Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 250
Filter
1.
Indian J Palliat Care ; 26(Suppl 1): S36-S39, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1792226

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic with the spectrum of disease from asymptomatic or mild disease to severe cases requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. In India, it started with milder presentation affecting younger population. Later on, an increase in disease severity was observed involving older age group as well. However, there is a paucity of published data regarding patients requiring ICU care in India. This case series describes the initial experience of an ICU in India regarding epidemiological profile, clinical course, and outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This case series included 27 consecutive laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients who were admitted in a tertiary care ICU over 14 days period, followed up till their discharge from ICU. Demographic and clinical data, including laboratory and radiological findings, were compiled with special attention to co-morbidities of the patients. The management of these patients was done as per the institutional protocol for critically ill COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 50 years with no difference in gender. Comorbid conditions were seen in 85% of the patients with diabetes (43.7%) and hypertension (37.5%) as the most common conditions. The median duration of symptoms before admission was 6 days with fever as the most common clinical symptom at presentation. Chest roentogram showed bilateral lung infiltrates in 88.8% of the patients. Mild, moderate, and severe hypoxia were observed in 3, 8, and 16 patients, respectively. Ten patients were managed with oxygen therapy. Seventeen patients (62.9%) required ventilatory support. Mortality rate among patients admitted to our ICU was 59.2%. CONCLUSIONS: This case series shows middle-aged patients with comorbid diseases present with severe COVID-19 disease and have poor outcome.

2.
Trials ; 22(1): 172, 2021 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1622253

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that administration of dexamethasone 20 mg is superior to a 6 mg dose in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. The secondary objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone 20 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg. The exploratory objective of this study is to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. TRIAL DESIGN: REMED is a prospective, phase II, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg vs 6 mg. The trial aims to be pragmatic, i.e. designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in conditions that are close to real-life routine clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: The study is multi-centre and will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Subjects will be eligible for the trial if they meet all of the following criteria: 1. Adult (≥18 years of age) at time of enrolment; 2. Present COVID-19 (infection confirmed by RT-PCR or antigen testing); 3. Intubation/mechanical ventilation or ongoing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy; 4. Moderate or severe ARDS according to Berlin criteria: • Moderate - PaO2/FiO2 100-200 mmHg; • Severe - PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg; 5. Admission to ICU in the last 24 hours. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Subjects will not be eligible for the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Known allergy/hypersensitivity to dexamethasone or excipients of the investigational medicinal product (e.g. parabens, benzyl alcohol); 2. Fulfilled criteria for ARDS for ≥14 days at enrolment; 3. Pregnancy or breastfeeding; 4. Unwillingness to comply with contraception measurements from enrolment until at least 1 week after the last dose of dexamethasone (sexual abstinence is considered an adequate contraception method); 5. End-of-life decision or patient is expected to die within next 24 hours; 6. Decision not to intubate or ceilings of care in place; 7. Immunosuppression and/or immunosuppressive drugs in medical history: a) Systemic immunosuppressive drugs or chemotherapy in the past 30 days; b) Systemic corticosteroid use before hospitalization; c) Any dose of dexamethasone during the present hospital stay for COVID-19 for ≥5 days before enrolment; d) Systemic corticosteroids during present hospital stay for conditions other than COVID-19 (e.g. septic shock); 8. Current haematological or generalized solid malignancy; 9. Any contraindication for corticosteroid administration, e.g. • intractable hyperglycaemia; • active gastrointestinal bleeding; • adrenal gland disorders; • presence of superinfection diagnosed with locally established clinical and laboratory criteria without adequate antimicrobial treatment; 10. Cardiac arrest before ICU admission; 11. Participation in another interventional trial in the last 30 days. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Dexamethasone solution for injection/infusion is the investigational medicinal product as well as the comparator. The trial will assess two doses, 20 mg (investigational) vs 6 mg (comparator). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously once daily on day 1-5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously once daily on day 6-10. Patients in the control group will receive dexamethasone 6 mg day 1-10. All authorized medicinal products containing dexamethasone in the form of solution for i.v. injection/infusion can be used. MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary endpoint: Number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. SECONDARY ENDPOINTS: a) Mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; b) Dynamics of inflammatory marker (C-Reactive Protein, CRP) change from Day 1 to Day 14; c) WHO Clinical Progression Scale at Day 14; d) Adverse events related to corticosteroids (new infections, new thrombotic complications) until Day 28 or hospital discharge; e) Independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days through telephone structured interviews using the Barthel Index. RANDOMISATION: Randomisation will be carried out within the electronic case report form (eCRF) by the stratified permuted block randomisation method. Allocation sequences will be prepared by a statistician independent of the study team. Allocation to the treatment arm of an individual patient will not be available to the investigators before completion of the whole randomisation process. The following stratification factors will be applied: • Age <65 and ≥ 65; • Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) <3 and ≥3; • CRP <150 mg/L and ≥150 mg/L • Trial centre. Patients will be randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. Randomisation through the eCRF will be available 24 hours every day. BLINDING (MASKING): This is an open-label trial in which the participants and the study staff will be aware of the allocated intervention. Blinded pre-planned statistical analysis will be performed. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The sample size is calculated to detect the difference of 3 VFDs at 28 days (primary efficacy endpoint) between the two treatment arms with a two-sided type I error of 0.05 and power of 80%. Based on data from a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in COVID-19 ARDS patients in Brazil and a multi-centre observational study from French and Belgian ICUs regarding moderate to severe ARDS related to COVID-19, investigators assumed a standard deviation of VFD at 28 days as 9. Using these assumptions, a total of 142 patients per treatment arm would be needed. After adjustment for a drop-out rate, 150 per treatment arm (300 patients per study) will be enrolled. TRIAL STATUS: This is protocol version 1.1, 15.01.2021. The trial is due to start on 2 February 2021 and recruitment is expected to be completed by December 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on EudraCT No.:2020-005887-70, and on December 11, 2020 on ClinicalTrials.gov (Title: Effect of Two Different Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients With ARDS and COVID-19 (REMED)) Identifier: NCT04663555 with a last update posted on February 1, 2021. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 1.1) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the standard formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Dexamethasone/administration & dosage , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , COVID-19/complications , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic , Disease Progression , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Equivalence Trials as Topic , Humans , Length of Stay , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Anaesthesist ; 70(8): 662-670, 2021 Aug.
Article in German | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575534

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the context of sepsis and septic shock, coagulopathy often occurs due to the close relationship between coagulation and inflammation. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is the most severe and potentially fatal form. Anticoagulants used in prophylactic or therapeutic doses are discussed to potentially exert beneficial effects in patients with sepsis and/or SIC; however, due to the lack of evidence recent guidelines are limited to recommendations for drug prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), while treatment of SIC has not been addressed. METHODS: In order to determine the status quo of VTE prophylaxis as well as treatment of SIC in German intensive care units (ICU), we conducted a Germany-wide online survey among heads of ICUs from October 2019 to May 2020. In April 2020, the survey was supplemented by an additional block of questions on VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. RESULTS: A total of 67 senior doctors took part in the survey. The majority (n = 50; 74.6%) of the responses were from ICU under the direction of an anesthesiologist and/or a department of anesthesiology. Most of the participants worked either at a university hospital (n = 31; 47.8%) or an academic teaching hospital (n = 27; 40.3%). The survey results show a pronounced heterogeneity in clinical practice with respect to the prophylaxis of VTE as well as SIC treatment. In an exemplary case of pneumogenic sepsis, low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) were by far the most frequently mentioned group of medications (n = 51; 76.1% of the responding ITS). In the majority of cases (n = 43; 64.2%), anti-FXa activity is not monitored with the use of LMWH in prophylaxis doses. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was listed as a strategy for VTE prophylaxis in 37.3% of the responses (n = 25). In an exemplary case of abdominal sepsis 54.5% of the participants (n = 36; multiple answers possible) stated the use of UFH or LMWH and UFH with dosage controlled by PTT is used on two participating ICUs. The anti-FXa activity under prophylactic anticoagulation with LMWH is monitored in 7 participating clinics (10.6%) in abdominal sepsis. Systematic screening for sepsis-associated coagulation disorders does not take place in most hospitals and patterns in the use of anticoagulants show significant variability between ICUs. In the case of COVID-19 patients, it is particularly noticeable that in three quarters of the participating ICUs the practice of drug-based VTE prophylaxis and SIC treatment does not differ from that of non-COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The heterogeneity of answers collected in the survey suggests that a systematic approach to this topic via clinical trials is urgently needed to underline individualized patient care with the necessary evidence.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants , Blood Coagulation Disorders , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Sepsis , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation Disorders/drug therapy , Blood Coagulation Disorders/etiology , COVID-19 , Germany , Heparin/therapeutic use , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Sepsis/complications
4.
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.

5.
Turk J Med Sci ; 51(4): 1665-1674, 2021 08 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526879

ABSTRACT

Background/aim: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease with a high rate of progression to critical illness. However, the predictors of mortality in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are not yet well understood. In this study, we aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with ICU mortality in our hospital. Materials and methods: In this single-centered retrospective study, we enrolled 86 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU of Dokuz Eylül University Hospital (Izmir, Turkey) between 18 March 2020 and 31 October 2020. Data on demographic information, preexisting comorbidities, treatments, the laboratory findings at ICU admission, and clinical outcomes were collected. The chest computerized tomography (CT) of the patients were evaluated specifically for COVID-19 and CT score was calculated. Data of the survivors and nonsurvivors were compared with survival analysis to identify risk factors of mortality in the ICU. Results: The mean age of the patients was 71.1 ± 14.1 years. The patients were predominantly male. The most common comorbidity in patients was hypertension. ICU mortality was 62.8%. Being over 60 years old, CT score > 15, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score ≥ 15, having dementia, treatment without favipiravir, base excess in blood gas analysis ≤ ­2.0, WBC > 10,000/mm3, D-dimer > 1.6 µg/mL, troponin > 24 ng/L, Na ≥ 145 mmol/L were considered to link with ICU mortality according to Kaplan­Meier curves (log-rank test, p < 0.05). The APACHE II score (HR: 1.055, 95% CI: 1.021­1.090) and chest CT score (HR: 2.411, 95% CI:1.193­4.875) were associated with ICU mortality in the cox proportional-hazard regression model adjusted for age, dementia, favipiravir treatment and troponin. Howewer, no difference was found between survivors and nonsurvivors in terms of intubation timing. Conclusions: COVID-19 patients have a high ICU admission and mortality rate. Studies in the ICU are also crucial in this respect. In our study, we investigated the ICU mortality risk factors of COVID-19 patients. We determined a predictive mortality model consisting of APACHE II score and chest CT score. It was thought that this feasible and practical model would assist in making clinical decisions.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/mortality , Critical Care/methods , Hospital Mortality , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Time Factors , Turkey/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
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
7.
BMC Res Notes ; 14(1): 20, 2021 Jan 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1388819

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize the effects of prone positioning on respiratory mechanics and oxygenation in invasively ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. RESULTS: This was a prospective cohort study in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a tertiary referral centre. We included 20 consecutive, invasively ventilated patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 related ARDS who underwent prone positioning in ICU as part of their management. The main outcome was the effect of prone positioning on gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. There was a median improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 132 in the prone position compared to the supine position (IQR 67-228). We observed lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios in those with low (< median) baseline respiratory system static compliance, compared to those with higher (> median) static compliance (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in respiratory system static compliance with prone positioning. Prone positioning was effective in improving oxygenation in SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. Furthermore, poor respiratory system static compliance was common and was associated with disease severity. Improvements in oxygenation were partly due to lung recruitment. Prone positioning should be considered in patients with SARS-CoV-2 ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Lung/metabolism , Prone Position , COVID-19/metabolism , Cohort Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Oxygen/metabolism , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial
8.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 7: 611460, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389196

ABSTRACT

Background: The data on long-term outcomes of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 and treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in China are merely available. Methods: A retrospective study included 73 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 and treated with ECMO in 21 intensive care units in Hubei, China. Data on demographic information, clinical features, laboratory tests, ECMO durations, complications, and living status were collected. Results: The 73 ECMO-treated patients had a median age of 62 (range 33-78) years and 42 (63.6%) were males. Before ECMO initiation, patients had severe respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation with a median PO2/FiO2 of 71.9 [interquartile range (IQR), 58.6-87.0] mmHg and a median PCO2 of 62 [IQR, 43-84] mmHg on arterial blood analyses. The median duration from symptom onset to invasive mechanical ventilation, and to ECMO initiation was19 [IQR, 15-25] days, and 23 [IQR, 19-31] days. Before and after ECMO initiation, the proportions of patients receiving prone position ventilation were 58.9 and 69.9%, respectively. The median duration of ECMO support was 18.5 [IQR 12-30] days. During the treatments with ECMO, major hemorrhages occurred in 31 (42.5%) patients, and oxygenators were replaced in 21 (28.8%) patients. Since ECMO initiation, the 30-day mortality and 60-day mortality were 63.0 and 80.8%, respectively. Conclusions: In Hubei, China, the ECMO-treated patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 were of a broad age range and with severe hypoxemia. The durations of ECMO support, accompanied with increased complications, were relatively long. The long-term mortality in these patients was considerably high.

