No abstract

Background The clinical course of COVID-19 critically ill patients, during their admission in the intensive care unit (UCI), including medical and infectious complications and support therapies, as well as their association with in-ICU mortality has not been fully reported. Objective This study aimed to describe clinical characteristics and clinical course of ICU COVID-19 patients, and to determine risk factors for ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. Methods Prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted into 30 ICUs from Spain and Andorra. Consecutive patients from March 12th to May 26th, 2020 were enrolled if they had died or were discharged from ICU during the study period. Demographics, symptoms, vital signs, laboratory markers, supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments, medical and infectious complications were reported and compared between deceased and discharged patients. Results A total of 663 patients were included. Overall ICU mortality was 31% (203 patients). At ICU admission non-survivors were more hypoxemic [SpO 2 with non-rebreather mask, 90 (IQR 83–93) vs 91 (IQR 87–94); p < 0.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5–9) vs 4 (IQR 3–7); p < 0.001]. Complications were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs 89%; p = 0.009), acute kidney injury (AKI) (58% vs 24%; p < 10 −16 ), shock (42% vs 14%; p < 10 −13 ), and arrhythmias (24% vs 11%; p < 10 −4 ). Respiratory super-infection, bloodstream infection and septic shock were higher in non-survivors (33% vs 25%; p = 0.03, 33% vs 23%; p = 0.01 and 15% vs 3%, p = 10 −7 ), respectively. The multivariable regression model showed that age was associated with mortality, with every year increasing risk-of-death by 1% (95%CI: 1–10, p = 0.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), p = 0.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), p < 10 −4 )], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), p = 0.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), p = 0.002] had an increased risk-of-death. Conclusions Older COVID-19 patients with higher APACHE II scores on admission, those who developed AKI grades II or III and/or septic shock during ICU stay had an increased risk-of-death. ICU mortality was 31%.

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, multicentre, 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: There are no specific generally accepted therapies for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The full spectrum of COVID-19 ranges from asymptomatic disease to mild respiratory tract illness to severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multisystem organ failure, and death. The efficacy of corticosteroids in viral ARDS remains unknown. We postulated that adjunctive treatment of established ARDS caused by COVID-19 with intravenous dexamethasone might change the pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response and thereby reduce morbidity, leading to a decrease in duration of mechanical ventilation and in mortality. Methods/design: This is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel, open-label, superiority trial testing dexamethasone in 200 mechanically ventilated adult patients with established moderate-to-severe ARDS caused by confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Established ARDS is defined as maintaining a PaO 2 /FiO 2 ≤ 200 mmHg on PEEP ≥ 10 cmH 2 O and FiO 2 ≥ 0.5 after 12 ± 3 h of routine intensive care. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either dexamethasone plus standard intensive care or standard intensive care alone. Patients in the dexamethasone group will receive an intravenous dose of 20 mg once daily from day 1 to day 5, followed by 10 mg once daily from day 6 to day 10. The primary outcome is 60-day mortality. The secondary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days, defined as days alive and free from mechanical ventilation at day 28 after randomization. All analyses will be done according to the intention-to-treat principle.

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.