Prevalence and risk factors of Burnout syndrome among intensive care unit members during the second wave of COVID-19: a single-center study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence of burnout among the intensive care unit team of a university hospital after the second wave of COVID-19 and identify the key factors associated with its development. METHODS: This single-center study included 395 employees from a multidisciplinary team. The participants completed a questionnaire based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate analysis was used to identify the factors associated with burnout. RESULTS: Of 395 participants, 220 responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 56%). The prevalence of Burnout syndrome, defined as a severe score in at least one dimension, was 64.5% (142/220). Emotional distress was the most prevalent dimension, with a severe score affecting 50.5% (111/220) of the participants, followed by depersonalization at 39.1% (86/220). Only 5.9% (13/220) had severe scores in all three dimensions. Multivariate analysis revealed that being a physician was significantly associated with severe burnout symptoms in at least one dimension (odds ratio (OR), 1.32; 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.57-9.05; p=0.003). Additionally, having two or more jobs was associated with burnout in the three dimensions (OR=1.65; 95%CI=1.39-19.59; p=0.01). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the alarming prevalence of burnout among intensive care unit teams, particularly among physicians, following the second wave of COVID-19. This emphasizes the need for targeted interventions and support systems to mitigate burnout and reduce its negative impact on healthcare professionals' well-being and patient care.

Antisense therapy to block the Kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19: The ASKCOV randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of antisense therapy to block kallikrein-kinin pathway in COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind, controlled trial enrolling hospitalized COVID-19 patients that required supplementary oxygen to sustain peripheral oxygen saturation. Key exclusion criteria included use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, and patients with more than 10 days since symptom onset or more than 48 h of oxygen use. Patients were randomized to either one subcutaneous dose of ISIS721744, an antisense that blocks prekallikrein, or placebo. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of oxygen support up to 15 days (DAFOR15). Secondary endpoints included organ failure score, need and duration of mechanical ventilation up to 15 days, and all-cause mortality at 30 days. Exploratory endpoints included physiological parameters, biomarkers, and quality of life. RESULTS: From October 10, 2020, to December 09, 2020, 111 patients were randomized at thirteen sites in Brazil (56 to treatment and 55 to control group). Average age was 57.5 years, and most patients were male (68.5%). There were no significant differences in DAFOR15 between groups (5.9 ± 5.2 days for the intervention arm and 7.7 ± 5.1 for the control group; mean difference - 0.65, 95% confidence intervals from -2.95 to 1.36, p = 0.520). CONCLUSION: Antisense therapy designed to block the kallikrein-kinin pathway did not demonstrate clinical benefits in increasing days-alive without respiratory support at 15 days in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in 2020. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04549922.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the action randomized clinical trial

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Adherence to low tidal volume in the transition to spontaneous ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care units in Latin America (SPIRAL): a study protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with acute respiratory failure often require mechanical ventilation to reduce the work of breathing and improve gas exchange; however, this may exacerbate lung injury. Protective ventilation strategies, characterized by low tidal volumes (≤ 8mL/kg of predicted body weight) and limited plateau pressure below 30cmH2O, have shown improved outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, in the transition to spontaneous ventilation, it can be challenging to maintain tidal volume within protective levels, and it is unclear whether low tidal volumes during spontaneous ventilation impact patient outcomes. We developed a study protocol to estimate the prevalence of low tidal volume ventilation in the first 24 hours of spontaneous ventilation in patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and its association with ventilator-free days and survival. METHODS: We designed a multicenter, multinational, cohort study with a 28-day follow-up that will include patients with acute respiratory failure, defined as a partial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio < 300mmHg, in transition to spontaneous ventilation in intensive care units in Latin America. RESULTS: We plan to include 422 patients in ten countries. The primary outcomes are the prevalence of low tidal volume in the first 24 hours of spontaneous ventilation and ventilator-free days on day 28. The secondary outcomes are intensive care unit and hospital mortality, incidence of asynchrony and return to controlled ventilation and sedation. CONCLUSION: In this study, we will assess the prevalence of low tidal volume during spontaneous ventilation and its association with clinical outcomes, which can inform clinical practice and future clinical trials.

VATICAN (Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis Initiative to Conduct Antibiotic Evaluation): protocol for a multicenter randomized open-label trial of watchful waiting versus antimicrobial therapy for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis is a common condition among invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units, for which the best treatment strategy is currently unknown. We designed the VATICAN (Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis Initiative to Conduct Antibiotic Evaluation) trial to assess whether a watchful waiting antibiotic treatment strategy is noninferior to routine antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis regarding days free of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: VATICAN is a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter noninferiority trial. Patients with suspected ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis without evidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia or hemodynamic instability due to probable infection will be assigned to either a watchful waiting strategy, without antimicrobial administration for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis and prescription of antimicrobials only in cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis or septic shock, or another infectious diagnosis, or to a routine antimicrobial treatment strategy for seven days. The primary outcome will be mechanical ventilation-free days at 28 days, and a key secondary outcome will be ventilator-associated pneumonia-free survival. Through an intention-to-treat framework with a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, the primary outcome analysis will address noninferiority with a 20% margin, which translates to a 1.5 difference in ventilator-free days. Other analyses will follow a superiority analysis framework. CONCLUSION: The VATICAN trial will follow all national and international ethical standards. We aim to publish the trial in a high-visibility general journal and present it at critical care and infectious disease conferences for dissemination. These results will likely be immediately applicable to the bedside upon trial completion and will provide information with a low risk of bias for guideline development.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Boarding in the emergency department: challenges and mitigation strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Herein, we conducted a review of the literature to better understand the issue of prolonged emergency department (ED) boarding by providing an overview of the current evidence on the available causes, consequences, and mitigation strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: Severely ill patients awaiting transfer to intensive care units (ICU) imposes additional burdens on the emergency care team from both a clinical and management perspective. The reasons for prolonged ED boarding are multifactorial. ED boarding compromises patients' safety and outcomes, and is associated with increased team burnout and dissatisfaction. Mitigation strategies include the optimization of patients' flow, the establishment of resuscitative care units, deployment of mobile critical care teams, and improvements in training. Staffing adjustments, changes in hospital operations, and quality improvement initiatives are required to improve this situation, while active bed management and implementation of capacity command centers may also help. SUMMARY: Considering the characteristics of healthcare systems, such as funding mechanisms, organizational structures, delivery models, access and quality of care, the challenge of ED boarding of critically ill patients requires a nuanced and adaptable approach. Solutions are complex but must involve the entirety of the hospital system, emergency department, staff adjustment, and education.

Assessment of the components of fluid balance in patients with septic shock: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal amount for initial fluid resuscitation is still controversial in sepsis and the contribution of non-resuscitation fluids in fluid balance is unclear. We aimed to investigate the main components of fluid intake and fluid balance in both survivors and non-survivor patients with septic shock within the first 72 hours. METHODS: In this prospective observational study in two intensive care units, we recorded all fluids administered intravenously, orally, or enterally, and losses during specific time intervals from vasopressor initiation: T1 (up to 24 hours), T2 (24 to 48 hours) and T3 (48 to 72 hours). Logistic regression and a mathematical model assessed the association with mortality and the influence of severity of illness. RESULTS: We included 139 patients. The main components of fluid intake varied across different time intervals, with resuscitation and non-resuscitation fluids such as antimicrobials and maintenance fluids being significant contributors in T1 and nutritional therapy in T2/T3. A positive fluid balance both in T1 and T2 was associated with mortality (p = 0.049; p = 0.003), while nutritional support in T2 was associated with lower mortality (p = 0.040). The association with mortality was not explained by severity of illness scores. CONCLUSIONS: Non-resuscitation fluids are major contributors to a positive fluid balance within the first 48 hours of resuscitation. A positive fluid balance in the first 24 and 48 hours seems to independently increase the risk of death, while higher amount of nutrition seems protective. This data might inform fluid stewardship strategies aiming to improve outcomes and minimize complications in sepsis.

Assessment of the components of fluid balance in patients with septic shock: a prospective observational study

Abstract Background: The optimal amount for initial fluid resuscitation is still controversial in sepsis and the contribution of non-resuscitation fluids in fluid balance is unclear. We aimed to investigate the main components of fluid intake and fluid balance in both survivors and non-survivor patients with septic shock within the first 72 hours. Methods: In this prospective observational study in two intensive care units, we recorded all fluids administered intravenously, orally, or enterally, and losses during specific time intervals from vasopressor initiation: T1 (up to 24 hours), T2 (24 to 48 hours) and T3 (48 to 72 hours). Logistic regression and a mathematical model assessed the association with mortality and the influence of severity of illness. Results: We included 139 patients. The main components of fluid intake varied across different time intervals, with resuscitation and non-resuscitation fluids such as antimicrobials and maintenance fluids being significant contributors in T1 and nutritional therapy in T2/T3. A positive fluid balance both in T1 and T2 was associated with mortality (p = 0.049; p = 0.003), while nutritional support in T2 was associated with lower mortality (p = 0.040). The association with mortality was not explained by severity of illness scores. Conclusions: Non-resuscitation fluids are major contributors to a positive fluid balance within the first 48 hours of resuscitation. A positive fluid balance in the first 24 and 48 hours seems to independently increase the risk of death, while higher amount of nutrition seems protective. This data might inform fluid stewardship strategies aiming to improve outcomes and minimize complications in sepsis.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan / Estudo randomizado prospectivo e controlado de avaliação dos efeitos de uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade (estudo STAMINA): protocolo e plano de análise estatística

ABSTRACT Background: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. Conclusion: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

RESUMO Contexto: Em estudos observacionais sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, sugeriu-se que a driving pressure é o principal fator de lesão pulmonar induzida por ventilador e de mortalidade. Não está claro se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure pode melhorar os desfechos clínicos. Objetivo: Descrever o protocolo e o plano de análise estatística que serão usados para testar se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure envolvendo a titulação da pressão positiva expiratória final de acordo com a melhor complacência respiratória e a redução do volume corrente é superior a uma estratégia padrão envolvendo o uso da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSNet, em termos de aumento do número de dias sem ventilador em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade. Métodos: O estudo STAMINA (ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA) é randomizado, multicêntrico e aberto e compara uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure com a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade internados em unidades de terapia intensiva. Esperamos recrutar 500 pacientes de 20 unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras e duas colombianas. Eles serão randomizados para um grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure ou para um grupo de estratégia padrão usando a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet. No grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure, a pressão positiva expiratória final será titulada de acordo com a melhor complacência do sistema respiratório. Desfechos: O desfecho primário é o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias. Os desfechos secundários são a mortalidade hospitalar e na unidade de terapia intensiva e a necessidade de terapias de resgate, como suporte de vida extracorpóreo, manobras de recrutamento e óxido nítrico inalado. Conclusão: O STAMINA foi projetado para fornecer evidências sobre se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure é superior à estratégia da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet para aumentar o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave. Aqui, descrevemos a justificativa, o desenho e o status do estudo.

Evidence-Based Checklist to Delay Cardiac Arrest in Brain-Dead Potential Organ Donors: The DONORS Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effectiveness of goal-directed care to reduce loss of brain-dead potential donors to cardiac arrest is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist in the clinical management of brain-dead potential donors in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: The Donation Network to Optimize Organ Recovery Study (DONORS) was an open-label, parallel-group cluster randomized clinical trial in Brazil. Enrollment and follow-up were conducted from June 20, 2017, to November 30, 2019. Hospital ICUs that reported 10 or more brain deaths in the previous 2 years were included. Consecutive brain-dead potential donors in the ICU aged 14 to 90 years with a condition consistent with brain death after the first clinical examination were enrolled. Participants were randomized to either the intervention group or the control group. The intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted from June 15 to August 30, 2020. Interventions: Hospital staff in the intervention group were instructed to administer to brain-dead potential donors in the intervention group an evidence-based checklist with 13 clinical goals and 14 corresponding actions to guide care, every 6 hours, from study enrollment to organ retrieval. The control group provided or received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was loss of brain-dead potential donors to cardiac arrest at the individual level. A prespecified sensitivity analysis assessed the effect of adherence to the checklist in the intervention group. Results: Among the 1771 brain-dead potential donors screened in 63 hospitals, 1535 were included. These patients included 673 males (59.2%) and had a median (IQR) age of 51 (36.3-62.0) years. The main cause of brain injury was stroke (877 [57.1%]), followed by trauma (485 [31.6%]). Of the 63 hospitals, 31 (49.2%) were assigned to the intervention group (743 [48.4%] brain-dead potential donors) and 32 (50.8%) to the control group (792 [51.6%] brain-dead potential donors). Seventy potential donors (9.4%) at intervention hospitals and 117 (14.8%) at control hospitals met the primary outcome (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.08; P = .11). The primary outcome rate was lower in those with adherence higher than 79.0% than in the control group (5.3% vs 14.8%; RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.78; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: This cluster randomized clinical trial was inconclusive in determining whether the overall use of an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist reduced brain-dead potential donor loss to cardiac arrest. The findings suggest that use of such a checklist has limited effectiveness without adherence to the actions recommended in this checklist. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03179020.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

A psychometric study of an executive function assessment instrument (TDI-FE).

BACKGROUND: This study aims to present and discuss the psychometric properties of executive functions, which were measured using the TDI-FE instrument. The analysis encompasses its internal structure, potential sensitivity to fatigue factors, relationships with external criteria, and diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: The study sample comprised 382 students from Brazil, aged 6-8 years. Child development variables were screened using the TDI-FE and gold standard tests (Cancellation Attention and Trail Making Tests). The proposed scale comprised four activities: a test with fruit images with three tasks, and one memory game. RESULTS: The one-factor model of EF of the TDI-FE failed to fit to the data. However, fit substantially improved once a latent fatigue factor was controlled in the model. The latent factor of EF assessed by the TDI-FE tasks was coherently associated with a series of external variables, including two popular collateral measures of EF. The diagnostic accuracy was reasonable, and a cut-off of 37 points produced 70% of sensitivity and 60% of specificity. CONCLUSION: Results indicated that the TDI-FE demonstrated sound psychometric properties and diagnostic accuracy, then consisting of an efficient alternative for the assessment of EFs in early childhood education. The study also proved the need to control for response biases such as fatigue in the latent variable models of EF. The TDI-FE is notable because of its low cost and easy application, and it might fulfill a need for instruments for individuals from different contexts at this stage of development in Brazil.

Predictors of prolonged ventilator weaning and mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with prolonged weaning and mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs and under invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: Between March of 2020 and July of 2021, we retrospectively recorded clinical and ventilatory characteristics of critically ill COVID-19 patients from the day of intubation to the outcome. We classified the patients regarding the weaning period in accordance with established criteria. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with prolonged weaning and mortality. RESULTS: The study involved 303 patients, 100 of whom (33.0%) had a prolonged weaning period. Most of the patients were male (69.6%), 136 (44.8%) had more than 50% of pulmonary involvement on chest CT, and 93 (30.6%) had severe ARDS. Within the prolonged weaning group, 62% died within 60 days. Multivariate analysis revealed that lung involvement greater than 50% on CT and delay from intubation to the first separation attempt from mechanical ventilation were significantly associated with prolonged weaning, whereas age and prolonged weaning were significantly associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged weaning can be used as a milestone in predicting mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Lung involvement greater than 50% on CT and delay from intubation to the first separation attempt from mechanical ventilation were identified as significant predictors of prolonged weaning. These results might provide valuable information for healthcare professionals when making clinical decisions regarding the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients who are on mechanical ventilation.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia / II Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

ABSTRACT Objective: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. Conclusion: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

RESUMO Objetivo: Atualizar as recomendações para embasar as decisões para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: A elaboração desta diretriz foi feita por especialistas, incluindo representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas. O método utilizado para o desenvolvimento rápido de diretrizes baseou-se na adoção e/ou adaptação de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) e contou com o apoio da plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Chegaram-se a 21 recomendações, incluindo recomendações fortes quanto ao uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar e recomendações condicionais para o uso de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe, em pacientes com oxigênio suplementar ou ventilação não invasiva, e de anticoagulantes, para prevenção de tromboembolismo. Devido à suspensão da autorização de uso, não foi possível fazer recomendações para o tratamento com casirivimabe + imdevimabe. Foram feitas recomendações fortes contra o uso de azitromicina em pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana, hidroxicloroquina, plasma convalescente, colchicina e lopinavir + ritonavir, além de recomendações condicionais contra o uso de ivermectina e rendesivir. Conclusão: Foram criadas novas recomendações para o tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19, como as recomendações de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe. Ainda são recomendados corticosteroides e profilaxia contra tromboembolismo, esta em caráter condicional. Vários medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes e não devem ser usados, no intuito de proporcionar o melhor tratamento segundo os princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover a economia de recursos.