The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH 2 O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH 2 O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH 2 O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH 2 O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.
Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.
CUELLAR, GUILLERMINA ELISA MARTÍNEZ, ALBERTO MARTÍNEZ RUIZ, MARIA CRISTINA REVILLA MONSALVE, AND ARTURO BERBER. Six-month treatment of obesity with sibutramine 15 mg; a double-blind, placebo-controlled monocenter clinical trial in a hispanic population. Obes Res. 2000:8:71-82. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sibutramine 15 mg by mouth once per day in obese patients over a period of 6 months. Research Methods and Procedures: A monocenter, double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel, prospective clinical trial was carried out. Sixty-nine male and female obese patients (body mass index [BMI] Ͼ 30 kg/m 2 ) aged 16 to 65 years entered the trial. Results: 22 of 35 patients in the sibutramine group and 9 of 34 patients in the placebo group completed the trial. The high dropout rate in the sibutramine group was due to adverse events in 3 cases, lack of efficacy (as judged by patients) in 7, loss to follow-up in 2, and an orthopedic device being worn in 1; in the placebo group the dropouts were ascribed to lack of efficacy (as judged by patients) in 17 cases and to loss to follow-up in 8 cases. Using the method of last observation carried forward, the weight loss in the sibutramine group was 10.27 kg (95% confidence intervals [95% CI] 7.66; 13.07) and 1.26 kg (95% CI 0.3; 2.23) in the placebo group. The BMI loss was 4.17 kg/m 2 (95% CI 3.11; 5.22) in the sibutramine group and 0.53 kg/m 2 (95% CI 0.13; 0.92) in the placebo group. The waist circumference reduction was 12.51 cm (95% CI 9.25; 15.77) in the sibutramine group and 3.26 cm (95% CI 1.38; 5.14) in the control group (p Ͻ 0.05 by paired Student's t test for all the intragroup comparisons). Twenty-three sibutramine patients had 34 adverse events, the most frequent adverse events in the sibutramine group were upper respiratory tract infections (n ϭ 6) and constipation (n ϭ 6); 16 placebo patients had 21 adverse events. Three sibutramine patients withdrew their informed consent when they had adverse events. Discussion: The results show that sibutramine induces significant loss of body weight and waist circumference. Cardiovascular function was not significantly affected by sibutramine. Sibutramine was well tolerated by most of the patients.
BackgroundNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are often used as components of multimodal therapy for postoperative pain management, but their use is currently limited by its side effects. The specific objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of intravenous (IV) ibuprofen for the management of postoperative pain in a European population.Methods and FindingsA total of 206 patients from both abdominal and orthopedic surgery, were randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to receive 800 mg IV-ibuprofen or placebo every 6 hours; all patients had morphine access through a patient controlled analgesia pump. The primary outcome measure was median morphine consumption within the first 24 hours following surgery. The mean±SEM of morphine requirements was reduced from 29,8±5,25 mg to 14,22±3,23 mg (p = 0,015) and resulted in a decrease in pain at rest (p = 0,02) measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS) from mean±SEM 3.34±0,35 to 0.86±0.24, and also in pain during movement (p = 0,02) from 4.32±0,36 to 1.90±0,30 in the ibuprofen treatment arm; while in the placebo group VAS score at rest ranged from 4.68±0,40 to 2.12±0,42 and during movement from 5.66±0,42 to 3.38±0,44. Similar treatment-emergent adverse events occurred across both study groups and there was no difference in the overall incidence of these events.ConclusionsPerioperative administration of IV-Ibuprofen 800 mg every 6 hours in abdominal surgery patient’s decreases morphine requirements and pain score. Furthermore IV-Ibuprofen was safe and well tolerate. Consequently we consider appropriate that protocols for management of postoperative pain include IV-Ibuprofen 800 mg every 6 hours as an option to offer patients an analgesic benefit while reducing the potentially risks associated with morphine consumption.Trial RegistrationEU Clinical Trials Register 2011-005007-33
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.