ABSTRACT
(1) Background: There are limited data regarding the efficacy of convalescent plasma (CP) in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to determine whether CP is associated with better clinical outcome among these patients. (2) Methods: A retrospective single-center study including adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. The primary outcome was time to clinical improvement, within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale. (3) Results: Overall, 110 COVID-19 patients were admitted. Thirty-two patients (29%) received CP; among them, 62.5% received at least one CP with high neutralizing antibody titers (≥1:160). Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 14 patients (43.7%) of the CP group vs. 48 patients (61.5%) in the non-CP group (hazard ratio (HR): 0.75 (95% CI: 0.41-1.37), p = 0.35). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, CP was not independently associated with time to clinical improvement (HR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.23-1.22), p = 0.14). Additionally, the average treatment effects of CP, calculated using the inverse probability weights (IPW), was not associated with the primary outcome (-0.14 days (95% CI: -3.19-2.91 days), p = 0.93). Hospital mortality did not differ between CP and non-CP groups (31.2% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.17, respectively). Comparing CP with high neutralizing antibody titers to the other group yielded the same findings. (4) Conclusions: In this study of life-threatening COVID-19 patients, CP was not associated with time to clinical improvement within 28 days, or hospital mortality.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are prone to develop severe acute kidney injury (AKI), defined as KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) stages 2 or 3. However, data are limited in these patients. We aimed to report the incidence, risk factors, and prognostic impact of severe AKI in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute respiratory failure. METHODS: A retrospective monocenter study including adult patients with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. The primary outcome was to identify the incidence and risk factors associated with severe AKI (KDIGO stages 2 or 3). RESULTS: Overall, 110 COVID-19 patients were admitted. Among them, 77 (70%) required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), 66 (60%) received vasopressor support, and 9 (8.2%) needed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Severe AKI occurred in 50 patients (45.4%). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, severe AKI was independently associated with age (odds ratio (OR) = 1.08 (95% CI (confidence interval): 1.03-1.14), p = 0.003), IMV (OR = 33.44 (95% CI: 2.20-507.77), p = 0.011), creatinine level on admission (OR = 1.04 (95% CI: 1.008-1.065), p = 0.012), and ECMO (OR = 11.42 (95% CI: 1.95-66.70), p = 0.007). Inflammatory (interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and ferritin) or thrombotic (D-dimer and fibrinogen) markers were not associated with severe AKI after adjustment for potential confounders. Severe AKI was independently associated with hospital mortality (OR = 29.73 (95% CI: 4.10-215.77), p = 0.001) and longer hospital length of stay (subhazard ratio = 0.26 (95% CI: 0.14-0.51), p < 0.001). At the time of hospital discharge, 74.1% of patients with severe AKI who were discharged alive from the hospital recovered normal or baseline renal function. CONCLUSION: Severe AKI was common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and was not associated with inflammatory or thrombotic markers. Severe AKI was an independent risk factor of hospital mortality and hospital length of stay, and it should be rapidly recognized during SARS-CoV-2 infection.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: There are limited data regarding the efficacy of methylprednisolone in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to determine whether methylprednisolone is associated with increases in the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) among these patients. Design: Retrospective single-center study. Setting: Intensive care unit. Patients: All patients with ARDS due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation between 1 March and 29 May 2020 were included. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) for the first 28 days. Defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was analyzed with competing-risks regression based on Fine and Gray's proportional sub hazards model. Death before day 28 was considered to be the competing event. A total of 77 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two patients (41.6%) received methylprednisolone. The median dose was 1 mg·kg-1 (IQR: 1-1.3 mg·kg-1) and median duration for 5 days (IQR: 5-7 days). Patients who received methylprednisolone had a mean 18.8 VFDs (95% CI, 16.6-20.9) during the first 28 days vs. 14.2 VFDs (95% CI, 12.6-16.7) in patients who did not receive methylprednisolone (difference, 4.61, 95% CI, 1.10-8.12, p = 0.001). In the multivariable competing-risks regression analysis and after adjusting for potential confounders (ventilator settings, prone position, organ failure support, severity of the disease, tocilizumab, and inflammatory markers), methylprednisolone was independently associated with a higher number of VFDs (subhazards ratio: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02-0.45, p = 0.003). Hospital mortality did not differ between the two groups (31.2% vs. 28.9%, p = 0.82). Hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in the methylprednisolone group (24 days [IQR: 15-41 days] vs. 37 days [IQR: 23-52 days], p = 0.046). The incidence of positive blood cultures was higher in patients who received methylprednisolone (37.5% vs. 17.8%, p = 0.052). However, 81% of patients who received methylprednisolone also received tocilizumab. The number of days with hyperglycemia was similar in the two groups. Conclusions: Methylprednisolone was independently associated with increased VFDs and shortened hospital length of stay. The combination of methylprednisolone and tocilizumab was associated with a higher rate of positive blood cultures. Further trials are needed to evaluate the benefits and safety of methylprednisolone in moderate or severe COVID-19 ARDS.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Outcome prediction of critically ill patients is an integral part of care in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems provide an objective means of mortality prediction in ICU. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of APACHE II and IV scoring system in our ICU. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients admitted to the ICU between January and June 2014 and who met the inclusion criteria were evaluated. APACHE II and IV score were calculated during the first 24 h of ICU stay based on the worst values. All patients were followed up till discharge from the hospital or death. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19.0. Discrimination of the model for mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Of a total 1268, 1003 patients were included in this study. The mean (±standard deviation) admission APACHE II score was 19.4 ± 8.9, and APACHE IV score was 59.1 ± 27.2. The APACHE scores were significantly higher among nonsurvivors than survivors (P < 0.001). The overall crude hospital mortality rate was 17.6%. APACHE IV had better discriminative power area under the ROC curve ([AUC] -0.82) than APACHE II (AUC-0.75). Both APACHE II and APACHE IV had poor calibration. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE IV showed better discrimination compared to APACHE II in our ICU population. Both APACHE II and APACHE IV had poor calibration. However, APACHE II calibrated better compared to APACHE IV.
