RESUMEN
There is only low-certainty evidence on the use of predictive models to assist COVID-19 patient's ICU admission decision-making process. Accumulative evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) assessment of COVID-19 patients allows accurate bedside evaluation of lung integrity, with the added advantage of repeatability, absence of radiation exposure, reduced risk of virus dissemination, and low cost. Our goal is to assess the performance of a quantified indicator resulting from LUS data compared with standard clinical practice model to predict critical respiratory illness in the 24 hours following hospital admission. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Critical Care Unit from University Hospital Purpan (Toulouse, France) between July 2020 and March 2021. PATIENTS: Adult patients for COVID-19 who were in acute respiratory failure (ARF), defined as blood oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry less than 90% while breathing room air or respiratory rate greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min at hospital admission. Linear multivariate models were used to identify factors associated with critical respiratory illness, defined as death or mild/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (Pao2/Fio2 < 200) in the 24 hours after patient's hospital admission. INTERVENTION: LUS assessment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and forty COVID-19 patients with ARF were studied. This cohort was split into two independent groups: learning sample (first 70 patients) and validation sample (last 70 patients). Interstitial lung water, thickening of the pleural line, and alveolar consolidation detection were strongly associated with patient's outcome. The LUS model predicted more accurately patient's outcomes than the standard clinical practice model (DeLong test: Testing: z score = 2.50, p value = 0.01; Validation: z score = 2.11, p value = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: LUS assessment of COVID-19 patients with ARF at hospital admission allows a more accurate prediction of the risk of critical respiratory illness than standard clinical practice. These results hold the promise of improving ICU resource allocation process, particularly in the case of massive influx of patients or limited resources, both now and in future anticipated pandemics.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The benefits of regular physical exercise on the tolerability of cancer treatments, quality of life and survival rates post-diagnosis have been demonstrated but all supervised physical activities have been interrupted due to the global health crisis and the need for lockdown to halt the spread of SARS-CoV-2. To reintroduce activities post-lockdown, we wanted to assess the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on the quality of life and the psychological status of patients who practice an adapted physical activity such as rugby for health. METHODS: The evaluation was conducted in two phases: an initial self-questionnaire comprised of 42 questions sent to all participants to assess the impact of lockdown and a second assessment phase in the presence of the participants. We assessed anthropometric data, functional fitness parameters, quality of life and the psychosocial status of the subjects. The data were compared to pre-lockdown data as part of a standardised follow-up procedure for patients enrolled in the programme. RESULTS: 105/120 (87.5%) individuals responded to the rapid post-lockdown survey analysis. In 20% of the cases, the patients reported anxiety, pain, a decline in fitness and a significant impact on the tolerability of cancer treatments. Twenty-seven patients agreed to participate in the individual analysis. Following lockdown, there was a significant decrease in the intensity of physical activity (p = 8.223e-05). No post-lockdown changes were noted in the assessments that focus on the quality of life and the level of psychological distress. Conversely, there was a significant correlation between the total of high energy expended during lockdown and the quality of life (p = 0.03; rho = 0.2248) and the level of psychological distress post-lockdown (p = 0.05; rho = - 0.3772). CONCLUSION: Lockdown and reduced physical activity, particularly leisure activities, did not impact the overall health of the patients. However, there was a significant correlation with the level of physical activity since the higher the level of physical activity, the better the quality of life and the lower the level of psychological distress.