Tight Blood-Glucose Control without Early Parenteral Nutrition in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Randomized, controlled trials have shown both benefit and harm from tight blood-glucose control in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Variation in the use of early parenteral nutrition and in insulin-induced severe hypoglycemia might explain this inconsistency. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients, on ICU admission, to liberal glucose control (insulin initiated only when the blood-glucose level was >215 mg per deciliter [>11.9 mmol per liter]) or to tight glucose control (blood-glucose level targeted with the use of the LOGIC-Insulin algorithm at 80 to 110 mg per deciliter [4.4 to 6.1 mmol per liter]); parenteral nutrition was withheld in both groups for 1 week. Protocol adherence was determined according to glucose metrics. The primary outcome was the length of time that ICU care was needed, calculated on the basis of time to discharge alive from the ICU, with death accounted for as a competing risk; 90-day mortality was the safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 9230 patients who underwent randomization, 4622 were assigned to liberal glucose control and 4608 to tight glucose control. The median morning blood-glucose level was 140 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 122 to 161) with liberal glucose control and 107 mg per deciliter (interquartile range, 98 to 117) with tight glucose control. Severe hypoglycemia occurred in 31 patients (0.7%) in the liberal-control group and 47 patients (1.0%) in the tight-control group. The length of time that ICU care was needed was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio for earlier discharge alive with tight glucose control, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.04; P = 0.94). Mortality at 90 days was also similar (10.1% with liberal glucose control and 10.5% with tight glucose control, P = 0.51). Analyses of eight prespecified secondary outcomes suggested that the incidence of new infections, the duration of respiratory and hemodynamic support, the time to discharge alive from the hospital, and mortality in the ICU and hospital were similar in the two groups, whereas severe acute kidney injury and cholestatic liver dysfunction appeared less prevalent with tight glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients who were not receiving early parenteral nutrition, tight glucose control did not affect the length of time that ICU care was needed or mortality. (Funded by the Research Foundation-Flanders and others; TGC-Fast ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03665207.).

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Support COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Background: In patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment can facilitate lung-protective ventilation and may improve outcome and survival if conventional therapy fails to assure adequate oxygenation and ventilation. We aimed to perform a confirmatory propensity-matched cohort study comparing the impact of ECMO and maximum invasive mechanical ventilation alone (MVA) on mortality and complications in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods: All 295 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from March 13th, 2020, to July 31st, 2021 were included. At admission, all patients were classified into 3 categories: (1) full code including the initiation of ECMO therapy (AAA code), (2) full code excluding ECMO (AA code), and (3) do-not-intubate (A code). For the 271 non-ECMO patients, match eligibility was determined for all patients with the AAA code treated with MVA. Propensity score matching was performed using a logistic regression model including the following variables: gender, P/F ratio, SOFA score at admission, and date of ICU admission. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Results: A total of 24 ECMO patients were propensity matched to an equal number of MVA patients. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the ECMO arm (45.8%) compared with the MVA cohort (16.67%) (OR 4.23 (1.11, 16.17); p=0.02). Three-month mortality was 50% with ECMO compared to 16.67% after MVA (OR 5.91 (1.55, 22.58); p < 0.01). Applied peak inspiratory pressures (33.42 ± 8.52 vs. 24.74 ± 4.86 mmHg; p < 0.01) and maximal PEEP levels (14.47 ± 3.22 vs. 13.52 ± 3.86 mmHg; p=0.01) were higher with MVA. ICU length of stay (LOS) and hospital LOS were comparable in both groups. Conclusion: ECMO therapy may be associated with an up to a three-fold increase in ICU mortality and 3-month mortality compared to MVA despite the facilitation of lung-protective ventilation settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We cannot confirm the positive results of the first propensity-matched cohort study on this topic. This trial is registered with NCT05158816.

