Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(12): e2246922, 2022 12 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2157647

RESUMEN

Importance: The time interval between COVID-19 infection and surgery is a potentially modifiable but understudied risk factor for postoperative complications. Objective: To examine the association between time to surgery after COVID-19 diagnosis and the risk of a composite of major postoperative cardiovascular morbidity events within 30 days of surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted among 3997 adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with a previous diagnosis of COVID-19, as documented by a positive polymerase chain reaction test result, who were undergoing surgery from January 1, 2020, to December 6, 2021. Data were obtained through Structured Query Language access of an existing perioperative data warehouse. Statistical analysis was performed March 29, 2022. Exposure: The time interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the composite occurrence of major cardiovascular comorbidity, defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial injury, acute kidney injury, and death within 30 days after surgery, using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 3997 patients (2223 [55.6%]; median age, 51.3 years [IQR, 35.1-64.4 years]; 667 [16.7%] African American or Black; 2990 [74.8%] White; and 340 [8.5%] other race) were included in the study. The median time from COVID-19 diagnosis to surgery was 98 days (IQR, 30-225 days). Major postoperative adverse cardiovascular events were identified in 485 patients (12.1%). Increased time from COVID-19 diagnosis to surgery was associated with a decreased rate of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 0.99 [per 10 days]; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00; P = .006). This trend persisted for the 1552 patients who had received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98 [per 10 days]; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that increased time from COVID-19 diagnosis to surgery was associated with a decreased odds of experiencing major postoperative cardiovascular morbidity. This information should be used to better inform risk-benefit discussions concerning optimal surgical timing and perioperative outcomes for patients with a history of COVID-19 infection.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Adulto , Humanos , Adolescente , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/complicaciones , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/etiología
2.
N Engl J Med ; 387(19): 1759-1769, 2022 11 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2112693

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo2 target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica , Oxígeno , Respiración Artificial , Adulto , Humanos , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Oxígeno/administración & dosificación , Oxígeno/sangre , Oxígeno/uso terapéutico , Respiración Artificial/métodos , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Estudios Cruzados , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Centros Médicos Académicos , Oximetría
3.
JAMA Intern Med ; 182(6): 612-621, 2022 06 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1798074

RESUMEN

Importance: Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5. Results: A total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Teorema de Bayes , COVID-19/terapia , Femenino , Humanos , Hipoxia/etiología , Hipoxia/terapia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oxígeno , Pandemias , Posición Prona , Respiración Artificial , Vigilia
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(10): e052013, 2021 10 28.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1501717

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical ventilation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients universally involves titration of the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2). However, the optimal SpO2 target remains unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Pragmatic Investigation of optimaL Oxygen Targets (PILOT) trial is a prospective, unblinded, pragmatic, cluster-crossover trial being conducted in the emergency department (ED) and medical ICU at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, USA. PILOT compares use of a lower SpO2 target (target 90% and goal range: 88%-92%), an intermediate SpO2 target (target 94% and goal range: 92%-96%) and a higher SpO2 target (target 98% and goal range: 96%-100%). The study units are assigned to a single SpO2 target (cluster-level allocation) for each 2-month study block, and the assigned SpO2 target switches every 2 months in a randomly generated sequence (cluster-level crossover). The primary outcome is ventilator-free days (VFDs) to study day 28, defined as the number of days alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation from the final receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation through 28 days after enrolment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 25 May 2018 prior to initiation of patient enrolment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03537937).


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Oxígeno , Estudios Prospectivos , Respiración Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 33(4): 548-553, 2020 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-594836

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) is a rapidly growing and important area of anaesthesia care. We would contend that anaesthesia informatics principles and innovations that have been widely applied in numerous diverse domains could be successfully applied in NORA environments, resulting in significant improvements in anaesthesia care delivery. RECENT FINDINGS: We highlight key recent studies from the perioperative and informatics literature, placing each in the context of how it has, or how it may conceivably be applied to, improved NORA care. SUMMARY: There is significant opportunity for anaesthesiologists and clinical informaticians to collaborate and apply major advances in the perioperative informatics field to NORA environments, particularly given rapid recent changes in the field during the COVID-19 epidemic. Given the complexity of NORA patients and care delivered in NORA environments, applied clinical informatics has the potential to drastically improve care delivered.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia , Comunicación , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Sistemas de Información , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Terminología como Asunto , COVID-19 , Humanos , Pandemias
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA