RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 have different characteristics of evolution and outcome compared to the general ICU population. Although early weaning from mechanical ventilation is associated with improved outcomes, inadequate identification of patients unable to be weaned may lead to extubation failure and increased days on mechanical ventilation. Outcomes related to mechanical ventilation weaning in this population are scare and inconclusive. Therefore, the objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of mechanical ventilation weaning in subjects with acute respiratory failure induced by COVID-19. METHODS: This was a multi-center, prospective cohort study. We included adult subjects requiring at least 12 h of mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 infection admitted to any participating ICUs. Characteristics of the mechanical ventilation weaning and extubation process, as well as clinical results, were the primary outcome variables. Weaning types were defined according to previously described and internationally recognized categories. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six subjects from 8 ICUs were included. A spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) was not performed in 52.1% of subjects. One hundred twenty-eight subjects were extubated, and 29.7% required re-intubation. All the subjects included could be classified by Weaning according to a New Definition (WIND) classification (group 0 = 52.1%, group 1 = 28.5%, group 2 = 8.0%, and group 3 = 11.3%) with statistically significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (P < .001) and ICU length of stay (P < .001) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The mechanical ventilation weaning process in subjects with COVID-19 was negatively affected by the disease, with many subjects never completing an SBT. Even though temporal variables were modified, the clinical outcomes in each weaning group were similar to those previously reported.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe the usual practice of mobility therapy in the adult intensive care unit for patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: Online survey in which physical therapists working in an adult intensive care unit in Argentina participated. Sixteen multiple-choice or single-response questions grouped into three sections were asked. The first section addressed personal, professional and work environment data. The second section presented questions regarding usual care, and the third focused on practices under COVID-19 pandemic conditions. RESULTS: Of 351 physical therapists, 76.1% answer that they were exclusively responsible for patient mobility. The highest motor-based goal varied according to four patient scenarios: Mechanically ventilated patients, patients weaned from mechanical ventilation, patients who had never required mechanical ventilation, and patients with COVID-19 under mechanical ventilation. In the first and last scenarios, the highest goal was to optimize muscle strength, while for the other two, it was to perform activities of daily living. Finally, the greatest limitation in working with patients with COVID-19 was respiratory and/or contact isolation. CONCLUSION: Physical therapists in Argentina reported being responsible for the mobility of patients in the intensive care unit. The highest motor-based therapeutic goals for four classic scenarios in the closed area were limited by the need for mechanical ventilation. The greatest limitation when mobilizing patients with COVID-19 was respiratory and contact isolation.
OBJETIVO: Describir la práctica habitual de asistencia kinésica motora en la unidad de cuidados intensivos de adultos, tanto en pacientes con y sin COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional transversal de tipo encuesta online. Se incluyeron kinesiólogos que trabajan en unidades de cuidados intensivos de adultos en Argentina. Se realizaron 16 preguntas de respuesta múltiple o simple agrupadas en 3 apartados. El primero caracterizado por datos personales, profesionales o del ámbito laboral. El segundo, destinado a conocer el accionar habitual y un tercero enfocado en las prácticas bajo la pandemia COVID-19. RESULTADOS: Sobre 351 kinesiólogos, el 76.1% reportó que la movilización de los pacientes estaba a cargo exclusivamente de ellos. El objetivo máximo a alcanzar desde el aspecto motor fue variable según cuatro escenarios: Pacientes en ventilación mecánica, desvinculados de la ventilación mecánica, los que nunca estuvieron asociados a la ventilación mecánica y con COVID-19 en ventilación mecánica. En el primer y último escenario el objetivo máximo fue optimizar valores de fuerza muscular. En los restantes fue realizar actividades de la vida diaria. Por último, la mayor limitante en el abordaje de pacientes con COVID-19 fue el aislamiento respiratorio y/o de contacto. CONCLUSIÓN: Los kinesiólogos en Argentina reportaron encargarse de la movilización de los pacientes en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. Los objetivos máximos desde el aspecto motor para cuatro escenarios clásicos en el área cerrada podrían estar determinado por la asociación con la ventilación mecánica. La mayor limitación a la hora de movilizar a pacientes con COVID-19 fue el aislamiento respiratorio y de contacto.