Risk factors for mechanical ventilation and ECMO in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: A multicenter retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of this study was to investigate risk factors associated with the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 66 consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICUs of three Japanese institutions from February 2020 to January 2021. We performed logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors associated with subsequent MV and ECMO requirements. Further, multivariate analyses were performed following adjustment for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores. RESULTS: At ICU admission, the risk factors for subsequent MV identified were: higher age (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.00-1.08, P = 0.03), higher values of APACHE II score (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08-1.33, P < 0.001), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.18-1.97, P < 0.001), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p<0.001) and C-reactive protein (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00-1.19, P = 0.04), and lower values of lymphocytes (OR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00, P = 0.02) and antithrombin (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.95, P < 0.01). Patients who subsequently required ECMO showed lower values of estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.00, P = 0.04) and antithrombin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, P = 0.03) at ICU admission. Multivariate analysis showed that higher body mass index (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00-1.40, P = 0.04) and higher levels of LDH (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02, P < 0.01) were independent risk factors for the need for MV. Lower level of antithrombin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.88-1.00, P = 0.03) was a risk factor for the need for ECMO. CONCLUSION: We showed that low antithrombin level at ICU admission might be a risk factor for subsequent ECMO requirements, in addition to other previously reported factors.

Investigation of the optimal method of oxygen administration with simultaneous use of a surgical mask: a randomized control study.

PURPOSE: From the perspective of infection prevention during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a recommendation was made to use surgical masks after extubation in patients in the operating room. For compliance with this recommendation, anesthesiologists need to administer oxygen to the patient with an oxygen mask over the surgical mask. However, no studies have investigated whether this method allows good maintenance of oxygenation in patients. This study aimed to investigate which method of oxygen administration lends itself best to use with a surgical mask in terms of oxygenation. METHOD: We administered oxygen to the study subjects using all the following three methods in random order: an oxygen mask over or under a surgical mask and a nasal cannula under the surgical mask. Oxygenation was assessed using the oxygen reserve index (ORi) and end-tidal oxygen concentration (EtO2). RESULT: This study included 24 healthy volunteers. ORi values with administration of oxygen were higher in the order of a nasal cannula under the surgical mask, an oxygen mask under the surgical mask, and an oxygen mask over the surgical mask, with median values of 0.50, 0.48, and 0.43, respectively, and statistically significant differences between all groups (P < 0.001). EtO2 values were in the same order as ORi, with median values of 33.0%, 31.0%, and 25%, respectively, and statistically significant differences between all groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Wearing a surgical mask over the nasal cannula during oxygen administration is beneficial for oxygenation and might help prevent aerosol dispersal.

Impact of the First Wave of COVID-19 on the Number of General Anesthesia Cases in 34 Tertiary Hospitals in Japan: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

Since the first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in Japan in January 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a significant change in people's lives. Although the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to have had an impact on the work of anesthesiologists, the specific impact has been largely unreported. We hypothesized that the number of general anesthesia (GA) cases has decreased due to the COVID-19 pandemic. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a retrospective survey at 34 facilities in Japan as a part of the Japanese Epidemiologic Study for Perioperative Anaphylaxis. The results showed that the number of GA cases had significantly decreased, particularly in May 2020, under the government's declaration of a state of emergency. The decline in GA caseload had not fully recovered by July 2020. Furthermore, there were regional differences in the decline in the number of GA cases. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work of anesthesiologists was greater in prefectures where there were more COVID-19 patients and where the state of emergency was declared earlier. Our study suggested a region-dependent decrease in the number of GA cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 with repeated positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR and then negative test results twice during intensive care: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Determining the infectiousness of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is crucial for patient management. Medical staff usually refer to the results of reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests in conjunction with clinical symptoms and computed tomographic images. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 62-year-old Japanese man who twice had positive and negative test results by polymerase chain reaction for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 over 48 days of hospitalization, including in intensive care. His respiratory symptoms and computed tomographic imaging findings consistent with coronavirus disease 2019 improved following initial intensive care, and the result of his polymerase chain reaction test became negative 3 days before discharge from the intensive care unit. However, 4 days after this first negative result, his polymerase chain reaction test result was positive again, and another 4 days later, he had a negative result once more. Eight days after the second polymerase chain reaction negative test result, the patient's test result again became positive. Finally, his polymerase chain reaction results were negative 43 days after his first hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: This case emphasizes the importance of repeat polymerase chain reaction testing and diagnosis based on multiple criteria, including clinical symptoms and computed tomographic imaging findings. Clinical staff should consider that a negative result by polymerase chain reaction does not necessarily certify complete coronavirus disease 2019 recovery.

Improvement of Severe COVID-19 in an Elderly Man by Sequential Use of Antiviral Drugs.

Although a variety of existing drugs are being tested for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), no efficacious treatment has been found so far, particularly for severe cases. We report successful recovery in an elderly patient with severe pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Despite administration of multiple antiviral drugs, including lopinavir/ritonavir, chloroquine, and favipiravir, the patient's condition did not improve. However, after administration of another antiviral drug, remdesivir, we were able to terminate invasive interventions, including ECMO, and subsequently obtained negative polymerase chain reaction results. Although further validation is needed, remdesivir might be effective in treating COVID-19.