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.

Importance: Prehabilitation has potential for improving surgical outcomes as shown in previous randomized controlled trials. However, a marked efficacy-effectiveness gap is limiting its scalability. Comprehensive analyses of deployment of the intervention in real-life scenarios are required. Objective: To assess health outcomes and cost of prehabilitation. Design: Prospective cohort study with a control group built using propensity score–matching techniques. Setting: Prehabilitation Unit in a tertiary-care university hospital. Participants: Candidates for major digestive, cardiac, thoracic, gynecologic, or urologic surgeries. Intervention: Prehabilitation program, including supervised exercise training, promotion of physical activity, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The comprehensive complication index, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital costs per patient until 30 days after surgery. Patients were classified by the degree of program completion and level of surgical aggression for sensitivity analysis. Results: The analysis of the entire study group did not show differences in study outcomes between prehabilitation and control groups (n=328 each). The per-protocol analysis, including only patients completing the program (n=112, 34%), showed a reduction in mean hospital stay [9.9 (7.2) vs 12.8 (12.4) days; P=0.035]. Completers undergoing highly aggressive surgeries (n=60) additionally showed reduction in mean intensive care unit stay [2.3 (2.7) vs 3.8 (4.2) days; P=0.021] and generated mean cost savings per patient of €3092 (32% cost reduction) (P=0.007). Five priority areas for action to enhance service efficiencies were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: The study indicates a low rate of completion of the intervention and identifies priority areas for re-design of service delivery to enhance the effectiveness of prehabilitation.

Studies designed to assess persistent postoperative pain (PPP) incidence after hepatectomies are lacking. Our aim was to assess PPP incidence 6 months after hepatectomies with intravenous (IV) or epidural (EPI) analgesia containing ketamine.Prospective observational comparative study between 2 cohorts of patients submitted to hepatectomy. Patients received 1 of 2 analgesic regimes containing ketamine: EPI group or IV group. Visual analog scale (VAS), Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and quantitative sensorial testing (QST: to determine area of hyperalgesia/allodynia) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 h, 24 h, 7 days, 1 month, and 6 months. VAS ≥ 1 at 1 and 6 months was considered indicative of PPP and VAS > 3 was considered as not controlled pain. Side effects and complications were registered.Forty-four patients were included: 23 in EPI group and 21 in IV group. Patients in IV group were older and had more comorbidities. No patient presented VAS > 3 at 1 or 6 months. VAS ≥ 1 at 1 and 6 months was 36.4% and 22.7%, respectively. No differences in VAS, NPSI, or PCS were found between groups. Allodynia/hyperalgesia area did not differ between groups and was infrequent and slight. Pain pressure threshold in the wound vertical component was significantly higher in EPI group after 7 days. IV group showed more cognitive side effects.Incidence of PPP at 6 months after open hepatectomies with EPI or IV analgesia containing ketamine was lower than previously reported for other abdominal surgeries.Ketamine influence on low PPP incidence and hyperalgesia cannot be discarded.

BackgroundChronic diseases are generating a major health and societal burden worldwide. Healthy lifestyles, including physical activity (PA), have proven efficacy in the prevention and treatment of many chronic conditions. But, so far, national PA surveillance systems, as well as strategies for promotion of PA, have shown low impact. We hypothesize that personalized modular PA services, aligned with healthcare, addressing the needs of a broad spectrum of individual profiles may show cost-effectiveness and sustainability.MethodsThe current manuscript describes the protocol for regional implementation of collaborative self-management services to promote PA in Catalonia (7.5 M habitants) during the period 2017–2019. The protocols of three implementation studies encompassing a broad spectrum of individual needs are reported. They have a quasi-experimental design. That is, a non-randomized intervention group is compared to a control group (usual care) using propensity score methods wherein age, gender and population-based health risk assessment are main matching variables. The principal innovations of the PA program are: i) Implementation of well-structured modular interventions promoting PA; ii) Information and communication technologies (ICT) to facilitate patient accessibility, support collaborative management of individual care plans and reduce costs; and iii) Assessment strategies based on the Triple Aim approach during and beyond the program deployment.DiscussionThe manuscript reports a precise roadmap for large scale deployment of community-based ICT-supported integrated care services to promote healthy lifestyles with high potential for comparability and transferability to other sites.Trial registrationThis study protocol has been registered at ClinicalTrials.org (NCT02976064). Registered November 24th, 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3363-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.