BackgroundNon-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute respiratory failure has been traditionally determined based on clinical assessment and changes in blood gases, with NIV support pressures manually adjusted by an operator. Bilevel positive airway pressure-spontaneous/timed (BiPAP S/T) with average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) uses a fixed tidal volume that automatically adjusts to a patient’s needs. Our study assessed the use of BiPAP S/T with AVAPS in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypercapnic encephalopathy as compared to BiPAP S/T alone, upon immediate arrival in the Emergency-ICU.MethodsWe carried out a prospective interventional match-controlled study in Guayaquil, Ecuador. A total of 22 patients were analyzed. Eleven with COPD exacerbations and hypercapnic encephalopathy with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <10 and a pH of 7.25-7.35 were assigned to receive NIV via BiPAP S/T with AVAPS. Eleven patients were selected as paired controls for the initial group by physicians who were unfamiliar with our study, and these patients were administered BiPAP S/T. Arterial blood gases, GCS, vital signs, and ventilatory parameters were then measured and compared between the two groups.ResultsWe observed statistically significant differences in favor of the BiPAP S/T + AVAPS group in GCS (P = .00001), pCO2 (P = .03) and maximum inspiratory positive airway pressure (IPAP) (P = .005), among others. However, no significant differences in terms of length of stay or days on NIV were observed.ConclusionsBiPAP S/T with AVAPS facilitates rapid recovery of consciousness when compared to traditional BiPAP S/T in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypercapnic encephalopathy.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials application ref is ISRCTN05135218

We consider that severe neurological dysfunction and pH of less than 7.25 do not constitute absolute contraindications to the use of NIMV. This kind of management can be implemented in the emergency room with favorable results.

Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) provide multidisciplinary care to critically ill children and their families. Grief is present throughout the trajectory of illness and can peak around the time of death or non-death losses. The objective of this study was to assess how PICUs around the world implement grief and bereavement care (GBC) as part of an integrated model of care. This is a multicenter cross-sectional, prospective survey study. Questionnaires with multiple-choice and open-ended questions focusing on unit infrastructure, personnel, policies, limited patient data, and practices related to GBC for families and health care professionals (HCPs) were completed by on-site researchers, who were HCPs on the direct care of patients. PICU fulfillment of GBC goals was evaluated using a custom scoring based on indicators developed by the Initiative for Pediatric Palliative Care (IPPC). We compared average total and individual items fulfillment scores according to the respective country's World Bank income. Patient characteristics and details of unit infrastructure were also evaluated as potential predictors of total GBC fulfillment scores. Statistical analysis included multilevel generalized linear models (GLM) with a Gaussian distribution adjusted by child age/gender and clustering by center, using high income countries (HICs) as the comparative reference. Additionally, we applied principals of content analysis to analyze and summarize open-ended answers to contextualize qualitative data. The study included 34 PICUs from 18 countries: high-income countries (HICs): 32.4%, upper middle-income countries (UMICs): 44.1%, low middle-income and low-income countries (LMI/LICs): 23.5%. All groups reported some compliance with GBC goals; no group reported perfect fulfillment. We found statistically significant differences in GBC fulfillment scores between HICs and UMICs (specifically, HCP grief support), and between HICs and LMICs (specifically, family grief support and HCP grief support). PICUs world-wide provide some GBC, independent of income, but barriers include lack of financial support, time, and training, overall unit culture, presence of a palliative care consultation service, and varying cultural perceptions of child death. Disparities in GBC for families and HCPs exist and were related to the native countries' income level. Identifying barriers to support families and HCPs, can lead to opportunities of improving GBC in PICUs world-wide.

Purpose: The effect of high altitude ( ≥ 1500 m) and its potential association with mortality by COVID-19 remains controversial. We assessed the effect of high altitude on the survival/discharge of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission for mechanical ventilation compared to individuals treated at sea level. Methods: A retrospective cohort multi-center study of consecutive adults patients with a positive RT-PCR test for COVID-19 who were mechanically ventilated between March and November 2020. Data were collected from two sea-level hospitals and four high-altitude hospitals in Ecuador. The primary outcome was ICU and hospital survival/discharge. Survival analysis was conducted using semi-parametric Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of the study population (n = 670), 35.2% were female with a mean age of 58.3 ± 12.6 years. On admission, high-altitude patients were more likely to be younger (57.2 vs. 60.5 years old), presented with less comorbidities such as hypertension (25.9% vs. 54.9% with p-value <.001) and diabetes mellitus (20.5% vs. 37.2% with p-value <.001), less probability of having a capillary refill time > 3 sec (13.7% vs. 30.1%, p-value <.001), and less severity-of-illness condition (APACHE II score, 17.5 ± 8.1 vs. 20 ± 8.2, p < .01). After adjusting for key confounders high altitude is associated with significant higher probabilities of ICU survival/discharge (HR: 1.74 [95% CI: 1.46-2.08]) and hospital survival/discharge (HR: 1.35 [95% CI: 1.18-1.55]) than patients treated at sea level. Conclusions: Patients treated at high altitude at any time point during the study period were 74% more likely to experience ICU survival/discharge and 35% more likely to experience hospital survival/discharge than to the sea-level group. Possible reasons for these findings are genetic and physiological adaptations due to exposure to chronic hypoxia.

During March and April 2020, Ecuador was the country with the highest death toll in Latin America due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Simultaneously, research was being developed and published globally, and to a certain extent, guided therapeutic approaches in real time, mostly in under-resourced settings. We present the case of a 59-year-old male physician residing in Guayaquil, who presented with severe coronavirus disease 2019, in which mechanical ventilation, prone position, and pulmonary protective ventilatory strategy were used. We discuss the clinical management of the first reported case in the literature of a physician in Ecuador who survived severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, as well as the topic of self-medication within health professionals, the management approach that was emerging at the moment in scientific publications and guiding treatment, the role of responsible research and its worldwide impact, and the emotional burdens of the care team who had to make very difficult decisions in extremely adverse circumstances.