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.

Background Cognitive manifestations associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome by Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are yet to be described in the existing literature. The aim of this exploratory study is to analyze the impact of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection on neuropsychological performance 6 months following hospital discharge, and to identify which medical variables predict worse outcome. In this context, we study if cognitive reserve (CR) may play a protective role on cognitive impairment. Methods We enrolled a cohort of 102 severe SARS-CoV-2 survivors who had been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and were contacted 6-months post discharge. A total of 58 agreed to participate in this 6-month follow-up study. Patients with previously known cognitive impairment were excluded. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data were collected. Firstly, to test the magnitude of neurocognitive sequalae two standard deviations below normative group were considered. Secondly, to analyze the main effects of medical variables on cognition and the interaction with cognitive reserve, ANCOVA analyses were performed. Results 53.4% obtained a score below the cutoff point (<26) in the screening test MOCA. ICU variables including mechanical ventilation, days of sedation or high CRP days were related with cognition. Cognitive Reserve (CR) interacted with delirium (F = 6.8, p = 0.01) and sedation days (F = 9.40, p = 0.003) to predict verbal memory and interacted with high CRP to predict phonemic fluency (F = 6.47, p = 0.01). Finally, no differences in neuropsychological performance were found depending on subjective cognitive impairment (SCI). However, patients with SCI had a higher score in the HAD anxiety subscale (t = −2.2; p < 0.05). Conclusions In our cohort, cognitive dysfunction was related with ICU variables such as delirium, mechanical ventilation, and inflammation. CR modulated the impact of these variables on cognition. Cognitive complaints were related with anxiety but not with cognitive performance. Despite some limitations, including the need of replication of the findings with larger samples and control groups, our study suggests that high CR may be protective for severe COVID-19-related cognitive impairment.

Background: Pain is a clinical feature of COVID-19, however, data about persistent pain after hospital discharge, especially among ICU survivors is scarce. The aim of this study was to explore the incidence and characteristics of new-onset pain and its impact on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), and to quantify the presence of mood disorders in critically ill COVID-19 survivors.Methods: This is a preliminary report of PAIN-COVID trial (NCT04394169) presenting a descriptive analysis in critically ill COVID-19 survivors, following in person interview 1 month after hospital discharge. Pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory, the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. HRQoL was evaluated with the EQ 5D/5L, and mood disorders with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).Results: From 27 May to 19 July 2020, 203 patients were consecutively screened for eligibility, and 65 were included in this analysis. Of these, 50.8% patients reported new-onset pain; 38.5% clinically significant pain (numerical rating score ≥3 for average pain intensity); 16.9% neuropathic pain; 4.6% pain catastrophizing thoughts, 44.6% pain in ≥2 body sites and 7.7% widespread pain. Patients with new-onset pain had a worse EQ-VAS and EQ index value (p < 0.001). Pain intensity was negatively correlated to both the former (Spearman ρ: −0.546, p < 0.001) and the latter (Spearman ρ: −0.387, p = 0.001). HADS anxiety and depression values equal or above eight were obtained in 10.8% and 7.7% of patients, respectively. Conclusion: New-onset pain in critically ill COVID-19 survivors is frequent, and it is associated with a lower HRQoL. Trial registration No.: NCT04394169. Registered 19 May 2020. https://clini caltr ials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04 394169. Significance: A substantial proportion of severe COVID-19 survivors may develop clinically significant persistent pain, post-intensive care syndrome and chronic ICU-related pain. Given the number of infections worldwide and the unprecedented size of the population of critical illness survivors, providing