Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 20
Filter
1.
Drugs Real World Outcomes ; 8(3): 417-425, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540320

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are admitted to intensive care units so they can be comprehensively managed and provided with services not covered in general hospital wards, with the aim to increase their chances of survival. These procedures include invasive mechanical ventilation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the factors associated with survival in critically ill patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit of a tertiary-level hospital in Colombia. METHODS: This was a retrospective follow-up study of a cohort of adult patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit in San José de Buga Hospital, between 2017 and 2018. Sociodemographic, clinical, and pharmacological variables were identified. Using Cox regression, variables associated with survival and complications were identified. RESULTS: A total of 357 patients were analyzed. The average age was 64.8 ± 18.9 years, and 52.9% were male. The most frequent diagnoses were sepsis/septic shock (38.4%) and trauma (17.4%). The main factors associated with shorter survival were advanced age (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.99), a diagnosis of septic shock (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18-0.48) or diabetes mellitus at admission (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.33-0.98), a healthcare-associated infection (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.80), and the need for vasopressors (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.22-0.59). The administration of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a higher probability of survival (HR 1.93; 95% CI 1.15-3.25). CONCLUSIONS: The use of systemic corticosteroids was associated with a greater probability of survival in critically ill patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit. The identification of the variables associated with a higher risk of dying should allow care protocols to be improved, thereby extending the life expectancy of these patients.

2.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): 1684-1693, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1452742

ABSTRACT

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


Subject(s)
Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacokinetics , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Congresses as Topic , Consensus , Delphi Technique , District of Columbia , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Time Factors
3.
J Microbiol Immunol Infect ; 54(2): 253-260, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203183

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Transplant recipients are vulnerable to life-threatening community-acquired respiratory viruses (CA-RVs) infection (CA-RVI). Even if non-transplant critically ill patients in intensive care unit (ICU) have serious CA-RVI, comparison between these groups remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics and mortality of CA-RVI except seasonal influenza A/B in transplant recipients and non-transplant critically ill patients in ICU. METHODS: We collected 37,777 CA-RVs multiplex real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test results of individuals aged ≥18 years from November 2012 to November 2017. The CA-RVs tests included adenovirus, coronavirus 229E/NL63/OC43, human bocavirus, human metapneumovirus, parainfluenza virus 1/2/3, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus A/B. RESULTS: We found 286 CA-RVI cases, including 85 solid organ transplantation recipients (G1), 61 hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients (G2), and 140 non-transplant critically ill patients in ICU (G3), excluding those with repeated isolation within 30 days. Adenovirus positive rate and infection cases were most prominent in G2 (p < 0.001). The median time interval between transplantation and CA-RVI was 30 and 20 months in G1 and G2, respectively. All-cause in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in G3 than in G1 or G2 (51.4% vs. 28.2% or 39.3%, p = 0.002, respectively). The mechanical ventilation (MV) was the independent risk factor associated with all-cause in-hospital mortality in all three groups (hazard ratio, 3.37, 95% confidence interval, 2.04-5.56, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of CA-RVs diagnosis in transplant recipients even in long-term posttransplant period, and in non-transplant critically ill patients in ICU with MV.


Subject(s)
Community-Acquired Infections/etiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/etiology , Transplant Recipients , Adult , Aged , Cohort Studies , Community-Acquired Infections/mortality , Community-Acquired Infections/virology , Critical Illness , Disease Susceptibility , Female , Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation/adverse effects , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Transplantation/adverse effects , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/mortality , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
4.
Nutr Clin Pract ; 36(2): 268-274, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1151955

ABSTRACT

Clinicians have widely recognized that indirect calorimetry (IC) is the "gold standard" for measuring energy expenditure (EE) and thus would intuitively anticipate that its use would be needed to provide optimal nutrition support in critical illness. Recent studies in the literature as well as dramatic changes in clinical practice over the past decade, though, would suggest that such a precise measure by IC to set energy goals is not required to maximize clinical benefit from early feeding in the intensive care unit (ICU). Results from randomized controlled trials evaluating permissive underfeeding, use of supplemental parenteral nutrition to achieve tight calorie control, and caloric density of formulas to increase energy delivery have provided an important perspective on 3 pertinent issues. First, a simple weight-based predictive equation (25 kcal/kg/day) provides a clinically useful approximation of EE. Second, a precise measure of EE by IC does not appear to improve outcomes compared with use of this less accurate estimation of energy requirements. And third, providing some percentage of requirements (50%-80%), achieves similar clinical benefit to full feeding (100%) in the early phases of critical illness. The value from IC use lies in the determination of caloric requirements in conditions for which weight-based equations are rendered inaccurate (anasarca, amputation, severe obesity) or the clinical state is markedly altered (such as the prolonged hyperinflammatory state of coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). In most other circumstances, routine use of IC would not be expected to change clinical outcomes from early nutrition therapy in the ICU.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Decision Rules , Nutrition Assessment , Nutritional Support/methods , Body Weight , Calorimetry, Indirect , Critical Illness/therapy , Energy Metabolism , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Nutritional Requirements , Nutritional Status , SARS-CoV-2
5.
JMIR Hum Factors ; 8(1): e25724, 2021 Mar 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1127926

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few intensive care unit (ICU) staffing studies have examined the collaboration structures of health care workers (HCWs). Knowledge about how HCWs are connected to the care of critically ill patients with COVID-19 is important for characterizing the relationships among team structures, care quality, and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to discover differences in the teamwork structures of COVID-19 critical care by comparing HCW collaborations in the management of critically ill patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we used network analysis methods to analyze the electronic health records (EHRs) of 76 critically ill patients (with COVID-19: n=38; without COVID-19: n=38) who were admitted to a large academic medical center, and to learn about HCW collaboration. We used the EHRs of adult patients who were admitted to the COVID-19 ICU at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center (Nashville, Tennessee, United States) between March 17, 2020, and May 31, 2020. We matched each patient according to age, gender, and their length of stay. Patients without COVID-19 were admitted to the medical ICU between December 1, 2019, and February 29, 2020. We used two sociometrics-eigencentrality and betweenness-to quantify HCWs' statuses in networks. Eigencentrality characterizes the degree to which an HCW is a core person in collaboration structures. Betweenness centrality refers to whether an HCW lies on the path of other HCWs who are not directly connected. This sociometric was used to characterize HCWs' broad skill sets. We measured patient staffing intensity in terms of the number of HCWs who interacted with patients' EHRs. We assessed the statistical differences in the core and betweenness statuses of HCWs and the patient staffing intensities of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critical care, by using Mann-Whitney U tests and reporting 95% CIs. RESULTS: HCWs in COVID-19 critical care were more likely to frequently work with each other (eigencentrality: median 0.096) than those in non-COVID-19 critical care (eigencentrality: median 0.057; P<.001). Internal medicine physicians in COVID-19 critical care had higher core statuses than those in non-COVID-19 critical care (P=.001). Nurse practitioners in COVID-19 care had higher betweenness statuses than those in non-COVID-19 care (P<.001). Compared to HCWs in non-COVID-19 settings, the EHRs of critically ill patients with COVID-19 were used by a larger number of internal medicine nurse practitioners (P<.001), cardiovascular nurses (P<.001), and surgical ICU nurses (P=.002) and a smaller number of resident physicians (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Network analysis methodologies and data on EHR use provide a novel method for learning about differences in collaboration structures between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critical care. Health care organizations can use this information to learn about the novel changes that the COVID-19 pandemic has imposed on collaboration structures in urgent care.

