Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 222
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248675, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1574573

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, a new disease named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was occurred. Patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 are more likely to die, especially elderly patients. We aimed to describe the effect of age on the clinical and immune characteristics of critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We retrospectively included 32 patients with COVID-19 who were confirmed to have COVID-19 by the local health authority and who were admitted to the first affiliated hospital of Zhengzhou University in Zhengzhou, China between January 3 and March 20, 2020. Clinical information and experimental test data were retrospectively collected for the patients. The 32 patients in this study were all in a critical condition and were classified as severe, according to the guidelines of 2019-nCoV infection from the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China. Data were compared between those <60 years old and ≥60 years old. RESULTS: Of 32 patients, 13 were under 60 years old, and 19 patients were ≥60 years old. The most common symptom among all patients upon admission was fever (93.8%, 30/32). Compared to younger patients, older patients exhibited increased comorbidities. Among patients who were 60 years and older, platelet count, direct bilirubin (DBIL), indirect bilirubin(IBIL), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), and interleukin-10 (IL-10) were significantly higher than in younger patients who were less than 60 years old. CD4+ T lymphocytes, CD8+ T lymphocytes, and NKT lymphocytes were decreased, CD4+/CD8+ T lymphocytes were significantly increased in all 32 patients, while there were no evident differences between younger and older patients. The CURB-65 (confusion, urea, respiratory, rate, blood pressure plus age ≥65 years), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and pH value were significantly higher in older patients than in patients who were under 60 years old. However, the PaO2 and PaO2:FiO2 were lower in older patients than the younger. Compared to patients under 60 years old, patients who were 60 years and older tended to develop ARDS (15 [78.9%] vs 5 [38.5%]), septic shock (7 [36.8%] vs 0 [0.0%]) and were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (13 [68.4%] vs 3[23.1%]). Dynamic trajectories of seven laboratory parameters were tracked on days 1, 3, 5 and 7, and significant differences in lymphocyte count (P = 0.026), D-dimer (P = 0.010), lactate dehydrogenase (P = 0.000) and C-reactive protein (P = 0.000) were observed between the two age groups. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of critically ill patients were 60 or older. Furthermore, rapid disease progression was noted in elderly patients. Therefore, close monitoring and timely treatment should be performed in elderly COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , CD4-CD8 Ratio , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Immunity , Lymphocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Preliminary Data , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(11): e4208-e4213, 2021 12 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560475

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe adult respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, occurred in Wuhan, and rapidly spread throughout China. This study aimed to clarify the characteristics of patients with refractory COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center study, we included 155 consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 in Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University from 1 January to 5 February. The cases were divided into general and refractory COVID-19 groups according to the clinical efficacy of treatment after hospitalization, and the differences between groups were compared. RESULTS: Compared with patients with general COVID-19 (45.2%), those with refractory disease were older, were more likely to be male, and had more underlying comorbid conditions, a lower incidence of fever, higher maximum temperatures among patients with fever, higher incidences of shortness of breath and anorexia, more severe disease assessment at admission, higher neutrophil, aspartate aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and C-reactive protein levels, lower platelet counts and albumin levels, and higher incidences of bilateral pneumonia and pleural effusion (P < .05). Patients with refractory COVID-19 were more likely to receive oxygen, mechanical ventilation, expectorant, and adjunctive treatment, including corticosteroids, antiviral drugs, and immune enhancers (P < .05). Considering the factors of disease severity at admission, mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit transfer, patients with refractory COVID-19 were also more likely to be male, have manifestations of anorexia on admission, and receive oxygen, expectorant, and adjunctive agents (P < .05). CONCLUSION: In nearly 50% of patients with COVID-19 obvious clinical and radiological remission was not achieved within 10 days after hospitalization. Male, anorexia, and no fever at admission was predictive of poor treatment efficacy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , China/epidemiology , Female , Fever , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
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.

4.
J Clin Med ; 9(12)2020 Dec 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463718

ABSTRACT

Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related, moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) have mortality rates between 76-98%. The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to identify differences in prone ventilation effects on oxygenation, pulmonary infiltrates (as observed on chest X-ray (CXR)), and systemic inflammation in CARDS patients by survivorship and to identify baseline characteristics associated with survival after prone ventilation. The study cohort included 23 patients with moderate-to-severe CARDS who received prone ventilation for ≥16 h/day and was segmented by living status: living (n = 6) and deceased (n = 17). Immediately after prone ventilation, PaO2/FiO2 improved by 108% (p < 0.03) for the living and 150% (p < 3 × 10-4) for the deceased. However, the 48 h change in lung infiltrate severity in gravity-dependent lung zones was significantly better for the living than for the deceased (p < 0.02). In CXRs of the lower lungs before prone ventilation, we observed 5 patients with confluent infiltrates bilaterally, 12 patients with ground-glass opacities (GGOs) bilaterally, and 6 patients with mixed infiltrate patterns; 80% of patients with confluent infiltrates were alive vs. 8% of patients with GGOs. In conclusion, our small study indicates that CXRs may offer clinical utility in selecting patients with moderate-to-severe CARDS who will benefit from prone ventilation. Additionally, our study suggests that lung infiltrate severity may be a better indicator of patient disposition after prone ventilation than PaO2/FiO2.

5.
JAMA ; 323(16): 1574-1581, 2020 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453471

ABSTRACT

Importance: In December 2019, a novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2]) emerged in China and has spread globally, creating a pandemic. Information about the clinical characteristics of infected patients who require intensive care is limited. Objective: To characterize patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) in the Lombardy region of Italy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective case series of 1591 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinator center (Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network and treated at one of the ICUs of the 72 hospitals in this network between February 20 and March 18, 2020. Date of final follow-up was March 25, 2020. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of nasal and pharyngeal swabs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic and clinical data were collected, including data on clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality. Data were recorded by the coordinator center on an electronic worksheet during telephone calls by the staff of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network. Results: Of the 1591 patients included in the study, the median (IQR) age was 63 (56-70) years and 1304 (82%) were male. Of the 1043 patients with available data, 709 (68%) had at least 1 comorbidity and 509 (49%) had hypertension. Among 1300 patients with available respiratory support data, 1287 (99% [95% CI, 98%-99%]) needed respiratory support, including 1150 (88% [95% CI, 87%-90%]) who received mechanical ventilation and 137 (11% [95% CI, 9%-12%]) who received noninvasive ventilation. The median positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 14 (IQR, 12-16) cm H2O, and Fio2 was greater than 50% in 89% of patients. The median Pao2/Fio2 was 160 (IQR, 114-220). The median PEEP level was not different between younger patients (n = 503 aged ≤63 years) and older patients (n = 514 aged ≥64 years) (14 [IQR, 12-15] vs 14 [IQR, 12-16] cm H2O, respectively; median difference, 0 [95% CI, 0-0]; P = .94). Median Fio2 was lower in younger patients: 60% (IQR, 50%-80%) vs 70% (IQR, 50%-80%) (median difference, -10% [95% CI, -14% to 6%]; P = .006), and median Pao2/Fio2 was higher in younger patients: 163.5 (IQR, 120-230) vs 156 (IQR, 110-205) (median difference, 7 [95% CI, -8 to 22]; P = .02). Patients with hypertension (n = 509) were older than those without hypertension (n = 526) (median [IQR] age, 66 years [60-72] vs 62 years [54-68]; P < .001) and had lower Pao2/Fio2 (median [IQR], 146 [105-214] vs 173 [120-222]; median difference, -27 [95% CI, -42 to -12]; P = .005). Among the 1581 patients with ICU disposition data available as of March 25, 2020, 920 patients (58% [95% CI, 56%-61%]) were still in the ICU, 256 (16% [95% CI, 14%-18%]) were discharged from the ICU, and 405 (26% [95% CI, 23%-28%]) had died in the ICU. Older patients (n = 786; age ≥64 years) had higher mortality than younger patients (n = 795; age ≤63 years) (36% vs 15%; difference, 21% [95% CI, 17%-26%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series of critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICUs in Lombardy, Italy, the majority were older men, a large proportion required mechanical ventilation and high levels of PEEP, and ICU mortality was 26%.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Positive-Pressure Respiration/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Distribution , Young Adult
6.
JAMA ; 323(16): 1582-1589, 2020 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453469

ABSTRACT

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic with no specific therapeutic agents and substantial mortality. It is critical to find new treatments. Objective: To determine whether convalescent plasma transfusion may be beneficial in the treatment of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Design, Setting, and Participants: Case series of 5 critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who met the following criteria: severe pneumonia with rapid progression and continuously high viral load despite antiviral treatment; Pao2/Fio2 <300; and mechanical ventilation. All 5 were treated with convalescent plasma transfusion. The study was conducted at the infectious disease department, Shenzhen Third People's Hospital in Shenzhen, China, from January 20, 2020, to March 25, 2020; final date of follow-up was March 25, 2020. Clinical outcomes were compared before and after convalescent plasma transfusion. Exposures: Patients received transfusion with convalescent plasma with a SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody (IgG) binding titer greater than 1:1000 (end point dilution titer, by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) and a neutralization titer greater than 40 (end point dilution titer) that had been obtained from 5 patients who recovered from COVID-19. Convalescent plasma was administered between 10 and 22 days after admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes of body temperature, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range 0-24, with higher scores indicating more severe illness), Pao2/Fio2, viral load, serum antibody titer, routine blood biochemical index, ARDS, and ventilatory and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) supports before and after convalescent plasma transfusion. Results: All 5 patients (age range, 36-65 years; 2 women) were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment and all had received antiviral agents and methylprednisolone. Following plasma transfusion, body temperature normalized within 3 days in 4 of 5 patients, the SOFA score decreased, and Pao2/Fio2 increased within 12 days (range, 172-276 before and 284-366 after). Viral loads also decreased and became negative within 12 days after the transfusion, and SARS-CoV-2-specific ELISA and neutralizing antibody titers increased following the transfusion (range, 40-60 before and 80-320 on day 7). ARDS resolved in 4 patients at 12 days after transfusion, and 3 patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation within 2 weeks of treatment. Of the 5 patients, 3 have been discharged from the hospital (length of stay: 53, 51, and 55 days), and 2 are in stable condition at 37 days after transfusion. Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary uncontrolled case series of 5 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, administration of convalescent plasma containing neutralizing antibody was followed by improvement in their clinical status. The limited sample size and study design preclude a definitive statement about the potential effectiveness of this treatment, and these observations require evaluation in clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Blood Donors , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Critical Illness , Female , Glucocorticoids/therapeutic use , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Male , Methylprednisolone/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2021 May 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416749

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with COVID-19, based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48h were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture, within 48h after intubation, in endotracheal aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 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 as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs 33.6%, unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.30), adjusted OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.33), p<0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of co-infection 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 to 2.44), p=0.043). However, no significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of co-infection on mortality was not different between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial identification within 48h after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

8.
Respir Care ; 66(5): 814-821, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1395146

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The growing proportion of elderly intensive care patients constitutes a public health challenge. The benefit of critical care in these patients remains unclear. We compared outcomes in elderly versus very elderly subjects receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: In total, 5,557 mechanically ventilated subjects were included in our post hoc retrospective analysis, a subgroup of the VENTILA study. We divided the cohort into 2 subgroups on the basis of age: very elderly subjects (age ≥ 80 y; n = 1,430), and elderly subjects (age 65-79 y; n = 4,127). A propensity score on being very elderly was calculated. Evaluation of associations with 28-d mortality was done with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Very elderly subjects were clinically sicker as expressed by higher SAPS II scores (53 ± 18 vs 50 ± 18, P < .001), and their rates of plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O were higher, whereas other parameters did not differ. The 28-d mortality was higher in very elderly subjects (42% vs 34%, P < .001) and remained unchanged after propensity score adjustment (adjusted odds ratio 1.31 [95% CI 1.16-1.49], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Age was an independent and unchangeable risk factor for death in mechanically ventilated subjects. However, survival rates of very elderly subjects were > 50%. Denial of critical care based solely on age is not justified. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02731898.).


Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Respiration, Artificial , Aged , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Simplified Acute Physiology Score
9.
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
10.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(25): 769-775, 2020 Jun 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389845

ABSTRACT

As of June 16, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in 2,104,346 cases and 116,140 deaths in the United States.* During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections (1,2). To date, data to assess the prevalence and severity of COVID-19 among pregnant U.S. women and determine whether signs and symptoms differ among pregnant and nonpregnant women are limited. During January 22-June 7, as part of COVID-19 surveillance, CDC received reports of 326,335 women of reproductive age (15-44 years) who had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Data on pregnancy status were available for 91,412 (28.0%) women with laboratory-confirmed infections; among these, 8,207 (9.0%) were pregnant. Symptomatic pregnant and nonpregnant women with COVID-19 reported similar frequencies of cough (>50%) and shortness of breath (30%), but pregnant women less frequently reported headache, muscle aches, fever, chills, and diarrhea. Chronic lung disease, diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease were more commonly reported among pregnant women than among nonpregnant women. Among women with COVID-19, approximately one third (31.5%) of pregnant women were reported to have been hospitalized compared with 5.8% of nonpregnant women. After adjusting for age, presence of underlying medical conditions, and race/ethnicity, pregnant women were significantly more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (aRR = 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-1.8) and receive mechanical ventilation (aRR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.2-2.4). Sixteen (0.2%) COVID-19-related deaths were reported among pregnant women aged 15-44 years, and 208 (0.2%) such deaths were reported among nonpregnant women (aRR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.5-1.5). These findings suggest that among women of reproductive age with COVID-19, pregnant women are more likely to be hospitalized and at increased risk for ICU admission and receipt of mechanical ventilation compared with nonpregnant women, but their risk for death is similar. To reduce occurrence of severe illness from COVID-19, pregnant women should be counseled about the potential risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and measures to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 should be emphasized for pregnant women and their families.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Laboratories , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Prevalence , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , United States/epidemiology , Young Adult
11.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 39(5): 553-561, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384795

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was detected in Spain in February 2020, with 216% intensive care unit (ICU) capacity expanded in Vitoria by March 18th, 2020. METHODS: We identified patients from the two public hospitals in Vitoria who were admitted to ICU with confirmed infection by SARS-CoV-2. Data reported here were available in April 6th, 2020. Mortality was assessed in those who completed 15-days of ICU stay. RESULTS: We identified 48 patients (27 males) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] age of patients was 63 [51-75] years. Symptoms began a median of 7 [5-12] days before ICU admission. The most common comorbidities identified were obesity (48%), arterial hypertension (44%) and chronic lung disease (37%). All patients were admitted by hypoxemic respiratory failure and none received non-invasive mechanical ventilation. Forty-five (94%) underwent intubation, 3 (6%) high flow nasal therapy (HFNT), 1 (2%) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and 22 (46%) required prone position. After 15 days, 14/45 (31%) intubated patients died (13% within one week), 10/45 (22%) were extubated, and 21/45 (47%) underwent mechanical ventilation. Six patients had documented super-infection. Procalcitonin plasma above 0.5µg/L was associated with 16% vs. 19% (p=0.78) risk of death after 7 days. CONCLUSION: This early experience with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain suggests that a strategy of right oxygenation avoiding non-invasive mechanical ventilation was life-saving. Seven-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 requiring intubation was lower than 15%, with 80% of patients still requiring mechanical ventilation. After 15 days of ICU admission, half of patients remained intubated, whereas one third died.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Hospitals, Public/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Combined Modality Therapy , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Procalcitonin/blood , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
12.
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
13.
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
14.
Chest ; 160(6): 2101-2111, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1271599

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The extent to which the degree of baseline frailty, as measured using standardized multidimensional health assessments before hospital admission, predicts survival among older adults after admission to an ICU remains unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is baseline frailty an independent predictor of survival among older adults receiving care in an ICU? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling older adults (age, ≥ 65 years) receiving public home services who were admitted to any ICU in Ontario, Canada, between April 1, 2009, and March 31, 2015. All individuals underwent an interRAI Resident Assessment Instrument-Home Care (RAI-HC) assessment completed within 180 days of ICU admission. These assessments were linked to hospital discharge abstract records. Patients were categorized using frailty measures each calculated from the RAI-HC: a classification tree version of the Clinical Frailty Scale; the Frailty Index-Acute Care; and the Changes in Health, End-Stage Disease, Signs, and Symptoms Scale. One-year survival models were used to compare their performance. Patients were stratified based on the receipt of mechanical ventilation in the ICU. RESULTS: Of 24,499 individuals admitted to an ICU within 180 days of a RAI-HC assessment, 26.4% (n = 6,467) received mechanical ventilation. Overall, 43.0% (95% CI, 42.4%-43.6%) survived 365 days after ICU admission. In general, among the overall cohort and both mechanical ventilation subgroups, mortality hazards increased with the severity of baseline frailty. Models predicting survival 30, 90, and 365 days after admission to an ICU that adjusted for one of the frailty measures were more discriminant than reference models that adjusted only for age, sex, major clinical category, and area income quintile. INTERPRETATION: Severity of baseline frailty is independently associated with survival after ICU admission and should be considered when determining goals of care and treatment plans for people with critical illness.


Subject(s)
Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/nursing , Frail Elderly , Geriatric Assessment , Home Care Services , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Ontario , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Survival Analysis
15.
Acute Crit Care ; 36(2): 143-150, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1289166

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Evidence prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic suggested that, compared with conventional ventilation strategies, airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) can improve oxygenation and reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We aimed to assess the association between APRV use and clinical outcomes among adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 and hypothesized that APRV use would be associated with improved survival compared with conventional ventilation. METHODS: A total of 25 patients with COVID-19 pneumonitis was admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for invasive ventilation in Perth, Western Australia, between February and May 2020. Eleven of these patients received APRV. The primary outcome was survival to day 90. Secondary outcomes were ventilation-free survival days to day 90, mechanical complications from ventilation, and number of days ventilated. RESULTS: Patients who received APRV had a lower probability of survival than did those on other forms of ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.89; P=0.036). This finding was independent of indices of severity of illness to predict the use of APRV. Patients who received APRV also had fewer ventilator-free survival days up to 90 days after initiation of ventilation compared to patients who did not receive APRV, and survivors who received APRV had fewer ventilator-free days than survivors who received other forms of ventilation. There were no differences in mechanical complications according to mode of ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this study, we urge caution with the use of APRV in COVID-19.

16.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(8): 963-971, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1273202

ABSTRACT

In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, many patients were treated in hospitals using mechanical ventilation. However, due to a shortage of ICU ventilators, hospitals worldwide needed to deploy anesthesia machines for ICU ventilation (which is off-label use). A joint guidance was written to apply anesthesia machines for long-term ventilation. The goal of this research is to retrospectively evaluate the differences in measurable ventilation parameters between the ICU ventilator and the anesthesia machine as used for COVID-19 patients. In this study, we included 32 patients treated in March and April 2020, who had more than 3 days of mechanical ventilation, either in the regular ICU with ICU ventilators (Hamilton S1), or in the temporary emergency ICU with anesthetic ventilators (Aisys, GE). The data acquired during regular clinical treatment was collected from the Patient Data Management Systems. Available ventilation parameters (pressures and volumes: PEEP, Ppeak, Pinsp, Vtidal), monitored parameters EtCO2, SpO2, derived compliance C, and resistance R were processed and analyzed. A sub-analysis was performed to compare closed-loop ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV) to other ventilation modes. The results showed no major differences in the compared parameters, except for Pinsp. PEEP was reduced over time in the with Hamilton treated patients. This is most likely attributed to changing clinical protocol as more clinical experience and literature became available. A comparison of compliance between the 2 ventilators could not be made due to variances in the measurement of compliance. Closed loop ventilation could be used in 79% of the time, resulting in more stable EtCO2. From the analysis it can be concluded that the off-label usage of the anesthetic ventilator in our hospital did not result in differences in ventilation parameters compared to the ICU treatment in the first 4 days of ventilation.


Subject(s)
Anesthesiology/instrumentation , COVID-19 , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Ventilators, Mechanical , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Europe , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Ventilators, Mechanical/supply & distribution
17.
Pharmacol Rep ; 73(6): 1650-1659, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1265619

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We designed this single-centre clinical trial to assess the potential benefits of N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) in patients with COVID19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Ninety-two patients with mild-to-moderate COVID19-associated ARDS were allocated to the placebo (45-cases) or NAC groups (47-cases). Besides standard-of-care treatment, the patients received either intravenous NAC at a dose of 40 mg/kg/day or the placebo for three consecutive days. The efficacy outcomes were overall mortality over 28-day, clinical status on day 28, based on the WHO Master Protocol, the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, changes in ARDS-severity (based on the PaO2/FiO2 ratio), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores 48 and 96 h after intervention, RESULTS: No differences were found in the 28-day mortality rate between the two groups (25.5% vs. 31.1% in the NAC and placebo groups, respectively). Although the distribution of the clinical status at day 28 shifted towards better outcomes in the NAC-treated group, it did not reach a statistical significance level (p value = 0.83). Similar results were achieved in terms of the proportion of patients who required invasive ventilator support (38.3% vs. 44.4%), the number of ventilator-free days (17.4 vs. 16.6), and median time of ICU and hospital stay. Results regarding the change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA scores also showed no significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study did not support the potential benefits of intravenous NAC in treating patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. More studies are needed to determine which COVID-19 patients benefit from the NAC administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier code: IRCT20120215009014N355). Registration date: 2020-05-18.


Subject(s)
Acetylcysteine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Acetylcysteine/administration & dosage , Acetylcysteine/adverse effects , Administration, Intravenous , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
18.
Ann Intensive Care ; 11(1): 92, 2021 Jun 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259216

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5% of COVID-19 patients develop respiratory failure and need ventilatory support, yet little is known about the impact of mechanical ventilation strategy in COVID-19. Our objective was to describe baseline characteristics, ventilatory parameters, and outcomes of critically ill patients in the largest referral center for COVID-19 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, during the first surge of the pandemic. METHODS: This cohort included COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) of an academic hospital with 94 ICU beds, a number expanded to 300 during the pandemic as part of a state preparedness plan. Data included demographics, advanced life support therapies, and ventilator parameters. The main outcome was 28-day survival. We used a multivariate Cox model to test the association between protective ventilation and survival, adjusting for PF ratio, pH, compliance, and PEEP. RESULTS: We included 1503 patients from March 30 to June 30, 2020. The mean age was 60 ± 15 years, and 59% were male. During 28-day follow-up, 1180 (79%) patients needed invasive ventilation and 666 (44%) died. For the 984 patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation in the first 24 h of ICU stay, mean tidal volume was 6.5 ± 1.3 mL/kg of ideal body weight, plateau pressure was 24 ± 5 cmH2O, respiratory system compliance was 31.9 (24.4-40.9) mL/cmH2O, and 82% of patients were ventilated with protective ventilation. Noninvasive ventilation was used in 21% of patients, and prone, in 36%. Compliance was associated with survival and did not show a bimodal pattern that would support the presence of two phenotypes. In the multivariable model, protective ventilation (aHR 0.73 [95%CI 0.57-0.94]), adjusted for PF ratio, compliance, PEEP, and arterial pH, was independently associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: During the peak of the epidemic in Sao Paulo, critically ill patients with COVID-19 often required mechanical ventilation and mortality was high. Our findings revealed an association between mechanical ventilation strategy and mortality, highlighting the importance of protective ventilation for patients with COVID-19.

19.
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
20.
Jpn J Nurs Sci ; : e12424, 2021 Jun 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258948

ABSTRACT

Determining the number of nurses required for patients with coronavirus disease receiving mechanical ventilation and/or veno-veno extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is important to provide quality care. Therefore, we conducted this cross-sectional survey of 725 intensive care units in Japan. Data from 152 units with experience of managing patients with coronavirus disease who required tracheal intubation were analyzed. The median number of nurses required for a patient receiving mechanical ventilation or veno-veno extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was two. This number was more than that according to the Japanese standard determined by government. We conclude that more nursing staff is required for caring for patients critically ill with coronavirus disease in intensive care units.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL