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.

No abstract

European Society of Anaesthesiology.

IMPORTANCE Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care has been reported to be associated with improvements in outcomes after colorectal surgery compared with traditional care. OBJECTIVE To determine the association between ERAS protocols and outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Postoperative Outcomes Within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol (POWER) Study is a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2084 consecutive adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery who received or did not receive care in a self-declared ERAS center. Patients were recruited from 80 Spanish centers between September 15 and December 15, 2017. All patients included in this analysis had 1 month of follow-up. EXPOSURES Colorectal surgery and perioperative management were the exposures. Twenty-two individual ERAS items were assessed in all patients, regardless of whether they were included in an established ERAS protocol. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary study outcome was moderate to severe postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included ERAS adherence, mortality, readmissions, reoperation rates, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS Between September 15 and December 15, 2017, 2084 patients were included in the study. Of these, 1286 individuals (61.7%) were men; mean age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-77). A total of 879 patients (42.2%) presented with postoperative complications and 566 patients (27.2%) developed moderate to severe complications. The number of patients with moderate or severe complications was lower in the ERAS group (25.2% vs 30.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01). The overall rate of adherence to the ERAS protocol was 63.6% (IQR, 54.5%-77.3%), and the rate for patients from hospitals self-declared as ERAS was 72.7% (IQR, 59.1%-81.8%) vs non-ERAS institutions, which was 59.1% (IQR, 50.0%-63.6%; P < .001). Adherence quartiles among patients receiving the highest and lowest ERAS components showed that the patients with the highest adherence rates had fewer moderate to severe complications (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P < .001), overall complications (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; P < .001), and mortality (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.97; P = .06) compared with those who had the lowest adherence rates.

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.