6.
Clin Nutr ; 2021 Mar 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118364

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vitamin D's pleiotropic effects include immune modulation, and its supplementation has been shown to prevent respiratory tract infections. The effectivity of vitamin D as a therapeutic intervention in critical illness remains less defined. The current study analyzed clinical and immunologic effects of vitamin D levels in patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study in patients receiving intensive care with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 ARDS. 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D serum levels, pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and immune cell subsets were measured on admission as well as after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters were extracted from the patient data management system. Standard operating procedures included the daily administration of vitamin D3 via enteral feeding. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients with COVID-19 ARDS were eligible, of which 26 were included in this study as data on vitamin D status was available. 96% suffered from severe COVID-19 ARDS. All patients without prior vitamin D supplementation (n = 22) had deficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Vitamin D supplementation resulted in higher serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D but not did not increase 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters did not differ between patients with sufficient or deficient levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Only circulating plasmablasts were higher in patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥30 ng/ml (p = 0.029). Patients with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels below 20 pg/ml required longer mechanical ventilation (p = 0.045) and had a worse acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of COVID-19 ARDS patients had vitamin D deficiency. 25-hydroxyvitamin D status was not related to changes in clinical course, whereas low levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and a worse APACHE II score.

7.
Front Neurol ; 12: 625144, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1084412

ABSTRACT

Introduction: COVID-19-associated muscular complications may comprise myalgia, weakness, wasting, and rhabdomyolysis. Skeletal muscle damage in COVID-19 may be due to direct infection by the virus SARS-CoV-2 through interaction with the ACE2 receptor, systemic hyper-inflammatory state with cytokine release and homeostatic perturbation, an autoimmune process, or myotoxic drugs. Disclosing the cause of weakness in an individual patient is therefore difficult. Case Description: We report two patients, who survived typical COVID-19 pneumonia requiring intensive care treatment and who developed early on myalgia and severe proximal weakness in all four limbs. Laboratory exams revealed elevated serum creatine kinase and markedly increased C-reactive protein and interleukin 6, concurring with a systemic inflammatory response. On admission in neurorehabilitation (4 and 7 weeks after COVID-19 onset, respectively), the patients presented with proximal flaccid tetraparesis and limb-girdle muscle atrophy. Motor nerve conduction studies showed decreased amplitude and prolonged duration of compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) with normal distal motor latencies and normal conduction velocities in median and ulnar nerves. Needle electromyography in proximal muscles revealed spontaneous activity in one and myopathic changes in both patients. Discussion: Clinical, laboratory, and electrodiagnostic findings in these patients were unequivocally consistent with myopathy. Interestingly, increased distal CMAP duration has been described in patients with critical illness myopathy (CIM) and reflects slow muscle fiber conduction velocity due to membrane hypo-excitability, possibly induced by inflammatory cytokines. By analogy with CIM, the pathogenesis of COVID-19-related myopathy might also depend on hyperinflammation and metabolic pathways that may affect muscles in a pathophysiological continuum from hypo-excitability to necrosis.

8.
Ultrasound J ; 13(1): 3, 2021 Feb 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1067268

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Renal resistive index (RRI) is a promising tool for the assessment of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients in general, but its role and association to AKI among patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not known. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of RRI in relation to AKI in patients with COVID-19 treated in the intensive care unit. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, RRI was measured in COVID-19 patients in six intensive care units at two sites of a Swedish University Hospital. AKI was defined by the creatinine criteria in the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes classification. We investigated the association between RRI and AKI diagnosis, different AKI stages and urine output. RESULTS: RRI was measured in 51 patients, of which 23 patients (45%) had AKI at the time of measurement. Median RRI in patients with AKI was 0.80 (IQR 0.71-0.85) compared to 0.72 (IQR 0.67-0.78) in patients without AKI (p = 0.004). Compared to patients without AKI, RRI was higher in patients with AKI stage 3 (median 0.83, IQR 0.71-0.85, p = 0.006) but not in patients with AKI stage 1 (median 0.76, IQR 0.71-0.83, p = 0.347) or AKI stage 2 (median 0.79, min/max 0.79/0.80, n = 2, p = 0.134). RRI was higher in patients with an ongoing AKI episode compared to patients who never developed AKI (median 0.72, IQR 0.69-0.78, p = 0.015) or patients who developed AKI but had recovered at the time of measurement (median 0.68, IQR 0.67-0.81, p = 0.021). Oliguric patients had higher RRI (median 0.84, IQR 0.83-0.85) compared to non-oliguric patients (median 0.74, IQR 0.69-0.81) (p = 0.009). After multivariable adjustment, RRI was independently associated with AKI (OR for 0.01 increments of RRI 1.22, 95% CI 1.07-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill COVID-19 patients with AKI have higher RRI compared to those without AKI, and elevated RRI may have a role in identifying severe and oliguric AKI at the bedside in these patients.

9.
Nephrologe ; 16(1): 26-32, 2021.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-986660

ABSTRACT

The aim of this article is to explain the clinical benefits of the growing knowledge about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In addition to the lungs, SARS-CoV­2 can invade multiple cell types in other organs, such as the kidneys and replicate there. Important damaging pathways of the virus, such as vascular endotheliitis, thrombotic events and systemic cytokine release are still incompletely understood. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease that necessitates intensive medical care and in particular, internal medicine involvement and represents a major challenge for all disciplines of internal medicine. Among these, nephrology in particular is involved in the fight against COVID-19 in a variety of ways: urine investigations can provide indications of multiple organ involvement, endotheliitis, microthrombi and microcirculation damage, etc. Experience with low serum albumin levels and antithrombin III activity in nephrotic patients helps to point out the decreasing effects of loop diuretics and heparin to other specialist disciplines. Nephrological knowledge of the complications of hypoalbuminemia and "resistance" to diuretics must lead to an early implementation of renal replacement procedures in order to be able to prevent mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 intensive care patients with increased extracellular lung fluid. The kidneys can be used as a seismograph for severe courses of COVID-19 and nephrological knowledge can be brought to use to optimize the intensive medical care for critically ill patients. Both together have the potential to considerably reduce morbidity and mortality further.

10.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 35(2): 578-584, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-975063

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with 2019-nCoV (novel coronavirus 2019) infection still are debated. Because large randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a well-conducted meta-analysis on the use of corticosteroids, focused on patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in intensive care units, recently were published, a meta-analysis of RCTs on corticosteroids therapy in patients with different disease severity was performed to evaluate the effect on survival. DESIGN: A meta-analyses of RCTs was performed. SETTING: Patients admitted to hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with coronavirus disease. INTERVENTIONS: Administration of corticosteroids. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A search was performed for RCTs of adult patients with acute hypoxemic failure related to 2019-nCoV infection who received corticosteroids versus any comparator. The primary endpoint was mortality rate. Five RCTs involving 7,692 patients were included. Overall mortality of patients treated with corticosteroids was slightly but significantly lower than mortality of controls (26% v 28%, relative risk {RR} = 0.89 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.82-0.96], p = 0.003). The same beneficial effect was found in the subgroup of patients requiring mechanical ventilation (RR = 0.85 [95% CI 0.72-1.00], p = 0.05 number needed to treat {NNT} = 19). Remarkably, corticosteroids increased mortality in the subgroup of patients not requiring oxygen (17% v 13%, RR = 1.23 [95% CI 1.00-1.62], p = 0.05 number needed to harm {NNH} = 29). Tests for comparison between mechanically ventilated subgroups and those not requiring oxygen confirmed that treatment with corticosteroids had a statistically significant different effect on survival. Patients treated with corticosteroids had a significantly lower risk of need for mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroids may be considered in severe critically ill patients with COVID-19 but must be discouraged in patients not requiring oxygen therapy. Urgently, further trials are warranted before implementing this treatment worldwide.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , Endpoint Determination , Humans , Hypoxia/drug therapy , Hypoxia/etiology , Inpatients , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial
11.
Pan Afr Med J ; 35(Suppl 2): 136, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-946286

