Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 141, 2022 05 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846858

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. METHODS: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. RESULTS: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0-25) and 25 (IQR 7-26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0-87) and 87 (IQR 0-88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting.


Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Bloqueantes Neuromusculares , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Bloqueantes Neuromusculares/uso terapéutico , Puntaje de Propensión , Respiración Artificial , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/tratamiento farmacológico
2.
Lancet ; 399(10331): 1254-1264, 2022 03 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1815309

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In January, 2021, a vaccination campaign against COVID-19 was initiated with the rAd26-rAd5, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and BBIBP-CorV vaccines in Argentina. The objective of this study was to estimate vaccine effectiveness at reducing risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 deaths in people older than 60 years. METHODS: In this test-negative, case-control, and retrospective longitudinal study done in Argentina, we evaluated the effectiveness of three vaccines (rAd26-rAd5, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and BBIBP-CorV) on SARS-CoV-2 infection and risk of death in people with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19, using data from the National Surveillance System (SNVS 2.0). All individuals aged 60 years or older reported to SNVS 2.0 as being suspected to have COVID-19 who had disease status confirmed with RT-PCR were included in the study. Unvaccinated individuals could participate in any of the analyses. People with suspected COVID-19 who developed symptoms before the start of the implementation of the vaccination programme for their age group or district were excluded from the study. The odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 infection was evaluated by logistic regression and the risk of death in individuals with RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 was evaluated by proportional hazard regression models, adjusted for possible confounders: age at the time of the symptom onset date, sex, district of residence, epidemiological week corresponding to the symptom onset date, and history of COVID-19. The estimation of vaccine effectiveness to prevent death due to COVID-19 was done indirectly by combining infection and death estimates. In addition, we evaluated the effect of the first dose of viral vector vaccines across time. FINDINGS: From Jan 31, to Sept 14, 2021, 1 282 928 individuals were included, of whom 687 167 (53·6%) were in the rAd26-rAd5 analysis, 358 431 (27·6%) in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 analysis, and 237 330 (18·5%) in the BBIBP-CorV analysis. Vaccine effectiveness after two doses was high for all three vaccines, adjusted odds ratio 0·36 (95% CI 0·35-0·37) for rAd26-rAd5, 0·32 (0·31-0·33) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 0·56 (0·55-0·58) for BBIBP-CorV. After two doses, the effect on deaths was higher than that on risk of infection: adjusted hazard ratio 0·19 (95% CI 0·18-0·21) for rAd26-rAd5, 0·20 (0·18-0·22) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 0·27 (0·25-0·29) for BBIBP-CorV. The indirectly estimated effectiveness on deaths was 93·1% (95% CI 92·6-93·5) for rAd26-rAd5, 93·7% (93·2-94·3) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 85·0% (84·0-86·0) for BBIBP-CorV following two doses. First dose effect of viral vector vaccines remained stable over time. INTERPRETATION: The vaccines used in Argentina showed effectiveness in reducing infection and death by SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. FUNDING: None.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Argentina/epidemiología , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 16, 2022 01 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613247

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: In patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (ARF), awake prone positioning (AW-PP) reduces the need for intubation in patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, the effects of different exposure times on clinical outcomes remain unclear. We evaluated the effect of AW-PP on the risk of endotracheal intubation and in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19-related ARF treated with HFNO and analyzed the effects of different exposure times to AW-PP. METHODS: This multicenter prospective cohort study in six ICUs of 6 centers in Argentine consecutively included patients > 18 years of age with confirmed COVID-19-related ARF requiring HFNO from June 2020 to January 2021. In the primary analysis, the main exposure was awake prone positioning for at least 6 h/day, compared to non-prone positioning (NON-PP). In the sensitivity analysis, exposure was based on the number of hours receiving AW-PP. Inverse probability weighting-propensity score (IPW-PS) was used to adjust the conditional probability of treatment assignment. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI); and the secondary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: During the study period, 580 patients were screened and 335 were included; 187 (56%) tolerated AW-PP for [median (p25-75)] 12 (9-16) h/day and 148 (44%) served as controls. The IPW-propensity analysis showed standardized differences < 0.1 in all the variables assessed. After adjusting for other confounders, the OR (95% CI) for ETI in the AW-PP group was 0.36 (0.2-0.7), with a progressive reduction in OR as the exposure to AW-PP increased. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for hospital mortality in the AW-PP group ≥ 6 h/day was 0.47 (0.19-1.31). The exposure to prone positioning ≥ 8 h/d resulted in a further reduction in OR [0.37 (0.17-0.8)]. CONCLUSION: In the study population, AW-PP for ≥ 6 h/day reduced the risk of endotracheal intubation, and exposure ≥ 8 h/d reduced the risk of hospital mortality.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Administración Intranasal , COVID-19/complicaciones , Humanos , Oxígeno/administración & dosificación , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno/métodos , Posición Prona , Estudios Prospectivos , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/virología , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Vigilia
4.
N Engl J Med ; 384(7): 619-629, 2021 02 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-990095

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma is frequently administered to patients with Covid-19 and has been reported, largely on the basis of observational data, to improve clinical outcomes. Minimal data are available from adequately powered randomized, controlled trials. METHODS: We randomly assigned hospitalized adult patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio to receive convalescent plasma or placebo. The primary outcome was the patient's clinical status 30 days after the intervention, as measured on a six-point ordinal scale ranging from total recovery to death. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were assigned to receive convalescent plasma and 105 to receive placebo. The median time from the onset of symptoms to enrollment in the trial was 8 days (interquartile range, 5 to 10), and hypoxemia was the most frequent severity criterion for enrollment. The infused convalescent plasma had a median titer of 1:3200 of total SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (interquartile range, 1:800 to 1:3200). No patients were lost to follow-up. At day 30 day, no significant difference was noted between the convalescent plasma group and the placebo group in the distribution of clinical outcomes according to the ordinal scale (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.35; P = 0.46). Overall mortality was 10.96% in the convalescent plasma group and 11.43% in the placebo group, for a risk difference of -0.46 percentage points (95% CI, -7.8 to 6.8). Total SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers tended to be higher in the convalescent plasma group at day 2 after the intervention. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were observed in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and those who received placebo. (PlasmAr ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04383535.).


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/sangre , COVID-19/terapia , Inmunoglobulina G/sangre , Neumonía Viral/terapia , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Transfusión de Componentes Sanguíneos , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/mortalidad , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Hospitalización , Humanos , Inmunización Pasiva , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neumonía Viral/etiología , Neumonía Viral/mortalidad , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Sueroterapia para COVID-19
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA