Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lung low-dose radiation therapy (LD-RT) for pneumonia in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Materials and methods Inclusion criteria comprised patients with COVID-19-related moderate–severe pneumonia warranting hospitalization with supplemental O2 and not candidates for admission to the intensive care unit because of comorbidities or general status. All patients received single lung dose of 0.5 Gy. Respiratory and systemic inflammatory parameters were evaluated before irradiation, at 24 h and 1 week after LD-RT. Primary endpoint was increased in the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) or the pulse oximetry saturation (SpO2) to fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio of at least 20% at 24 h with respect to the preirradiation value. Results Between June and November 2020, 36 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and a mean age of 84 years were enrolled. Seventeen were women and 19 were men and all of them had comorbidities. All patients had bilateral pulmonary infiltrates on chest X‑ray. All patients received dexamethasone treatment. Mean SpO2 pretreatment value was 94.28% and the SpO2/FiO2 ratio varied from 255 mm Hg to 283 mm Hg at 24 h and to 381 mm Hg at 1 week, respectively. In those who survived (23/36, 64%), a significant improvement was observed in the percentage of lung involvement in the CT scan at 1 week after LD-RT. No adverse effects related to radiation treatment have been reported. Conclusions LD-RT appears to be a feasible and safe option in a population with COVID-19 bilateral interstitial pneumonia in the presence of significant comorbidities.

Background Although pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been the reference standard for calculating cardiac output, echocardiographic estimation of cardiac output (CO) by cardiologists has shown high accuracy compared to PAC measurements. A few studies have assessed the accuracy of echocardiographic estimation of CO in critically ill patients by intensivists with basic training. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of CO measurements by intensivists with basic training using pulsed-wave Doppler ultrasound vs. PACs in critically ill patients. Methods Critically ill patients who required hemodynamic monitoring with a PAC were eligible for the study. Three different intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training obtained three measurements of CO on each patient. The maximum of three separate left-ventricular outflow tract diameter measurements and the mean of three LVOT velocity time integral measurements were used. The inter-observer reliability and correlation of CO measured by PACs vs. critical care echocardiography were assessed. Results A total of 20 patients were included. Data were analyzed comparing the measurements of CO by PAC vs. echocardiography. The inter-observer reliability for measuring CO by echocardiography was good based on a coefficient of intraclass correlation of 0.6 (95% CI 0.48–0.86, p < 0.001). Bias and limits of agreement between the two techniques were acceptable (0.64 ± 1.18 L/min, 95% limits of agreement of − 1.73 to 3.01 L/min). In patients with CO < 6.5 L/min, the agreement between CO measured by PAC vs. echocardiography improved (0.13 ± 0.89 L/min; 95% limits of agreement of − 1.64 to 2.22 L/min). The mean percentage of error between the two methods was 17%. Conclusions Critical care echocardiography performed at the bedside by intensivists with basic critical care echocardiography training is an accurate and reproducible technique to measure cardiac output in critically ill patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13089-019-0120-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

La enfermedad por coronavirus 2019, o COVID-19 por sus siglas en inglés, es una enfermedad respiratoria aguda con una amplia gama de manifestaciones, desde un simple resfriado, pasando por una neumonía leve, moderada o grave, hasta sepsis, shock séptico o la muerte. Inició presuntamente en un mercado de animales vivos en la ciudad de Wuhan, provincia de Hubei, China, en diciembre de 2019. Es causada por el Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, o SARS-CoV-2 por sus siglas en inglés, por transmisión zoonótica directa o indirecta a partir de murciélagos. En lo que va del siglo XXI, esta es la tercera enfermedad en el ser humano provocada por un coronavirus altamente patógeno. Las primeras dos fueron el Síndrome Respiratorio Agudo Grave y el Síndrome Respiratorio del Medio Oriente. Este ensayo describe el conocimiento actual del origen, la estructura y la patogénesis del SARS-CoV-2, así como el daño tisular que provoca en los pacientes infectados.

BackgroundThe primary aim of our study was to investigate the association between intubation timing and hospital mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. We also analysed both the impact of such timing throughout the first four pandemic waves and the influence of prior non-invasive respiratory support on outcomes.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a multicentre, observational and prospective cohort study that included all consecutive patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 from across 58 Spanish intensive care units (ICU) participating in the CIBERESUCICOVID project. The study period was between 29 February 2020 and 31 August 2021. Early intubation was defined as that occurring within the first 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to achieve balance across baseline variables between the early intubation cohort and those patients who were intubated after the first 24 h of ICU admission. Differences in outcomes between early and delayed intubation were also assessed. We performed sensitivity analyses to consider a different timepoint (48 h from ICU admission) for early and delayed intubation.ResultsOf the 2725 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, a total of 614 matched patients were included in the analysis (307 for each group). In the unmatched population, there were no differences in mortality between the early and delayed groups. After PS matching, patients with delayed intubation presented higher hospital mortality (27.3%versus37.1%, p =0.01), ICU mortality (25.7%versus36.1%, p=0.007) and 90-day mortality (30.9%versus40.2%, p=0.02) when compared to the early intubation group. Very similar findings were observed when we used a 48-hour timepoint for early or delayed intubation. The use of early intubation decreased after the first wave of the pandemic (72%, 49%, 46% and 45% in the first, second, third and fourth wave, respectively; firstversussecond, third and fourth waves p<0.001). In both the main and sensitivity analyses, hospital mortality was lower in patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula (n=294) who were intubated earlier. The subgroup of patients undergoing NIV (n=214) before intubation showed higher mortality when delayed intubation was set as that occurring after 48 h from ICU admission, but not when after 24 h.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, delayed intubation was associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality. The use of early intubation significantly decreased throughout the course of the pandemic. Benefits of such an approach occurred more notably in patients who had received high-flow nasal cannula.