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 is an emerging health threat outbreak. It may cause severe viral pneumonia with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome requiring critical care. Aim: to describe clinical features and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: it was a retrospective study carried out in the medical ICU of Farhat Hached teaching hospital between March 11 and May 7, 2020. All consecutive patients with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 were included. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were collected by reviewing medical records. RESULTS: during the study period, 10 critically ill patients with COVID-19 were enrolled. Mean age, 51.8±6.3 years; 8(80%), male. The most common comorbidities were; diabetes mellitus, 6(60%), obesity 2(20%), chronic kidney disease 2(20%) and hypertension 1(10%). Mean SAPS II, 23.2±1.8. The mean arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio at admission was 136.2±79.7. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation was used in 4(40%) patients and 7(70%) received invasive mechanical ventilation. Tidal volume and PEEP were set respectively within the median [IQR] of, 5.7[5.6-6.3]ml/Kg and 10.7[6.5-11.7]cm H2O. Plateau pressure was monitored in the median [IQR] of 27.9 [25.9-28.5] cm H2O. Four patients received hydroxychloroquine alone and five hydroxychloroquine associated with an antiviral. Five patients developed respectively hyperactive (n=2), hypoactive (n=2) and mixed delirium (n=1). Mortality rate was at 70%. CONCLUSION: this study demonstrated a particular profile of COVID-19 in the critically ill as a severe presentation in aged males with comorbidities presenting with an ARDS-like and neurological impairment with poor prognosis. The only survivals seem to have benefited from noninvasive ventilatory support.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Delirium/etiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals, Teaching/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Obesity/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Prognosis , Renal Insufficiency, Chronic/epidemiology , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Simplified Acute Physiology Score , Tunisia/epidemiology
12.
Blood Purif ; 50(4-5): 566-571, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-922603

ABSTRACT

We report a preliminary experience of adjuvant therapy with Hemoperfusion (HP) in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) pneumonia. Currently, there are no approved treatments for CoronaVirus Disease 19 (COVID-19); however, therapeutic strategies based on the preclinical evidence include supportive measures, such as oxygen supplementation, antiviral, and anticoagulant agents. Despite these treatments, 10% of patients worsen and develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Since the pathogenic mechanism of ARDS is an uncontrolled inflammatory state, we speculate that removing inflammation effectors from blood may contrast tissue injury and improve clinical outcome. In a scenario of dramatic medical emergency, we conducted an observational study on 9 consecutive patients hospitalized in COVID Intensive Care Unit, where 5 of 9 consecutive patients were treated with HP, due to the emergency overload made it impossible to deliver blood purification in the other 4 patients. COVID-19 was diagnosed through the identification of virus sequences by reverse transcription-PCR on respiratory specimens. All patients had severe pneumonia requiring continuous positive airway pressure. HP was started in all patients 6-7 days after hospital admission. The treated patients (T) received 2 consecutive sessions of HP using CytoSorb cartridge. Our results show a better clinical course of T compared to control patients (C), in fact all T except 1 survived, and only 2 of them were intubated, while all C required intubation and died. Lymphocytopenia worsened in C but not in T. C-reactive protein decreased in both patients, but to a greater extent in T. IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α decreased after HP, IL-10 did not change. Respiratory function remained stable and did not worsen in T compared to C. The limited sample size and observational study design preclude a sound statement about the potential effectiveness of HP in COVID-19 patients, but our experience suggests a potential therapeutic role of adjuvant CytoSorb HP in the early course of CO-VID-19 pneumonia. A randomized clinical trial is ongoing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Hemoperfusion , SARS-CoV-2 , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , Combined Modality Therapy , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Critical Care/methods , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/prevention & control , Cytokines/blood , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Lymphocyte Count , Male , Middle Aged , Polymers , Polystyrenes , Procedures and Techniques Utilization , Vinyl Compounds
13.
J Clin Pharm Ther ; 46(2): 454-459, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894772