9.
Cancer Cytopathol ; 129(8): 632-641, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1342873

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may provide additional and complementary findings for the management of these patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). This study addresses the cytological features of the infection and highlights the more influential inflammatory components. The correlation between pathological variables and clinical data is also analyzed. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective analysis of the cytopathological features of BAL in 20 COVID-19 patients and 20 members of a matched cohort from a critical ICU who had acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by other pulmonary conditions. RESULTS: A comparison of the controls (n = 20) and the COVID-19 patients (n = 20) revealed that the latter had a higher neutrophil count (median, 63.8% of the cell count) with lower percentages of macrophages and lymphocytes. An increase in the expression of CD68-positive, monocytic multinucleated giant cells (MGCs) was reported; megakaryocytes were not detected on CD61 staining. Perls staining showed isolated elements. In situ RNA analysis demonstrated scattered chromogenic signals in type II pneumocytes. An ultrastructural analysis confirmed the presence of intracytoplasmic vacuoles containing rounded structures measuring 140 nm in diameter (putative viral particles). In COVID-19 patients, the clinicopathological correlation revealed a positive correlation between lactate dehydrogenase values and MGCs (r = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of BAL samples might be implemented as a routine practice for the evaluation of COVID-19 patients in ICUs in the appropriate clinical scenario. Additional studies using a larger sample size of patients who developed COVID-19 during the second wave of the epidemic in the autumn of 2020 are needed to further support our findings.


Subject(s)
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/cytology , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/pathology , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
10.
J Thromb Haemost ; 18(7): 1743-1746, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1317987

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy is a common abnormality in patients with COVID-19. However, the exact incidence of venous thromboembolic event is unknown in anticoagulated, severe COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVES: Systematic assessment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) using complete duplex ultrasound (CDU) in anticoagulated COVID-19 patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in 2 French intensive care units (ICU) where CDU is performed as a standard of care. A CDU from thigh to ankle at selected sites with Doppler waveforms and images was performed early during ICU stay in patients admitted with COVID-19. Anticoagulation dose was left to the discretion of the treating physician based on the individual risk of thrombosis. Patients were classified as treated with prophylactic anticoagulation or therapeutic anticoagulation. Pulmonary embolism was systematically searched in patients with persistent hypoxemia or secondary deterioration. RESULTS: From March 19 to April 11, 2020, 26 consecutive patients with severe COVID-19 were screened for VTE. Eight patients (31%) were treated with prophylactic anticoagulation, whereas 18 patients (69%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. The overall rate of VTE in patients was 69%. The proportion of VTE was significantly higher in patients treated with prophylactic anticoagulation when compared with the other group (100% vs 56%, respectively, P = .03). Surprisingly, we found a high rate of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 patients treated with therapeutic anticoagulation, with 56% of VTE and 6 pulmonary embolisms. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest considering both systematic screening of VTE and early therapeutic anticoagulation in severe ICU COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thrombosis/prevention & control , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/blood , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , France/epidemiology , Host-Parasite Interactions , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/blood , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Pulmonary Embolism/blood , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Pulmonary Embolism/virology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , Venous Thromboembolism/blood , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/virology , Venous Thrombosis/blood , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology , Venous Thrombosis/virology
11.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 2(3): e163-e170, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1284653

