Design and rationale of an interactive serious game to teach Basic Life Support among schoolchildren in Brazil.

UNSTRUCTURED: Cardiovascular diseases are leading causes of death and morbidity worldwide. CPR and early defibrillation significantly enhance survival rates. Serious Games (SG) improve learning through entertainment. Current strategies target Cardiopulmonary resuscitation for communities and schoolchildren, but none have been validated for children in low-to-middle-income settings. The SG Children Save Hearts, developed in Brazil, teaches the five resuscitation steps according to International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2020 guidelines and requires formal usability assessment. The study aimed to evaluate the usability of SG Children Save Hearts among IT and healthcare professionals using the System Usability Scale (SUS). The usability test was conducted in August 2022 in the university's IT department. The game was developed targeting schoolchildren aged 7 to 17. Categorical variables as absolute and relative frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as median with interquartile range (IQR). Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Comparisons between IT and healthcare professionals were made using the independent t-test for normal distributions or the Mann-Whitney U test for non-normal distributions. We included 17 volunteers with a mean age of 22 years (IQR 20-26). All participants played the game and completed a 10-question survey on its usability using a Likert-type scale. The final grade was converted to a 0 to 100 scale, with a grade above 70 considered acceptable for a minimum viable product. The mean SUS score was 75 (IQR 72.5-87.5). Healthcare professionals gave higher grades to all five domains compared to IT professionals. The average time spent playing the game was 3.2 minutes. Novel technologies have shown promising results for CPR teaching using active teaching methods, but face challenges in developing countries, such as language barriers, device acquisition, cultural differences, and technical support. To our knowledge, this is the first SG developed in portuguese for brazilian schoolchidren. Despite some usability issues, the SG Children Save Hearts is considered adequate for teaching CPR to schoolchildren in Brazil.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of thrombotic events and acute kidney injury is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate and compare the coagulation profiles of patients with COVID-19 developing acute kidney injury versus those who did not, during their intensive care unit stay. METHODS: Conventional coagulation and platelet function tests, fibrinolysis, endogenous inhibitors of coagulation tests, and rotational thromboelastometry were conducted on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 following intensive care unit admission. RESULTS: Out of 30 patients included, 13 (43.4%) met the criteria for acute kidney injury. Comparing both groups, patients with acute kidney injury were older: 73 (60-84) versus 54 (47-64) years, p=0.027, and had a lower baseline glomerular filtration rate: 70 (51-81) versus 93 (83-106) mL/min/1.73m2, p=0.004. On day 1, D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were elevated but similar between groups: 1780 (1319-5517) versus 1794 (726-2324) ng/mL, p=0.145 and 608 (550-700) versus 642 (469-722) g/dL, p=0.95, respectively. Rotational thromboelastometry data were also similar between groups. However, antithrombin activity and protein C levels were lower in patients who developed acute kidney injury: 82 (75-92) versus 98 (90-116), p=0.028 and 70 (52-82) versus 88 (78-101) µ/mL, p=0.038, respectively. Mean protein C levels were lower in the group with acute kidney injury across multiple time points during their stay in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients experiencing acute kidney injury exhibited lower endogenous anticoagulant levels. Further studies are needed to understand the role of natural anticoagulants in the pathophysiology of acute kidney injury within this population.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. CONCLUSION: In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients

ABSTRACT Objective The incidence of thrombotic events and acute kidney injury is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate and compare the coagulation profiles of patients with COVID-19 developing acute kidney injury versus those who did not, during their intensive care unit stay. Methods Conventional coagulation and platelet function tests, fibrinolysis, endogenous inhibitors of coagulation tests, and rotational thromboelastometry were conducted on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 following intensive care unit admission. Results Out of 30 patients included, 13 (43.4%) met the criteria for acute kidney injury. Comparing both groups, patients with acute kidney injury were older: 73 (60-84) versus 54 (47-64) years, p=0.027, and had a lower baseline glomerular filtration rate: 70 (51-81) versus 93 (83-106) mL/min/1.73m2, p=0.004. On day 1, D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were elevated but similar between groups: 1780 (1319-5517) versus 1794 (726-2324) ng/mL, p=0.145 and 608 (550-700) versus 642 (469-722) g/dL, p=0.95, respectively. Rotational thromboelastometry data were also similar between groups. However, antithrombin activity and protein C levels were lower in patients who developed acute kidney injury: 82 (75-92) versus 98 (90-116), p=0.028 and 70 (52-82) versus 88 (78-101) µ/mL, p=0.038, respectively. Mean protein C levels were lower in the group with acute kidney injury across multiple time points during their stay in the intensive care unit. Conclusion Critically ill patients experiencing acute kidney injury exhibited lower endogenous anticoagulant levels. Further studies are needed to understand the role of natural anticoagulants in the pathophysiology of acute kidney injury within this population.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT Objective To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. Conclusion In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Analysis of mobility level of COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation support: A single center, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients frequently require mechanical ventilation (MV) and undergo prolonged periods of bed rest with restriction of activities during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Our aim was to address the degree of mobilization in critically ill patients with COVID-19 undergoing to MV support. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study. We analyzed patients' mobility level, through the Perme ICU Mobility Score (Perme Score) of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. The Perme Mobility Index (PMI) was calculated [PMI = ΔPerme Score (ICU discharge-ICU admission)/ICU length of stay], and patients were categorized as "improved" (PMI > 0) or "not improved" (PMI ≤ 0). Comparisons were performed with stratification according to the use of MV support. RESULTS: From February 2020, to February 2021, 1,297 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU and assessed for eligibility. Out of those, 949 patients were included in the study [524 (55.2%) were classified as "improved" and 425 (44.8%) as "not improved"], and 396 (41.7%) received MV during ICU stay. The overall rate of patients out of bed and able to walk ≥ 30 meters at ICU discharge were, respectively, 526 (63.3%) and 170 (20.5%). After adjusting for confounders, independent predictors of improvement of mobility level were frailty (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.94; p = 0.03); SAPS III Score (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99; p = 0.04); SOFA Score (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.78; p < 0.001); use of MV after the first hour of ICU admission (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.99; p = 0.04); tracheostomy (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.95; p = 0.03); use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.05-0.8; p = 0.03); neuromuscular blockade (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.3-0.95; p = 0.03); a higher Perme Score at admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.28-0.43; p < 0.001); palliative care (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.16; p < 0.001); and a longer ICU stay (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; p = 0.04) were associated with a lower chance of mobility improvement, while non-invasive ventilation within the first hour of ICU admission and after the first hour of ICU admission (OR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.59-3.81; p < 0.001) and (OR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.56-3.26; p < 0.001), respectively; and vasopressor use (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.07-5.5; p = 0.03) were associated with a higher chance of mobility improvement. CONCLUSION: The use of MV reduced mobility status in less than half of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Ketamine use in critically ill patients: a narrative review. / Uso de cetamina em pacientes críticos: uma revisão narrativa.

Ketamine is unique among anesthetics and analgesics. The drug is a rapid-acting general anesthetic that produces an anesthetic state characterized by profound analgesia, preserved pharyngeal-laryngeal reflexes, normal or slightly enhanced skeletal muscle tone, cardiovascular and respiratory stimulation, and occasionally a transient and minimal respiratory depression. Research has demonstrated the efficacy of its use on anesthesia, pain, palliative care, and intensive care. Recently, it has been used for postoperative and chronic pain, as an adjunct in psychotherapy, as a treatment for depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, as a procedural sedative, and as a treatment for respiratory and/or neurologic clinical conditions. Despite being a safe and widely used drug, many physicians, such as intensivists and those practicing in emergency care, are not aware of the current clinical applications of ketamine. The objective of this narrative literature review is to present the theoretical and practical aspects of clinical applications of ketamine in intensive care unit and emergency department settings.

A cetamina é única entre os anestésicos e analgésicos. A droga é um anestésico geral de ação rápida que produz um estado anestésico caracterizado por analgesia profunda, reflexos faríngeolaríngeos preservados, tônus músculo esquelético normal ou ligeiramente aumentado, estimulação cardiovascular e respiratória e, ocasionalmente, insuficiência respiratória transitória e mínima. Estudos demonstraram a eficácia de seu uso em anestesia, na dor, em cuidados paliativos e em cuidados intensivos. Recentemente, tem sido empregada para dores pós-operatórias e crônicas, como coadjuvante em psicoterapia, como tratamento para depressão e transtorno de estresse pós-traumático, como sedativo para procedimentos cirúrgicos e como tratamento para condições clínicas respiratórias e/ou neurológicas. Apesar de ser um medicamento seguro e amplamente utilizado, muitos médicos, como intensivistas e emergencistas, não estão cientes das aplicações clínicas atuais da cetamina. O objetivo desta revisão bibliográfica narrativa é apresentar aspectos teóricos e práticos das aplicações clínicas da cetamina em ambientes de unidade de terapia intensiva e serviços de emergência.

A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. / Estudo nacional sobre recursos da saúde e práticas clínicas durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. METHODS: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. RESULTS: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar as práticas clínicas e a organização dos recursos hospitalares durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. METÓDOS: Foi realizado um estudo transversal multicêntrico. Um questionário on-line foi disponibilizado a médicos dos serviços de emergência e das unidades de terapia intensiva que atendiam pacientes com COVID-19. O questionário contemplava quatro aspectos: perfil dos participantes, práticas clínicas, protocolos de tratamento da COVID-19 e organização dos recursos hospitalares. RESULTADOS: Entre maio e junho de 2020, 284 participantes (56,3% homens), com idade mediana de 39 (intervalo interquartil de 33 - 47), responderam ao questionário; 33% eram intensivistas e 9% eram especialistas em medicina de emergência. Metade dos respondentes trabalhava em hospitais públicos. Verificou-se que a ventilação não invasiva (89% versus 73%; p = 0,001) e a cânula nasal de alto fluxo (49% versus 32%; p = 0,005) encontravam-se mais frequentemente disponíveis em hospitais privados do que nos públicos. A ventilação mecânica foi mais frequentemente utilizada em hospitais públicos do que em privados (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). Nos serviços de emergência, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi mais frequentemente ajustada de acordo com a saturação de oxigênio, enquanto nas unidades de terapia intensiva, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi ajustada de acordo com a melhor complacência pulmonar. Nos serviços de emergência, 25% dos respondentes não sabiam como ajustar a pressão positiva expiratória final. Comparativamente aos hospitais privados, os hospitais públicos tiveram menor disponibilidade de protocolos para Equipamentos de Proteção Individual durante a intubação traqueal (82% versus 94%; p = 0,005), o manejo da ventilação mecânica (64% versus 75%; p = 0,006) e o desmame dos pacientes da ventilação mecânica (34% versus 54%; p = 0,002). Finalmente, os pacientes passaram menos tempo no serviço de emergência antes de serem transferidos à unidade de terapia intensiva em hospitais privados do que em hospitais públicos (idade mediana de 2 (1 - 3) versus idade mediana de 5 (2 - 24) horas; p < 0,001). CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo revelou heterogeneidade considerável entre os médicos em termos de organização dos recursos hospitalares, práticas clínicas e tratamentos durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

Uso de cetamina em pacientes críticos: uma revisão narrativa / Ketamine use in critically ill patients: a narrative review

RESUMO A cetamina é única entre os anestésicos e analgésicos. A droga é um anestésico geral de ação rápida que produz um estado anestésico caracterizado por analgesia profunda, reflexos faríngeolaríngeos preservados, tônus músculo esquelético normal ou ligeiramente aumentado, estimulação cardiovascular e respiratória e, ocasionalmente, insuficiência respiratória transitória e mínima. Estudos demonstraram a eficácia de seu uso em anestesia, na dor, em cuidados paliativos e em cuidados intensivos. Recentemente, tem sido empregada para dores pós-operatórias e crônicas, como coadjuvante em psicoterapia, como tratamento para depressão e transtorno de estresse pós-traumático, como sedativo para procedimentos cirúrgicos e como tratamento para condições clínicas respiratórias e/ou neurológicas. Apesar de ser um medicamento seguro e amplamente utilizado, muitos médicos, como intensivistas e emergencistas, não estão cientes das aplicações clínicas atuais da cetamina. O objetivo desta revisão bibliográfica narrativa é apresentar aspectos teóricos e práticos das aplicações clínicas da cetamina em ambientes de unidade de terapia intensiva e serviços de emergência.

ABSTRACT Ketamine is unique among anesthetics and analgesics. The drug is a rapid-acting general anesthetic that produces an anesthetic state characterized by profound analgesia, preserved pharyngeal-laryngeal reflexes, normal or slightly enhanced skeletal muscle tone, cardiovascular and respiratory stimulation, and occasionally a transient and minimal respiratory depression. Research has demonstrated the efficacy of its use on anesthesia, pain, palliative care, and intensive care. Recently, it has been used for postoperative and chronic pain, as an adjunct in psychotherapy, as a treatment for depression and posttraumatic stress disorder, as a procedural sedative, and as a treatment for respiratory and/or neurologic clinical conditions. Despite being a safe and widely used drug, many physicians, such as intensivists and those practicing in emergency care, are not aware of the current clinical applications of ketamine. The objective of this narrative literature review is to present the theoretical and practical aspects of clinical applications of ketamine in intensive care unit and emergency department settings.

Estudo nacional sobre recursos da saúde e práticas clínicas durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil / A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar as práticas clínicas e a organização dos recursos hospitalares durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. Metódos: Foi realizado um estudo transversal multicêntrico. Um questionário on-line foi disponibilizado a médicos dos serviços de emergência e das unidades de terapia intensiva que atendiam pacientes com COVID-19. O questionário contemplava quatro aspectos: perfil dos participantes, práticas clínicas, protocolos de tratamento da COVID-19 e organização dos recursos hospitalares. Resultados: Entre maio e junho de 2020, 284 participantes (56,3% homens), com idade mediana de 39 (intervalo interquartil de 33 - 47), responderam ao questionário; 33% eram intensivistas e 9% eram especialistas em medicina de emergência. Metade dos respondentes trabalhava em hospitais públicos. Verificou-se que a ventilação não invasiva (89% versus 73%; p = 0,001) e a cânula nasal de alto fluxo (49% versus 32%; p = 0,005) encontravam-se mais frequentemente disponíveis em hospitais privados do que nos públicos. A ventilação mecânica foi mais frequentemente utilizada em hospitais públicos do que em privados (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). Nos serviços de emergência, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi mais frequentemente ajustada de acordo com a saturação de oxigênio, enquanto nas unidades de terapia intensiva, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi ajustada de acordo com a melhor complacência pulmonar. Nos serviços de emergência, 25% dos respondentes não sabiam como ajustar a pressão positiva expiratória final. Comparativamente aos hospitais privados, os hospitais públicos tiveram menor disponibilidade de protocolos para Equipamentos de Proteção Individual durante a intubação traqueal (82% versus 94%; p = 0,005), o manejo da ventilação mecânica (64% versus 75%; p = 0,006) e o desmame dos pacientes da ventilação mecânica (34% versus 54%; p = 0,002). Finalmente, os pacientes passaram menos tempo no serviço de emergência antes de serem transferidos à unidade de terapia intensiva em hospitais privados do que em hospitais públicos (idade mediana de 2 (1 - 3) versus idade mediana de 5 (2 - 24) horas; p < 0,001). Conclusão: Este estudo revelou heterogeneidade considerável entre os médicos em termos de organização dos recursos hospitalares, práticas clínicas e tratamentos durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Methods: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. Results: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. Conclusion: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

Cancer-Related Characteristics Associated With Invasive Mechanical Ventilation or In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 Admitted to ICU: A Cohort Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Coexistence of cancer and COVID-19 is associated with worse outcomes. However, the studies on cancer-related characteristics associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes have shown controversial results. The objective of the study was to evaluate cancer-related characteristics associated with invasive mechanical ventilation use or in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We designed a cohort multicenter study including adults with active cancer admitted to ICU due to COVID-19. Seven cancer-related characteristics (cancer status, type of cancer, metastasis occurrence, recent chemotherapy, recent immunotherapy, lung tumor, and performance status) were introduced in a multilevel logistic regression model as first-level variables and hospital was introduced as second-level variable (random effect). Confounders were identified using directed acyclic graphs. RESULTS: We included 274 patients. Required to undergo invasive mechanical ventilation were 176 patients (64.2%) and none of the cancer-related characteristics were associated with mechanical ventilation use. Approximately 155 patients died in hospital (56.6%) and poor performance status, measured with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, with odds ratio = 3.54 (1.60-7.88, 95% CI) for ECOG =2 and odds ratio = 3.40 (1.60-7.22, 95% CI) for ECOG = 3 to 4. Cancer status, cancer type, metastatic tumor, lung cancer, and recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy were not associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active cancer and COVID-19 admitted to ICU, poor performance status was associated with in-hospital mortality but not with mechanical ventilation use. Cancer status, cancer type, metastatic tumor, lung cancer, and recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy were not associated with invasive mechanical ventilation use or in-hospital mortality.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

Do ventilatory parameters influence outcome in patients with severe acute respiratory infection? Secondary analysis of an international, multicentre14-day inception cohort study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the possible association between ventilatory settings on the first day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this pre-planned sub-study of a prospective, multicentre observational study, 441 patients with SARI who received controlled IMV during the ICU stay were included in the analysis. RESULTS: ICU and hospital mortality rates were 23.1 and 28.1%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, tidal volume and respiratory rate on the first day of IMV were not associated with an increased risk of death; however, higher driving pressure (DP: odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.1, p = 0.011), plateau pressure (Pplat) (OR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04-1.13, p < 0.001) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.24, p = 0.006) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. In subgroup analysis, in hypoxemic patients and in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), higher DP, Pplat, and PEEP were associated with increased risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SARI receiving IMV, higher DP, Pplat and PEEP, and not tidal volume, were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death, especially in those with hypoxemia or ARDS.

Effect of spontaneous breathing on ventilator-free days in critically ill patients-an analysis of patients in a large observational cohort.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation can injure lung tissue and respiratory muscles. The aim of the present study is to assess the effect of the amount of spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation on patient outcomes. METHODS: This is an analysis of the database of the 'Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)'-III, considering intensive care units (ICUs) of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), Boston, MA. Adult patients who received invasive ventilation for at least 48 hours were included. Patients were categorized according to the amount of spontaneous breathing, i.e., ≥50% ('high spontaneous breathing') and <50% ('low spontaneous breathing') of time during first 48 hours of ventilation. The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days. RESULTS: In total, the analysis included 3,380 patients; 70.2% were classified as 'high spontaneous breathing', and 29.8% as 'low spontaneous breathing'. Patients in the 'high spontaneous breathing' group were older, had more comorbidities, and lower severity scores. In adjusted analysis, the amount of spontaneous breathing was not associated with the number of ventilator-free days [20.0 (0.0-24.2) vs. 19.0 (0.0-23.7) in high vs. low; absolute difference, 0.54 (95% CI, -0.10 to 1.19); P=0.101]. However, 'high spontaneous breathing' was associated with shorter duration of ventilation in survivors [6.5 (3.6 to 12.2) vs. 7.6 (4.1 to 13.9); absolute difference, -0.91 (95% CI, -1.80 to -0.02); P=0.046]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients surviving and receiving ventilation for at least 48 hours, the amount of spontaneous breathing during this period was not associated with an increased number of ventilator-free days.

Impact of intensive care unit admission during handover on mortality: propensity matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of intensive care unit admission during medical handover on mortality. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of data extracted from a prior study aimed at addressing the impacts of intensive care unit readmission on clinical outcomes. This retrospective, single-center, propensity-matched cohort study was conducted in a 41-bed general open-model intensive care unit. Patients were assigned to one of two cohorts according to time of intensive care unit admission: Handover Group (intensive care unit admission between 6:30 am and 7:30 am or 6:30 pm and 7:30 pm) or Control Group (intensive care unit admission between 7:31 am and 6:29 pm or 7:31 pm and 6:29 am). Patients in the Handover Group were propensity-matched to patients in the Control Group at a 1:2 ratio. RESULTS: A total of 6,650 adult patients were admitted to the intensive care unit between June 1st 2013 and May 31st 2015. Following exclusion of non-eligible participants, 5,779 patients (389; 6.7% and 5,390; 93.3%, Handover and Control Group) were deemed eligible for propensity score matching. Of these, 1,166 were successfully matched (389; 33.4% and 777; 66.6%, Handover and Control Group). Following propensity-score matching, intensive care unit admission during handover was not associated with increased risk of intensive care unit (OR: 1.40; 95%CI: 0.92-2.11; p=0.113) or in-hospital (OR: 1.23; 95%CI: 0.85-1.75; p=0.265) mortality. CONCLUSION: Intensive care unit admission during medical handover did not affect in-hospital mortality in this propensity-matched, single-center cohort study.

Temporal changes in the epidemiology, management, and outcome from acute respiratory distress syndrome in European intensive care units: a comparison of two large cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates for patients with ARDS remain high. We assessed temporal changes in the epidemiology and management of ARDS patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in European ICUs. We also investigated the association between ventilatory settings and outcome in these patients. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of two cohorts of adult ICU patients admitted between May 1-15, 2002 (SOAP study, n = 3147), and May 8-18, 2012 (ICON audit, n = 4601 admitted to ICUs in the same 24 countries as the SOAP study). ARDS was defined retrospectively using the Berlin definitions. Values of tidal volume, PEEP, plateau pressure, and FiO2 corresponding to the most abnormal value of arterial PO2 were recorded prospectively every 24 h. In both studies, patients were followed for outcome until death, hospital discharge or for 60 days. RESULTS: The frequency of ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation during the ICU stay was similar in SOAP and ICON (327[10.4%] vs. 494[10.7%], p = 0.793). The diagnosis of ARDS was established at a median of 3 (IQ: 1-7) days after admission in SOAP and 2 (1-6) days in ICON. Within 24 h of diagnosis, ARDS was mild in 244 (29.7%), moderate in 388 (47.3%), and severe in 189 (23.0%) patients. In patients with ARDS, tidal volumes were lower in the later (ICON) than in the earlier (SOAP) cohort. Plateau and driving pressures were also lower in ICON than in SOAP. ICU (134[41.1%] vs 179[36.9%]) and hospital (151[46.2%] vs 212[44.4%]) mortality rates in patients with ARDS were similar in SOAP and ICON. High plateau pressure (> 29 cmH2O) and driving pressure (> 14 cmH2O) on the first day of mechanical ventilation but not tidal volume (> 8 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) were independently associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSION: The frequency of and outcome from ARDS remained relatively stable between 2002 and 2012. Plateau pressure > 29 cmH2O and driving pressure > 14 cmH2O on the first day of mechanical ventilation but not tidal volume > 8 ml/kg PBW were independently associated with a higher risk of death. These data highlight the continued burden of ARDS and provide hypothesis-generating data for the design of future studies.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study / Características clínicas e desfechos de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos em unidade de terapia intensiva durante o primeiro ano de pandemia no Brasil: um estudo de coorte retrospectivo em centro único

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. Results: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Conclusion: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever características clínicas, uso de recursos e desfechos e identificar preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Estudo de coorte retrospectivo, em centro único, realizado em um hospital privado localizado em São Paulo (SP). Pacientes adultos (≥18 anos) admitidos consecutivamente na unidade de terapia intensiva, entre 4 de março de 2020 a 28 de fevereiro de 2021, foram incluídos neste estudo. Os pacientes foram classificados como sobreviventes e não sobreviventes, de acordo com a alta hospitalar. Resultados: Durante o período do estudo, 1.296 pacientes [mediana (intervalo interquartil) de idade: 66 (53-77) anos] com COVID-19 foram admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Destes, 170 (13,6%) pacientes morreram no hospital (não sobreviventes), e 1.078 (86,4%) receberam alta hospitalar (sobreviventes). Comparados aos sobreviventes, os não sobreviventes eram mais idosos [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) anos; p<0,001], apresentavam pontuação mais alta no sistema prognóstico Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53); pontos p<0,001] e tinham mais comorbidades. Durante a internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, 56,6% dos pacientes usaram ventilação não invasiva, 32,9% usaram ventilação mecânica invasiva, 31,3% usaram cateter nasal de alto fluxo, 11,7% foram submetidos à terapia renal substitutiva, e 1,5% usou oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Os preditores independentes de mortalidade intra-hospitalar foram idade, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson, necessidade de ventilação mecânica, uso de cateter nasal de alto fluxo, uso de terapia renal substitutiva e suporte por oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Conclusão: Pacientes com quadros graves da COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva apresentaram considerável mortalidade e morbidade, com alta demanda de terapia de suporte e internação prolongada em unidade de terapia intensiva e hospitalar.

Impact of intensive care unit admission during handover on mortality: propensity matched cohort study / Impacto na mortalidade da admissão de pacientes em unidade de terapia intensiva durante a passagem de plantão: estudo de coorte utilizando escore de propensão

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the impact of intensive care unit admission during medical handover on mortality. Methods: Post-hoc analysis of data extracted from a prior study aimed at addressing the impacts of intensive care unit readmission on clinical outcomes. This retrospective, single-center, propensity-matched cohort study was conducted in a 41-bed general open-model intensive care unit. Patients were assigned to one of two cohorts according to time of intensive care unit admission: Handover Group (intensive care unit admission between 6:30 am and 7:30 am or 6:30 pm and 7:30 pm) or Control Group (intensive care unit admission between 7:31 am and 6:29 pm or 7:31 pm and 6:29 am). Patients in the Handover Group were propensity-matched to patients in the Control Group at a 1:2 ratio. Results: A total of 6,650 adult patients were admitted to the intensive care unit between June 1st 2013 and May 31st 2015. Following exclusion of non-eligible participants, 5,779 patients (389; 6.7% and 5,390; 93.3%, Handover and Control Group) were deemed eligible for propensity score matching. Of these, 1,166 were successfully matched (389; 33.4% and 777; 66.6%, Handover and Control Group). Following propensity-score matching, intensive care unit admission during handover was not associated with increased risk of intensive care unit (OR: 1.40; 95%CI: 0.92-2.11; p=0.113) or in-hospital (OR: 1.23; 95%CI: 0.85-1.75; p=0.265) mortality. Conclusion: Intensive care unit admission during medical handover did not affect in-hospital mortality in this propensity-matched, single-center cohort study.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar o impacto na mortalidade da admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva durante passagem de plantão médico. Métodos: Análise post-hoc de estudo original publicado previamente, com o objetivo de avaliar os impactos da readmissão em unidade de terapia intensiva nos desfechos clínicos. Este estudo de coorte retrospectivo, em centro único, com pareamento por escore de propensão, foi conduzido em uma unidade de terapia intensiva geral, aberta, com 41 leitos. Com base no tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, os pacientes foram categorizados em duas coortes: Grupo Passagem de Plantão (admissão entre 6h30 e 7h30 ou 18h30 e 19h30) ou Grupo Controle (internação entre 7h31 e 18h29 ou 19h31 e 6h29). Pacientes no Grupo Passagem de Plantão foram pareados com Grupo Controle na proporção de 1:2. Resultados: Entre 1° de junho de 2013 e 31 de maio de 2015, 6.650 pacientes adultos foram admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Após a exclusão de participantes inelegíveis, 5.779 pacientes (389; 6,7% no Grupo de Admissão na Passagem de Plantão e 5.390; 93,3% no Grupo de Controle) foram elegíveis para pareamento por escore de propensão, dos quais 1.166 foram pareados com sucesso (389; 33,4% no Grupo Passagem de Plantão e 777; 66,6% no Grupo Controle). Após pareamento, admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva durante a passagem plantão não foi associada ao aumento da chance de óbito na unidade de terapia intensiva (RC: 1,40; IC95%: 0,92-2,11; p=0,113) ou no hospital (RC: 1,23; IC95%: 0,85-1,75; p=0,265). Conclusão: Internação em unidade de terapia intensiva durante passagem de plantão médico não impactou na mortalidade hospitalar.

Coagulation profile of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Coagulation abnormalities in COVID-19 patients have not been addressed in depth. OBJECTIVE: To perform a longitudinal evaluation of coagulation profile of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. METHODS: Conventional coagulation tests, rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), platelet function, fibrinolysis, antithrombin, protein C and S were measured at days 0, 1, 3, 7 and 14. Based on median total maximum SOFA score, patients were divided in two groups: SOFA ≤ 10 and SOFA > 10. RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied. Some conventional coagulation tests, as aPTT, PT and INR remained unchanged during the study period, while alterations on others coagulation laboratory tests were detected. Fibrinogen levels were increased in both groups. ROTEM maximum clot firmness increased in both groups from Day 0 to Day 14. Moreover, ROTEM-FIBTEM maximum clot firmness was high in both groups, with a slight decrease from day 0 to day 14 in group SOFA ≤ 10 and a slight increase during the same period in group SOFA > 10. Fibrinolysis was low and decreased over time in all groups, with the most pronounced decrease observed in INTEM maximum lysis in group SOFA > 10. Also, D-dimer plasma levels were higher than normal reference range in both groups and free protein S plasma levels were low in both groups at baseline and increased over time, Finally, patients in group SOFA > 10 had lower plasminogen levels and Protein C ​​than patients with SOFA <10, which may represent less fibrinolysis activity during a state of hypercoagulability. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients have a pronounced hypercoagulability state, characterized by impaired endogenous anticoagulation and decreased fibrinolysis. The magnitude of coagulation abnormalities seems to correlate with the severity of organ dysfunction. The hypercoagulability state of COVID-19 patients was not only detected by ROTEM but it much more complex, where changes were observed on the fibrinolytic and endogenous anticoagulation system.

Organizational factors associated with adherence to low tidal volume ventilation: a secondary analysis of the CHECKLIST-ICU database.

BACKGROUND: Survival benefit from low tidal volume (VT) ventilation (LTVV) has been demonstrated for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and patients not having ARDS could also benefit from this strategy. Organizational factors may play a role on adherence to LTVV. The present study aimed to identify organizational factors with an independent association with adherence to LTVV. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the database of a multicenter two-phase study (prospective cohort followed by a cluster-randomized trial) performed in 118 Brazilian intensive care units. Patients under mechanical ventilation at day 2 were included. LTVV was defined as a VT ≤ 8 ml/kg PBW on the second day of ventilation. Data on the type and number of beds of the hospital, teaching status, nursing, respiratory therapists and physician staffing, use of structured checklist, and presence of protocols were tested. A multivariable mixed-effect model was used to assess the association between organizational factors and adherence to LTVV. RESULTS: The study included 5719 patients; 3340 (58%) patients received LTVV. A greater number of hospital beds (absolute difference 7.43% [95% confidence interval 0.61-14.24%]; p = 0.038), use of structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds (5.10% [0.55-9.81%]; p = 0.030), and presence of at least one nurse per 10 patients during all shifts (17.24% [0.85-33.60%]; p = 0.045) were the only three factors that had an independent association with adherence to LTVV. CONCLUSIONS: Number of hospital beds, use of a structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds, and nurse staffing are organizational factors associated with adherence to LTVV. These findings shed light on organizational factors that may improve ventilation in critically ill patients.