ABSTRACT

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES: In November 2019, several patients were diagnosed with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Wuhan, China. So far, there are no specific treatments with proven high efficacy in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Presently, several drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine, ribavirin, favipiravir (FVP), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), remdesivir and oseltamivir, have been suggested as effective treatments for SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical experience with FPV and LPV/r in critically ill patients with COVID-19 at Sakarya University Education and Research Hospital. METHODS: The study included 107 consecutive patients who had a laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 and were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 19 March and 19 May 2020. Follow-up continued through 30 May 2020 when the last observed patients were discharged. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of the 107 patients, 65 received FPV (Group FPV) and 42 received LPV/r (Group LPV/r). The two groups were similar in terms of demographic data and clinical findings. 43 (66.2%) of the 65 patients in the FPV group and 23 (54.8%) of the 42 patients in the LPV/r group died (p = 0.237). The median ICU stay was 6.6 (IQR, 3-10) days in the FPV group and 9 (IQR, 6-16) days in the LPV/r group, which was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.010). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the FVP group compared to the LPV/r group among patients who were discharged from the ICU. Although the analysis was done with a limited number of patients and the observed difference in mortality rate is of some concern, FVP treatment may be more beneficial than LPV/r in terms of effective use in the ICU.


Subject(s)
Amides , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Lopinavir , Pyrazines , Ritonavir , Amides/administration & dosage , Amides/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/physiopathology , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Lopinavir/administration & dosage , Lopinavir/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pyrazines/administration & dosage , Pyrazines/adverse effects , Ritonavir/administration & dosage , Ritonavir/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Treatment Outcome , Turkey/epidemiology
14.
J Diabetes Sci Technol ; 14(6): 1065-1073, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-873877

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has emerged as an alternative for inpatient point-of-care blood glucose (POC-BG) monitoring. We performed a feasibility pilot study using CGM in critically ill patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study of glucose monitoring in critically ill patients with COVID-19 on insulin therapy using Medtronic Guardian Connect and Dexcom G6 CGM systems. Primary outcomes were feasibility and accuracy for trending POC-BG. Secondary outcomes included reliability and nurse acceptance. Sensor glucose (SG) was used for trends between POC-BG with nursing guidance to reduce POC-BG frequency from one to two hours to four hours when the SG was in the target range. Mean absolute relative difference (MARD), Clarke error grids analysis (EGA), and Bland-Altman (B&A) plots were calculated for accuracy of paired SG and POC-BG measurements. RESULTS: CGM devices were placed on 11 patients: Medtronic (n = 6) and Dexcom G6 (n = 5). Both systems were feasible and reliable with good nurse acceptance. To determine accuracy, 437 paired SG and POC-BG readings were analyzed. For Medtronic, the MARD was 13.1% with 100% of readings in zones A and B on Clarke EGA. For Dexcom, MARD was 11.1% with 98% of readings in zones A and B. B&A plots had a mean bias of -17.76 mg/dL (Medtronic) and -1.94 mg/dL (Dexcom), with wide 95% limits of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, CGM is feasible in critically ill patients and has acceptable accuracy to identify trends and guide intermittent blood glucose monitoring with insulin therapy.


Subject(s)
Blood Glucose/analysis , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Monitoring, Physiologic/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Adult , Aged , Betacoronavirus/physiology , Blood Glucose/metabolism , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/instrumentation , Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring/methods , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Critical Illness/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus/blood , Diabetes Mellitus/diagnosis , Diabetes Mellitus/mortality , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Feasibility Studies , Female , Humans , Hyperglycemia/blood , Hyperglycemia/diagnosis , Hyperglycemia/mortality , Hyperglycemia/therapy , Insulin/administration & dosage , Insulin Infusion Systems , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Pandemics , Pilot Projects , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Point-of-Care Systems , Prognosis , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
15.
J Med Internet Res ; 22(9): e20143, 2020 09 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-781800

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a rapid increase of space in highly infectious disease intensive care units (ICUs). At Houston Methodist Hospital (HMH), a virtual intensive care unit (vICU) was used amid the COVID-19 outbreak. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to detail the novel adaptations and rapid expansion of the vICU that were applied to achieve patient-centric solutions while protecting staff and patients' families during the pandemic. METHODS: The planned vICU implementation was redirected to meet the emerging needs of conversion of COVID-19 ICUs, including alterations to staged rollout timing, virtual and in-person staffing, and scope of application. With the majority of the hospital critical care physician workforce redirected to rapidly expanded COVID-19 ICUs, the non-COVID-19 ICUs were managed by cardiovascular surgeons, cardiologists, neurosurgeons, and acute care surgeons. HMH expanded the vICU program to fill the newly depleted critical care expertise in the non-COVID-19 units to provide urgent, emergent, and code blue support to all ICUs. RESULTS: Virtual family visitation via the Consultant Bridge application, palliative care delivery, and specialist consultation for patients with COVID-19 exemplify the successful adaptation of the vICU implementation. Patients with COVID-19, who were isolated and separated from their families to prevent the spread of infection, were able to virtually see and hear their loved ones, which bolstered the mental and emotional status of those patients. Many families expressed gratitude for the ability to see and speak with their loved ones. The vICU also protected medical staff and specialists assigned to COVID-19 units, reducing exposure and conserving personal protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Telecritical care has been established as an advantageous mechanism for the delivery of critical care expertise during the expedited rollout of the vICU at Houston Methodist Hospital. Overall responses from patients, families, and physicians are in favor of continued vICU care; however, further research is required to examine the impact of innovative applications of telecritical care in the treatment of critically ill patients.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Delivery of Health Care/methods , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/standards , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Telemedicine/methods , Telemedicine/standards
16.
Aust Crit Care ; 34(2): 155-159, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-709287

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) is associated with a high rate of thrombosis, the pathophysiology of which is not well defined. Viscoelastic testing may identify and characterise hypercoagulable states which are not apparent using conventional coagulation assays. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to undertake viscoelastic evaluation of the coagulation state in critically ill adults with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure METHODS: This was a single-centre observational point prevalence cohort study of adults with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure requiring respiratory support in the intensive care unit. Coagulation status was evaluated using rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) in conjunction with laboratory markers of coagulation. RESULTS: Six patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. Each patient had one ROTEM® performed. All patients had supranormal clot amplitude at 10 min (A10) and supranormal clot firmness (maximal clot firmness) measured in at least one ROTEM® pathway, and five were supranormal on all pathways. Minimal clot lysis was present on all analyses. Fibrinogen and D-dimer were elevated and routine markers of coagulation within normal ranges in all patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit exhibit a hypercoagulable state which is not appreciable on conventional tests of coagulation. Supranormal clot firmness, minimal fibrinolysis, and hyperfibrinogenaemia are key findings. Further research is required into the pathophysiology of this hypercoagulable state, as well as the harms and benefits of different anticoagulation strategies.


Subject(s)
Blood Coagulation Disorders/diagnosis , Blood Coagulation Disorders/virology , COVID-19/blood , Intensive Care Units , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Thrombelastography/methods , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , South Australia
17.
Anesth Pain Med ; 10(3): e104900, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-668142

ABSTRACT

There are many unknown questions and puzzle pieces that should describe the clinical course of COVID-19 and its complications, especially ARDS. We provide the initial immediate surge response to allow every patient in need of an ICU bed to receive one. Till our knowledge is improved, the most important intervention in the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 seems to be the level of standard care and appropriate and early diagnosis and treatment. It seems that each center should have its protocol on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. This treatment should now be performed regardless of the reason which lies behind the pathophysiology of this disease, which is yet unknown. In this report, we share our experience in the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients during the 2 months in our intensive care unit.

18.
J Immunother Cancer ; 8(1)2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-359984

ABSTRACT

Cases of the 2019 novel coronavirus also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to rise worldwide. To date, there is no effective treatment. Clinical management is largely symptomatic, with organ support in intensive care for critically ill patients. The first phase I trial to test the efficacy of a vaccine has recently begun, but in the meantime there is an urgent need to decrease the morbidity and mortality of severe cases. It is known that patients with cancer are more susceptible to infection than individuals without cancer because of their systemic immunosuppressive state caused by the malignancy and anticancer treatments. Therefore, these patients might be at increased risk of pulmonary complications from COVID-19. The SARS-CoV-2 could in some case induce excessive and aberrant non-effective host immune responses that are associated with potentially fatal severe lung injury and patients can develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Cytokine release syndrome and viral ARDS result from uncontrolled severe acute inflammation. Acute lung injury results from inflammatory monocyte and macrophage activation in the pulmonary luminal epithelium which lead to a release of proinflammatory cytokines including interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1 and tumor necrosis factor-α. These cytokines play a crucial role in immune-related pneumonitis, and could represent a promising target when the infiltration is T cell predominant or there are indirect signs of high IL-6-related inflammation, such as elevated C-reactive protein. A monoclonal anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, tocilizumab has been administered in a number of cases in China and Italy. Positive clinical and radiological outcomes have been reported. These early findings have led to an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial in China and Italy. While data from those trials are eagerly awaited, patients' management will continue to rely for the vast majority on local guidelines. Among many other aspects, this crisis has proven that different specialists must join forces to deliver the best possible care to patients.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/etiology , Lung Neoplasms/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/etiology , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Interleukin-6/metabolism , Lung/pathology , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Lung Neoplasms/virology , Neoplasms/virology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Crit Care ; 24(1): 176, 2020 04 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-133387

ABSTRACT

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2-causing Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), emerged as a public health threat in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Delirium, a dangerous untoward prognostic development, serves as a barometer of systemic injury in critical illness. The early reports of 25% encephalopathy from China are likely a gross underestimation, which we know occurs whenever delirium is not monitored with a valid tool. Indeed, patients with COVID-19 are at accelerated risk for delirium due to at least seven factors including (1) direct central nervous system (CNS) invasion, (2) induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, (3) secondary effect of other organ system failure, (4) effect of sedative strategies, (5) prolonged mechanical ventilation time, (6) immobilization, and (7) other needed but unfortunate environmental factors including social isolation and quarantine without family. Given early insights into the pathobiology of the virus, as well as the emerging interventions utilized to treat the critically ill patients, delirium prevention and management will prove exceedingly challenging, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The main focus during the COVID-19 pandemic lies within organizational issues, i.e., lack of ventilators, shortage of personal protection equipment, resource allocation, prioritization of limited mechanical ventilation options, and end-of-life care. However, the standard of care for ICU patients, including delirium management, must remain the highest quality possible with an eye towards long-term survival and minimization of issues related to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). This article discusses how ICU professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacologists) can use our knowledge and resources to limit the burden of delirium on patients by reducing modifiable risk factors despite the imposed heavy workload and difficult clinical challenges posed by the pandemic.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Delirium/therapy , Intensive Care Units , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Delirium/etiology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Safety
20.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(2): 315-328, 2020 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684

ABSTRACT

With the expanding use of molecular assays, viral pathogens are increasingly recognized among critically ill adult patients with community-acquired severe respiratory illness; studies have detected respiratory viral infections (RVIs) in 17-53% of such patients. In addition, novel pathogens including zoonotic coronaviruses like the agents causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019 nCoV) are still being identified. Patients with severe RVIs requiring ICU care present typically with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Oseltamivir is the most widely used neuraminidase inhibitor for treatment of influenza; data suggest that early use is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients with influenza. At present, there are no antiviral therapies of proven efficacy for other severe RVIs. Several adjunctive pharmacologic interventions have been studied for their immunomodulatory effects, including macrolides, corticosteroids, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, sirolimus, statins, anti-influenza immune plasma, and vitamin C, but none is recommended at present in severe RVIs. Evidence-based supportive care is the mainstay for management of severe respiratory viral infection. Non-invasive ventilation in patients with severe RVI causing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and pneumonia is associated with a high likelihood of transition to invasive ventilation. Limited existing knowledge highlights the need for data regarding supportive care and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy that is specific for critically ill patients with severe RVI. There is a need for more pragmatic and efficient designs to test different therapeutics both individually and in combination.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Influenza, Human/therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/therapy , Adult , COVID-19 , Community-Acquired Infections/therapy , Critical Illness , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Macrolides/therapeutic use , Noninvasive Ventilation , Oseltamivir/therapeutic use , Pneumonia , Severity of Illness Index
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL