Central venous pressure and dynamic indices to assess fluid appropriateness in critically ill patients: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The correct identification of the appropriateness of fluid administration is important for the treatment of critically ill patients. Static and dynamic indices used to identify fluid responsiveness have been developed throughout the years, nonetheless fluid responsiveness does not indicate that fluid administration is appropriate, and indexes to evaluate appropriateness of fluid administration are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate if central venous pressure (CVP) anddynamic indices could correctly identify fluid appropriateness for critically ill patients. METHODS: Data from 31 ICU patients, for a total of 53 observations, was included in the analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the appropriateness of fluid administration. Fluid appropriateness was defined in presence of a low cardiac index (< 2.5 l/min/m2) without any sign of fluid overload, as assessed by global end-diastolic volume index, extravascular lung water index or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. RESULTS: For 10 patients, fluid administration was deemed appropriate, while for 21 patients it was deemed inappropriate. Central venous pressure was not different between the two cohorts (mean CVP 11 (4) mmHg in the fluid inappropriate group, 12 (4) mmHg in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.58). The same is true for pulse pressure variation (median PPV 5 [2, 9] % in the fluid inappropriate group, 4 [3, 13] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.57), for inferior vena cava distensibility (mean inferior vena cava distensibility 24 (14) % in the fluid inappropriate group, 22 (16) % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.75) and for changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test (median d.ETCO2 1.5 [0.0, 2.0]% in the fluid inappropriate group, 1.0 [0.0, 2.0] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.98). There was no association between static and dynamic indices and fluid appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: Central venous pressure, pulse pressure variation, changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test, inferior vena cava distensibility were not associated with fluid appropriateness in our cohorts.

Impact of Azithromycin and/or Hydroxychloroquine on Hospital Mortality in COVID-19.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin despite the lack of conclusive evidence for their safety and efficacy. We evaluated the association between treatment with hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin and hospital mortality as the primary outcome. We compared the hospital mortality of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, or their combination to the mortality of patients who received neither drug. A logistic multivariate model with overlap weight propensity score was used for estimation of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). One thousand four hundred and three patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted to the hospital. At the time of the analysis, the outcome was available for 1376 (98%) of them. Five hundred and eighty-seven patients (42%) received azithromycin and 377 patients (27%) received hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination. In-hospital mortality was 26%. After the adjusted analysis, azithromycin alone was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85) compared to no treatment. Hydroxychloroquine alone (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.08) and the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.77-1.69) were not associated with hospital mortality. In this cohort of patients, azithromycin alone was associated with lower hospital mortality but hydroxychloroquine was not associated with increased or reduced mortality. While we await randomized clinical trials, these data support the use of azithromycin in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and can contribute to better understanding of its role in further meta-analyses.