Predictors of poor outcome in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to identify risk factors associated with ICU mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated with Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We also aimed to assess protocol violations of the local eligibility criteria of ECMO initiation. METHODS: All 31 consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU and treated with ECMO from March 13th 2020 to 8 December 2021 were enrolled. Eligibility criteria for ECMO initiation were: P/F-ratio<50 mmHg >3 hours, P/F-ratio<80 mmHg >6 hours or pH<7.25 + PaCO2>60 mmHg >6 hours, despite maximal protective invasive ventilation. Primary outcome was ICU mortality. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ICU mortality. RESULTS: 12 out of 31 patients (38.7%) did not survive ECMO treatment in ICU. Half of the non-survivors suffered from acute kidney failure compared to 3 out of 19 survivors (15.79%) (p = .04). Half of the non-survivors required CRRT treatment versus 1 patient in the survivor group (5.3%) (p < .01). Higher age (2.45 (0.97-6.18), p = .05), the development of AKI (5.33 (1.00-28.43), p = .05), need of CRRT during ICU stay (18.00 (1.79-181.31), p = .01) and major bleeding during ECMO therapy (0.51 (0.19-0.89), p < .01) were identified to be predictors of ICU mortality. CONCLUSION: Almost 60% of patients could be treated successfully with ECMO with sustained results at 3 months. Predictors for ICU mortality were development of AKI and need of CRRT during ICU stay, higher age category and major bleeding. Inadvertent ECMO allocation was noted in almost one in five patients.

Secondary infection in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a retrospective single-center evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) can develop severe illness necessitating intensive care admission. Critically ill patients are susceptible for the development of secondary bacterial infections. Due to a combination of virus- and drug-induced immunosuppression, critically ill patients with corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may even have a higher risk of developing a secondary infection. These secondary infections can aggravate the severity of illness and increase the risk of death. Further research on secondary infections in COVID-19 patients is essential. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the incidence and associated risk factors of secondary bacterial infections and to identify the most common groups of pathogens in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This mono-center, retrospective observational cohort study was performed at the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. All adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU from 13th March 2020 until 17th October 2020, were eligible for inclusion in the study. Data from the resulting 116 patients were prospectively entered into a customized database. The resulting database was retrospectively reviewed to investigate three types of secondary bacterial infections (secondary pneumonia, bloodstream infections of unknown origin, catheter-related sepsis). RESULTS: Of 94 included patients, 68% acquired at least one of the studied secondary bacterial infections during their ICU stay. Almost two thirds of patients (65.96%, n = 62) acquired a secondary pneumonia, whereas 29.79% (n = 28) acquired a bacteremia of unknown origin and a smaller proportion of patients (14.89%, n = 14) acquired a catheter-related sepsis. Male gender (P = 0.05), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.03) and the cumulative dose of corticosteroids (P = 0.004) were associated with increased risk of secondary bacterial infection. The most common pathogens detected in the cultures of patients with secondary pneumonia were Gram-negative bacilli. Bacteremia of unknown origin and catheter-related sepsis were mostly caused by Gram-positive cocci. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the incidence of secondary bacterial infections is very high in critically ill COVID-19 patients. These patients are at highest risk of developing secondary pneumonia. Male gender, a history of diabetes mellitus and the administration of corticosteroids were associated with increased risk of secondary bacterial infection.

Predictive value of serial evaluation of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for intensive care unit mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score has been developed to score the severity of organ dysfunction in critically ill sepsis patients and has been proven to have a high predictive value for intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in severely ill patients. Our goal was to evaluate the prognostic value of the SOFA score as well as trends in SOFA score for ICU mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: All consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the ICU between March 13th, 2020, and October 17th, 2020 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The worst SOFA score was evaluated daily. Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate the predictive value of SOFA in ICU mortality. RESULTS: 103 patients were included in this study. 30 patients (29%) died during their ICU stay and 73 (71%) patients were discharged alive. The ICU admission SOFA score was 5.2 ± 3.3 in ICU non-survivors vs. 4.3 ± 2.9 in ICU survivors (P = 0.15). The maximum SOFA score in ICU non-survivors was 11.7 ± 4.7 vs. 7.4 ± 4.3 in ICU survivors. SOFA scores increased the first week in both survivors and non-survivors, but the increase was less pronounced in survivors. In the multiple logistic regression models, neither admission SOFA score nor combination with delta SOFA in the first 48 hours was statistically significantly related to ICU mortality. Only the maximum SOFA score remained significant (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.11-1.37, P < 0.001) in the multiple logistic models with an AUC of 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of SOFA scores in the first 48 hours after ICU admission is not a good prognostic indicator in COVID-19 patients. Only the maximum SOFA score was predictive for ICU mortality.

Validation of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and IV Score in COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Severity scoring systems are inherent to ICU practice for multiple purposes. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring systems are designed for ICU mortality prediction. This study aims to validate APACHE IV in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: All COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 13, 2020, and October 17, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. APACHE II and APACHE IV scores as well as SOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours after admission. Discrimination for mortality of all three scoring systems was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves. Youden index was determined for the scoring system with the best discriminative performance. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was used to assess calibration. All analyses were performed for both the overall population as in a subgroup treated with anti-Xa adjusted dosages of LMWHs. RESULTS: 116 patients were admitted to our ICU during the study period. 13 were excluded for various reasons, leaving 103 patients in the statistical analysis of the overall population. 57 patients were treated with anti-Xa adjusted prophylactic dosages of LMWH and were supplementary analyzed in a subgroup analysis. APACHE IV had the best discriminative power of the three scoring systems, both in the overall population (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.67 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.63) as in the subgroup (APACHE IV ROC AUC 0.82 vs. APACHE II ROC AUC 0.7). This model exhibits good calibration. Hosmer-Lemeshow p values for APACHE IV were 0.9234 for the overall population and 0.8017 for the subgroup. Calibration p values of the APACHE II score were 0.1394 and 0.6475 for the overall versus subgroup, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: APACHE IV provided the best discrimination and calibration of the considered scoring systems in critically ill COVID-19 patients, both in the overall group and in the subgroup with anti-Xa adjusted LMWH doses. Only in the subgroup analysis, discriminative abilities of APACHE IV were very good. This trial is registered with NCT04713852.

Evaluation of a comprehensive pre-procedural screening protocol for COVID-19 in times of a high SARS CoV-2 prevalence: a prospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission, an ambulant screening protocol for COVID-19 in patients before admission to the hospital was implemented, combining the SARS CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on a nasopharyngeal swab, a chest computed tomography (CT) and assessment of clinical symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluatethe diagnostic yield and the proportionality of this pre-procedural screeningprotocol. METHODS: In this mono-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all patients admitted to the hospital between 22nd April 2020 until 14th May 2020 for semi-urgent surgery, haematological or oncological treatment, or electrophysiological investigationunderwent a COVID-19 screening 2 days before their procedure. At a 2-week follow-up, the presence of clinical symptoms was evaluated by telephone as a post-hoc evaluation of the screening approach.Combined positive RT-PCR assay and/or positive chest CT was used as gold standard. Post-procedural outcomes of all patients diagnosed positive for COVID-19 were assessed. RESULTS: In total,528 patients were included of which 20 (3.8%) were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive and 508 (96.2%) as COVID-19 negative. 11 (55.0%) of COVID-19 positive patients had only a positive RT-PCR assay, 3 (15.0%) had only a positive chest CT and 6 (30%) had both a positive RT-PCR assay and chest CT. 10 out of 20 (50.0%) COVID-19 positive patients reported no single clinical symptom at the screening. At 2 week follow-up, 50% of these patients were still asymptomatic. 37.5% of all COVID-19 negative patients were symptomatic at screening. In the COVID-19 negative group without symptoms at screening, 78 (29.3%) patients developed clinical symptoms at a 2-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that routine chest CT and assessment of self-reported symptoms have limited value in the preprocedural COVID-19 screening due to low sensitivity and/or specificity.

Impact of implementation of an individualised thromboprophylaxis protocol in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: A longitudinal controlled before-after study.

INTRODUCTION: An individualised thromboprophylaxis was implemented in critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on clinical outcome. METHODS: In this mono-centric, controlled, before-after study, all consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU from March 13th to April 20th 2020 were included. A thromboprophylaxis protocol, including augmented LMWH dosing, individually tailored with anti-Xa measurements and twice-weekly ultrasonography screening for DVT, was implemented on March 31th 2020. Primary endpoint is one-month mortality. Secondary outcomes include two-week and three-week mortality, the incidence of VTE, acute kidney injury and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Multiple regression modelling was used to correct for differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 46 patients were included in the before group, 26 patients in the after group. One month mortality decreased from 39.13% to 3.85% (p < 0.001). After correction for confounding variables, one-month mortality was significantly higher in the before group (p = 0.02, OR 8.86 (1.46, 53.75)). The cumulative incidence of VTE and CRRT was respectively 41% and 30.4% in the before group and dropped to 15% (p = 0.03) and 3.8% (p = 0.01), respectively. After correction for confounding variables, risk of VTE (p = 0.03, 6.01 (1.13, 32.12)) and CRRT (p = 0.02, OR 19.21 (1.44, 255.86)) remained significantly higher in the before group. CONCLUSION: Mortality, cumulative risk of VTE and need for CRRT may be significantly reduced in COVID-19 patients by implementation of a more aggressive thromboprophylaxis protocol. Future research should focus on confirmation of these results in a randomized design and on uncovering the mechanisms underlying these observations. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04394000.