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of resources has necessitated triage of critical care for patients with the disease. In patients aged 65 years and older, triage decisions are regularly based on degree of frailty measured by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). However, the CFS could also be useful in patients younger than 65 years. We aimed to examine the association between CFS score and hospital mortality and between CFS score and admission to intensive care in adult patients of all ages with COVID-19 across Europe. METHODS: This analysis was part of the COVID Medication (COMET) study, an international, multicentre, retrospective observational cohort study in 63 hospitals in 11 countries in Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, had been admitted to hospital, and either tested positive by PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or were judged to have a high clinical likelihood of having SARS-CoV-2 infection by the local COVID-19 expert team. CFS was used to assess level of frailty: fit (CFS1-3), mildly frail (CFS4-5), or frail (CFS6-9). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was admission to intensive care. Data were analysed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model adjusted for covariates (age, sex, number of drugs prescribed, and type of drug class as a proxy for comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between March 30 and July 15, 2020, 2434 patients (median age 68 years [IQR 55-77]; 1480 [61%] men, 954 [30%] women) had CFS scores available and were included in the analyses. In the total sample and in patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients and mildly frail patients had a significantly higher risk of hospital mortality than fit patients (total sample: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 odds ratio [OR] 2·71 [95% CI 2·04-3·60], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·16-2·06], p=0·0030; age ≥65 years: CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·90 [2·12-3·97], p<0·0001 and CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·64 [1·20-2·25], p=0·0020). In patients younger than 65 years, an increased hospital mortality risk was only observed in frail patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·22 [1·08-4·57], p=0·030; CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·08 [0·48-2·39], p=0·86). Frail patients had a higher incidence of admission to intensive care than fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·54 [1·21-1·97], p=0·0010), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·71 [0·55-0·92], p=0·0090). Among patients younger than 65 years, frail patients had an increased incidence of admission to intensive care (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 2·96 [1·98-4·43], p<0·0001), whereas mildly frail patients had no significant difference in incidence compared with fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·93 [0·63-1·38], p=0·72). Among patients aged 65 years and older, frail patients had no significant difference in the incidence of admission to intensive care compared with fit patients (CFS6-9 vs CFS1-3 OR 1·27 [0·92-1·75], p=0·14), whereas mildly frail patients had a lower incidence than fit patients (CFS4-5 vs CFS1-3 OR 0·66 [0·47-0·93], p=0·018). INTERPRETATION: The results of this study suggest that CFS score is a suitable risk marker for hospital mortality in adult patients with COVID-19. However, treatment decisions based on the CFS in patients younger than 65 years should be made with caution. FUNDING: LOEY Foundation.

12.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0252763, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278178

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Data on the post-acute and post-infectious complications of patients who have recovered from severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited. While studies report that approximately 5-15% of COVID-19 hospitalized patients require intensive care and mechanical ventilation, a substantially higher number need non-invasive ventilation and are subject to prolonged hospitalizations, with long periods of immobility and isolation. The purpose of this study is to describe the post-infectious sequelae of severe viral illness and the post-acute complications of intensive care treatments in critically ill patients who have recovered from severe COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients initially hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection, who recovered and were transferred to a general medical ward or discharged home between March 15, 2020 and May 15, 2020, dates inclusive, after an intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU) admission in a designated COVID-19 hospital in the United Arab Emirates. Demographic data, underlying comorbidities, treatment, complications, and outcomes were collected. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 71 patients transferred out of ICU (n = 38, 54%) and HDU (n = 33, 46%), mean age was 48 years (SD, 9.95); 96% men; 54% under age 50. Mean ICU stay was 12.4 days (SD, 5.29), HDU stay was 13.4 days (SD, 4.53). Pre-existing conditions were not significantly associated with developing post-acute complications (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41, 2.93, p = 1.00). Fifty nine percent of patients had complications; myopathy, swallowing impairments, and pressure ulcers were most common. Delirium and confusion were diagnosed in 18% (n = 13); all were admitted to the ICU and required mechanical ventilation. Of note, of all patients studied, 59.2% (n = 42/71) had at least 1 complication, 32.4% (n = 23) had at least 2 complications, and 19.7% (n = 14) suffered 3 or more sequelae. Complications were significantly more common in ICU patients (n = 33/38, 87%), compared to HDU patients (n = 9/33, 27%) (OR 17.6, 95% CI 5.23, 59.21, p <0.05). CONCLUSION: In a subset of critically ill patients who recovered from severe COVID-19 infection, there was considerable short-term post-infectious and post-acute disability. Long-term follow-up of COVID-19 survivors is warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/therapy , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , COVID-19/virology , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , United Arab Emirates
13.
BMC Med Ethics ; 22(1): 73, 2021 06 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1277937

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has created ethical challenges for intensive care unit (ICU) professionals, potentially causing moral distress. This study explored the levels and causes of moral distress and the ethical climate in Dutch ICUs during COVID-19. METHODS: An extended version of the Measurement of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals (MMD-HP) and Ethical Decision Making Climate Questionnaire (EDMCQ) were online distributed among all 84 ICUs. Moral distress scores in nurses and intensivists were compared with the historical control group one year before COVID-19. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-five nurses (70.7%), 40 intensivists (8.2%), and 103 supporting staff (21.1%) completed the survey. Moral distress levels were higher for nurses than supporting staff. Moral distress levels in intensivists did not differ significantly from those of nurses and supporting staff. "Inadequate emotional support for patients and their families" was the highest-ranked cause of moral distress for all groups of professionals. Of all factors, all professions rated the ethical climate most positively regarding the culture of mutual respect,  ethical awareness and support. "Culture of not avoiding end-of-life-decisions" and "Self-reflective and empowering leadership" received the lowest mean scores. Moral distress scores during COVID-19 were significantly lower for ICU nurses (p < 0.001) and intensivists (p < 0.05) compared to one year prior. CONCLUSION: Levels and causes of moral distress vary between ICU professionals and differ from the historical control group. Targeted interventions that address moral distress during a crisis are desirable to improve the mental health and retention of ICU professionals and the quality of patient care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Attitude of Health Personnel , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Morals , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological , Surveys and Questionnaires
14.
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
15.
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
16.
Mycoses ; 64(9): 1083-1091, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258971

ABSTRACT

Severe COVID-19 patients in ICU are at high risk for candidemia due to exposure to multiple risk factors for candidemia. We aimed to compare the incidence of candidemia in ICU patients with and without COVID-19, and to investigate epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of candidemia patients and risk factors for mortality in candidemia patients. This retrospective study was conducted in patients followed in the ICUs of Ankara City Hospital for 2 years, divided into pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. The incidence (event per 1000 patient-days) and epidemiology of candidemia, clinical and laboratory characteristics of patients were compared in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 groups. Candidemia incidence was higher in the COVID-19 group (2.16, 95% CI 1.77-2.60) than the non-COVID-19 group (1.06, 95% CI 0.89-0.125) (p < .001). A total of 236 candidemia episodes (105 in COVID-19 patients and 131 in non-COVID-19 patients) were detected during the study periods. COVID-19 cases had a higher rate of corticosteroid use (63.8% vs. 9.9%, p < .001). Epidemiology of candidemia and antifungal susceptibility were similar. Candidemia developed 2 weeks earlier in COVID-19 groups and resulted in higher mortality (92.5% vs. 79.4%, p .005). One-third of candidemia patients died before receiving any antifungal treatment, and this rate was higher in the COVID-19 group. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, corticosteroid use, presence of sepsis and age older than 65 years were independent risk factors for mortality in candidemia patients. Candidemia with high mortality is a more serious problem for COVID-19 patients due to its increased incidence, earlier occurrence and a higher rate of mortality.


Subject(s)
Antifungal Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/microbiology , Candidemia/drug therapy , Candidemia/mortality , Candidemia/physiopathology , Mortality , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Candidemia/diagnosis , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Turkey/epidemiology
17.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 186, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1255959

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extravascular lung water index (EVLWi) and pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution reflect the degree of lung injury. Whether EVLWi and PVPI are different between non-COVID-19 ARDS and the ARDS due to COVID-19 has never been reported. We aimed at comparing EVLWi, PVPI, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19 ARDS vs. ARDS of other origin. METHODS: Between March and October 2020, in an observational study conducted in intensive care units from three university hospitals, 60 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS monitored by transpulmonary thermodilution were compared to the 60 consecutive non-COVID-19 ARDS admitted immediately before the COVID-19 outbreak between December 2018 and February 2020. RESULTS: Driving pressure was similar between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, at baseline as well as during the study period. Compared to patients without COVID-19, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher EVLWi, both at the baseline (17 (14-21) vs. 15 (11-19) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.03) and at the time of its maximal value (24 (18-27) vs. 21 (15-24) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.01). Similar results were observed for PVPI. In COVID-19 patients, the worst ratio between arterial oxygen partial pressure over oxygen inspired fraction was lower (81 (70-109) vs. 100 (80-124) mmHg, respectively, p = 0.02) and prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were more frequently used than in patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 patients had lower maximal lactate level and maximal norepinephrine dose than patients without COVID-19. Day-60 mortality was similar between groups (57% vs. 65%, respectively, p = 0.45). The maximal value of EVLWi and PVPI remained independently associated with outcome in the whole cohort. CONCLUSION: Compared to ARDS patients without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 had similar lung mechanics, but higher EVLWi and PVPI values from the beginning of the disease. This was associated with worse oxygenation and with more requirement of prone positioning and ECMO. This is compatible with the specific lung inflammation and severe diffuse alveolar damage related to COVID-19. By contrast, patients with COVID-19 had fewer hemodynamic derangement. Eventually, mortality was similar between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04337983). Registered 30 March 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337983 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19/metabolism , Capillary Permeability , Extravascular Lung Water/metabolism , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/metabolism , Severity of Illness Index , COVID-19/complications , Hemodynamics , Humans , Lung/blood supply , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Physiologic/methods , Prognosis , Pulmonary Edema/metabolism , Thermodilution
18.
BMC Med Ethics ; 22(1): 70, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1255933

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: ECMO is a particularly scarce resource during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its allocation involves ethical considerations that may be different to usual times. There is limited pre-pandemic literature on the ethical factors that ECMO physicians consider during ECMO allocation. During the pandemic, there has been relatively little professional guidance specifically relating to ethics and ECMO allocation; although there has been active ethical debate about allocation of other critical care resources. We report the results of a small international exploratory survey of ECMO clinicians' views on different patient factors in ECMO decision-making prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We then outline current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for rationing life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and examine the extent to which current guidelines for ECMO allocation (and reported practice) adhere to these ethical guidelines and recommendations. METHODS: An online survey was performed with responses recorded between mid May and mid August 2020. Participants (n = 48) were sourced from the ECMOCard study group-an international group of experts (n = 120) taking part in a prospective international study of ECMO and intensive care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey compared the extent to which certain ethical factors involved in ECMO resource allocation were considered prior to and during the pandemic. RESULTS: When initiating ECMO during the pandemic, compared to usual times, participants reported giving more ethical weight to the benefit of ECMO to other patients not yet admitted as opposed to those already receiving ECMO, (p < 0.001). If a full unit were referred a good candidate for ECMO, participants were more likely during the pandemic to consider discontinuing ECMO from a current patient with low chance of survival (53% during pandemic vs. 33% prior p = 0.002). If the clinical team recommends that ECMO should cease, but family do not agree, the majority of participants indicated that they would continue treatment, both in usual circumstances (67%) and during the pandemic (56%). CONCLUSIONS: We found differences during the COVID-19 pandemic in prioritisation of several ethical factors in the context of ECMO allocation. The ethical principles prioritised by survey participants were largely consistent with ECMO allocation guidelines, current ethical decision procedures and recommendations for allocation of life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/ethics , Health Care Rationing , Resource Allocation/ethics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
19.
Cureus ; 13(5): e14986, 2021 May 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257004

ABSTRACT

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented global healthcare crisis. Pregnant women belong to a vulnerable group with a higher chance of severe disease and need of intensive care. However, there is limited data on treatment options for severe coronavirus disease in pregnancy. Here, we describe two cases of severe COVID-19 infection in pregnancy with radiological diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia, who required intensive care treatment. Both were treated with remdesivir and recovered well without any major side effects, with a favorable maternal and fetal outcome.

20.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(11)2021 05 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256533

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a dangerous infectious disease that is easily transmitted and which is called an acute respiratory syndrome. With the spread of the coronavirus around the world and its epidemic among humans, we are losing many humans. The long process of treatment in hospitalized patients who are receiving intensive care and medication is associated with physical weakness. It has been suggested that lifelong exercise can create a safe margin for a person that allows them to avoid becoming infected with the virus. The current study was conducted to assess the effects of low-intensity exercise and breathing exercises on cardiorespiratory responses and physical status in an overweight 20-year-old woman infected with COVID-19. The patient was referred to Hazrat Ali Ibn Abitaleb Hospital in Rafsanjan. The patient had initial symptoms of coronavirus including weakness, shortness of breath, fever, and chills, and the initial tests confirmed that the person was infected with the coronavirus. Although COVID-19 reduces respiration and blood oxygen and severely reduces movement and physical activity, low-intensity rehabilitation and breathing exercises along with medication can improve blood oxygen status, resting heart rate, blood pressure, and hand power status in patients and possibly speeding up the healing process. The results of the present study show that low-intensity exercise and breathing exercises in patients with COVID-19, whose disease severity is mild to moderate, can be performed safely under the supervision of their physicians to prevent the disease process.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epidemics , Adult , Exercise , Female , Humans , Overweight , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL