RESUMEN
(1) Background: We investigated the differences in the neuropsychological profile as well as the pneumological and motor functions in two groups of patients admitted to rehabilitation who received different respiratory support during their COVID-19 infection. (2) Methods: Group-1 (n = 18; 15 male, median age 67.5) consisted of patients who received non-invasive mechanical ventilation; Group-2 (n = 19; 16 male, median age 63) consisted of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation. All patients underwent a neuropsychological assessment including Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (R-BANS) to evaluate the patients' cognition. Depression and anxiety were also measured at admission and discharge to rehabilitation. (3) Results: At admission, patients impaired at MMSE were 44% in Group-1 and 5% in Group-2, while patients impaired at FAB were 88% in Group-1 and 26% in Group-2. Wilcoxon's effect size revealed meaningful differences between groups for FAB, R-BANS global score, immediate and delayed memory, and attention-coding task, with Group-2 performing better than Group-1 across all measures. At discharge, 52% of the 25 patients re-assessed still had mild to moderate cognitive deficits, while 19% had depression and 35% had anxiety. (4) Conclusions: Patients who received oxygen therapy experienced higher levels of acute and chronic stress compared to those who benefitted from invasive mechanical ventilation. Despite patients showing a meaningful improvement at discharge, cognitive impairment persisted in a great number of patients; therefore, long-term neuropsychological follow-up and treatment for COVID-19 patients are recommended.
RESUMEN
There is a need of consensus about the pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with COVID-19 after discharge from acute care. To facilitate the knowledge of the evidence and its translation into practice, we developed suggestions based on experts' opinion. A steering committee identified areas and questions sent to experts. Other international experts participated to a RAND Delphi method in reaching consensus and proposing further suggestions. Strong agreement in suggestions was defined when the mean agreement was >7 (1 = no agreement and 9 = maximal agreement). Panelists response rate was >95%. Twenty-three questions from 4 areas: Personnel protection equipment, phenotypes, assessments, interventions, were identified and experts answered with 121 suggestions, 119 of which received high level of concordance. The evidence-based suggestions provide the clinicians with current evidence and clinical experts opinion. This framework can be used to facilitate clinical decision making within the context of the individual patient. Further studies will evaluate the clinical usefulness of these suggestions.