with a high mortality rate. Correct ventilation strategies and other clinical strategies to improve oxygenation based on the skilled trained group and the availability of equipment are the key methods to rescue lives.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Respiration, Artificial , Ventilator Weaning , Adult , Aged , China , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Hypoxia/therapy , Hypoxia/virology , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Retrospective Studies
15.
ATS Sch ; 1(2): 178-185, 2020 Jun 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191238

ABSTRACT

Due to the limited number of critical care providers in the United States, even well-staffed hospitals are at risk of exhausting both physical and human resources during the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One potential response to this problem is redeployment of non-critical care providers to increase the supply of available clinicians. To support efforts to increase capacity as part of surge preparation for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak, we created an online educational resource for non-intensivist providers to learn basic critical care content. Among those materials, we created a series of one-page learning guides for the management of common problems encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU). These guides were meant to be used as just-in-time tools to guide problem-solving during the provision of ICU care. This article presents five guides related to managing complications that can arise in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

16.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(4): 407-418, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1180128

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have little or no data integrated into a national surveillance system to identify characteristics or outcomes of COVID-19 hospital admissions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their national health systems. We aimed to analyse characteristics of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in Brazil, and to examine the impact of COVID-19 on health-care resources and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: We did a retrospective analysis of all patients aged 20 years or older with quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR)-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and registered in SIVEP-Gripe, a nationwide surveillance database in Brazil, between Feb 16 and Aug 15, 2020 (epidemiological weeks 8-33). We also examined the progression of the COVID-19 pandemic across three 4-week periods within this timeframe (epidemiological weeks 8-12, 19-22, and 27-30). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We compared the regional burden of hospital admissions stratified by age, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and respiratory support. We analysed data from the whole country and its five regions: North, Northeast, Central-West, Southeast, and South. FINDINGS: Between Feb 16 and Aug 15, 2020, 254 288 patients with RT-qPCR-confirmed COVID-19 were admitted to hospital and registered in SIVEP-Gripe. The mean age of patients was 60 (SD 17) years, 119 657 (47%) of 254 288 were aged younger than 60 years, 143 521 (56%) of 254 243 were male, and 14 979 (16%) of 90 829 had no comorbidities. Case numbers increased across the three 4-week periods studied: by epidemiological weeks 19-22, cases were concentrated in the North, Northeast, and Southeast; by weeks 27-30, cases had spread to the Central-West and South regions. 232 036 (91%) of 254 288 patients had a defined hospital outcome when the data were exported; in-hospital mortality was 38% (87 515 of 232 036 patients) overall, 59% (47 002 of 79 687) among patients admitted to the ICU, and 80% (36 046 of 45 205) among those who were mechanically ventilated. The overall burden of ICU admissions per ICU beds was more pronounced in the North, Southeast, and Northeast, than in the Central-West and South. In the Northeast, 1545 (16%) of 9960 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation outside the ICU compared with 431 (8%) of 5388 in the South. In-hospital mortality among patients younger than 60 years was 31% (4204 of 13 468) in the Northeast versus 15% (1694 of 11 196) in the South. INTERPRETATION: We observed a widespread distribution of COVID-19 across all regions in Brazil, resulting in a high overall disease burden. In-hospital mortality was high, even in patients younger than 60 years, and worsened by existing regional disparities within the health system. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need to improve access to high-quality care for critically ill patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, particularly in LMICs. FUNDING: National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Coordinating Agency for Advanced Training of Graduate Personnel (CAPES), Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), and Instituto de Salud Carlos III.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Epidemiological Monitoring , Healthcare Disparities/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality/trends , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Comorbidity , Female , Geography , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Health Services Needs and Demand/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Young Adult
17.
Expert Rev Med Devices ; 18(5): 457-471, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174812

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The use of mechanical ventilation associated with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most common complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients, defines a high risk population that requires specific consideration of outcomes and treatment practices.Areas covered: This review evaluates existing information about mortality rates and effectiveness of antiviral, immune-modulating, and anticoagulation treatments in COVID-19 patients who received mechanical ventilation. The mortality rate and follow-up periods in patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged widely. Antivirals, including remdesivir and convalescent plasma, have shown no definitive mortality benefit in this population despite positive results in other COVID-19 patients. Dexamethasone was associated with an absolute reduction in 28-day mortality by 12.3% (95% CI, 6.3 to 17.6), after adjusting for age. Reduced mortality has been demonstrated with tocilizumab use alongside corticosteroids. Evidence is inconclusive for therapeutic anticoagulation, and further studies are needed to determine the comparative benefit of prophylactic anticoagulation.Expert opinion: Significant variation and high mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients necessitate more standardized outcome measurements, increased consideration of risk factors to reduce intubation, and improved treatment practices. Anticoagulation and dexamethasone should be incorporated in the treatment of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, while more rigorous studies are required for other potential treatments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/pharmacology , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/pharmacology , Alanine/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Treatment Outcome
18.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci ; 25(6): 2730-2743, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1173124

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to synthesize and analyze the scientific publications related to ventilatory therapies used in patients with COVID-19 in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), the parameters of invasive mechanical ventilation prescribed for these patients, and the clinical characteristics of patients admitted to the ICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was carried out through the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases. Studies published up to 31/05/2020 were included if they made reference to ventilatory therapies used in ICU patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis was performed on 30 included studies. A total sample of 48,743 patients was analyzed, of which 17.66% were admitted to ICUs, and 6.4% of these patients died. Of the patients analyzed, 44.4% required some type of respiratory support. Specifically, 12.8% of patients received invasive mechanical ventilation, while 9.7% received non-invasive mechanical ventilation, and 29.7% received high-flow nasal oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has led to a high number of ICU admissions and a challenge for ICUs is to provide the best ventilatory therapy available to patients admitted. It has been observed that the available figures for ICU admissions and the use of ventilatory therapies are similar across continents. However, the data suggest that geographic areas with higher rates of ICU admission have lower mortality rates. The lack of information in some of the clinical records limits the ability to obtain more conclusive results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
19.
Chest ; 159(6): 2309-2317, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1064065

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity are at higher risk for community-acquired and nosocomial infections. However, no study has specifically evaluated the relationship between obesity and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). RESEARCH QUESTION: Is obesity associated with an increased incidence of VAP? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of the Impact of Early Enteral vs Parenteral Nutrition on Mortality in Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation and Catecholamines (NUTRIREA2) open-label, randomized controlled trial performed in 44 French ICUs. Adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasopressor support for shock and parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition were included. Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 at ICU admission. VAP diagnosis was adjudicated by an independent blinded committee, based on all available clinical, radiologic, and microbiologic data. Only first VAP episodes were taken into account. Incidence of VAP was analyzed by using the Fine and Gray model, with extubation and death as competing risks. RESULTS: A total of 699 (30%) of the 2,325 included patients had obesity; 224 first VAP episodes were diagnosed (60 and 164 in obese and nonobese groups, respectively). The incidence of VAP at day 28 was 8.6% vs 10.1% in the two groups (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI 0.63-1.14; P = .26). After adjustment on sex, McCabe score, age, antiulcer treatment, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment at randomization, the incidence of VAP remained nonsignificant between obese and nonobese patients (hazard ratio, 0.893; 95% CI, 0.66-1.2; P = .46). Although no significant difference was found in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, 90-day mortality was significantly lower in obese than in nonobese patients (272 of 692 [39.3%] patients vs 718 of 1,605 [44.7%]; P = .02). In a subgroup of patients (n = 123) with available pepsin and alpha-amylase measurements, no significant difference was found in rate of abundant microaspiration of gastric contents, or oropharyngeal secretions between obese and nonobese patients. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that obesity has no significant impact on the incidence of VAP.


Subject(s)
Body Mass Index , Intensive Care Units , Obesity/complications , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/etiology , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Shock/therapy , Aged , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Parenteral Nutrition, Total/methods , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Prevalence , Prognosis , Risk Factors , Survival Rate/trends
20.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(8): 910-917, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1171347

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To report and compare the characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients on ECMO. METHODS: We performed an international retrospective study of COVID-19 patients on ECMO from 13 intensive care units from March 1 to April 30, 2020. Demographic data, ECMO characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected. The primary outcome was to assess the complication rate and 28-day mortality; the secondary outcome was to compare patient and ECMO characteristics between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and non-COVID-19 related ARDS patients on ECMO (non-COVID-19; January 1, 2018 until July 31, 2019). RESULTS: During the study period 71 COVID-19 patients received ECMO, mostly veno-venous, for a median duration of 13 days (IQR 7-20). ECMO was initiated at 5 days (IQR 3-10) following invasive mechanical ventilation. Median PaO2/FiO2 ratio prior to initiation of ECMO was similar in COVID-19 patients (58 mmHg [IQR 46-76]) and non-COVID-19 patients (53 mmHg [IQR 44-66]), the latter consisting of 48 patients. 28-day mortality was 37% in COVID-19 patients and 27% in non-COVID-19 patients. However, Kaplan-Meier curves showed that after a 100-day follow-up this non-significant difference resolves. Non-surviving COVID-19 patients were more acidotic prior to initiation ECMO, had a shorter ECMO run and fewer received muscle paralysis compared to survivors. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in outcomes were found between COVID-19 patients on ECMO and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients on ECMO. This suggests that ECMO could be considered as a supportive therapy in case of refractory respiratory failure in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Internationality , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL