Critically ill COVID-19 patients attended by anesthesiologists in northwestern Spain: a multicenter prospective observational study

Higher- versus Lower-Dose Corticosteroids for Severe to Critical COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis

Rationale: Corticosteroids are standard of care for patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19). However, the optimal dose is uncertain. Objectives: To compare higher doses of corticosteroids with lower doses in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv, and Web of Science from inception to August 1, 2022, for trials that randomized patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 to corticosteroids, standard care, or placebo. Reviewers, working in duplicate, screened references, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. We performed a dose-response meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. We present our results both in relative risk and absolute risk difference per 1,000, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included 20 trials, with 10,155 patients. We show that, compared with lower-dose corticosteroids, higher-dose corticosteroids probably reduce mortality (absolute risk difference, 14 fewer deaths per 1,000 [95% CI, 26 fewer to 2 fewer]; moderate certainty) and may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation (absolute risk difference, 11.6 fewer per 1,000 [95% CI, 23.2 fewer to 6.9 more]; low certainty). The effect of corticosteroids on nosocomial infections is uncertain (16.7 fewer infections per 1,000 [95% CI, 5.4 fewer to 25.0 fewer]; very low certainty). Conclusions: Relatively higher doses of corticosteroids may be beneficial in patients with severe-to-critical COVID-19 and may not increase the risk of nosocomial infections.

Critical patients COVID-19 has changed the management and outcomes in the ICU after 1 year of the pandemic? A multicenter, prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of critical patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in Intensive Care Units (ICU) after one year of pandemic.

METHODOLOGY

Multicenter, prospective study, which included critical COVID-19 patients in 9 ICUs in northwestern Spain. The clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of patients admitted to the ICU during the months of March-April 2020 (period 1) were compared with patients admitted in January-February 2021 (period 2).

RESULTS

337 patients were included (98 in period 1 and 239 in period 2). In period 2, fewer patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (65% vs 84%, p < 0.001), using high-flow nasal cannulas (CNAF) more frequently (70% vs 7%, p < 0.001), ventilation non-invasive mechanical (NIMV) (40% vs 14%, p < 0.001), corticosteroids (100% vs 96%, p = 0.007) and prone position in both awake (42% vs 28%, p = 0.012), and intubated patients (67% vs 54%, p = 0.034). The days of IMV, ICU stay and hospital stay were lower in period 2. Mortality was similar in the two periods studied (16% vs 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year of pandemic, we observed that in patients admitted to the ICU, CNAF, NIMV, use of the prone position, and corticosteroids have been used more frequently, reducing the number of patients in IMV, and the length of stay in the ICU and hospital stay. Mortality was similar in the two study periods.

[Critical patients COVID-19 has changed the management and outcomes in the ICU after 1 year of the pandemic? A multicenter, prospective, observational study]

Objective

To compare the clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of critical patients with COVID-19 pneumonia treated in intensive care units (ICU) after one year of pandemic.

Methodology

Multicenter, prospective study, which included critical COVID-19 patients in 9 ICUs in northwestern Spain. The clinical characteristics, treatments, and evolution of patients admitted to the ICU during the months of March-April 2020 (period 1) were compared with patients admitted in January-February 2021 (period 2).

Results

337 patients were included (98 in period 1 and 239 in period 2). In period 2, fewer patients required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (65% vs. 84%, P < .001), using high-flow nasal cannulas (CNAF) more frequently (70% vs. 7%, P < .001), ventilation non-invasive mechanical (NIMV) (40% vs. 14%, P < .001), corticosteroids (100% vs. 96%, P = .007) and prone position in both awake (42% vs. 28%, P = .012), and intubated patients (67% vs. 54%, P = .034). The days of IMV, ICU stay and hospital stay were lower in period 2. Mortality was similar in the two periods studied (16% vs. 17%).

Conclusions

After one year of pandemic, we observed that in patients admitted to the ICU, CNAF, NIMV, use of the prone position, and corticosteroids have been used more frequently, reducing the number of patients in IMV, and the length of stay in the ICU and hospital stay. Mortality was similar in the two study periods.

Recent Advance Analysis of Recovery in Hospitalized People with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is a public health emergency all around the world. Severe illness occurred in about 14% of patients and 5% of patients developed critical illness, but the prognosis for these patients remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prognosis in hospitalized adults with COVID-19.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and COCHRANE databases were searched for studies published up to 28 June 2021 without language restrictions. Descriptors were related to "COVID-19" and "prognosis". Prospective inception cohort studies that assessed morbidity, mortality and recovery in hospitalized people over 18 years old with COVID-19 were included. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies and extracted the available data. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and multiple organ failure (MOFS) were considered as outcomes for morbidity and discharge was considered for recovery. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to assess risk of bias. Analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 2.2.064).

RESULTS

We included 30 inception cohort studies investigating 13,717 people hospitalized with COVID-19 from different countries. The mean (SD) age was 60.90 (21.87) years, and there was high proportion of males (76.19%) and people with comorbidities (e.g., 49.44% with hypertension and 29.75% with diabetes). Findings suggested a high occurrence of morbidity, mainly related to ARDS. Morbidity rates varied across studies from 19% to 36% in hospital wards, and from 13% to 90% in Intensive Care Units-ICU. Mortality rates ranged from 4% to 38% in hospital wards and from 8% to 51% in ICU. Recovery rates ranged up to 94% and 65% in hospital wards and ICU, respectively. The included studies had high risk of bias in the confounding domain.

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of people hospitalized with COVID-19 is an issue for the public health system worldwide, with high morbidity and mortality rates, mainly in ICU and for patients with comorbidities. Its prognosis emphasizes the need for appropriate prevention and management strategies.

Lactoferrin for COVID-19 prevention, treatment, and recovery

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), a unique beta-coronavirus, has caused the most serious outbreak of the last century at the global level. SARS-CoV-2 infections were firstly reported in the city of Wuhan in China in 2019 and this new disease was named COVID-19 by World Health Organization (WHO). As this novel disease can easily be transmitted from one individual to another via respiratory droplets, many nations around the world have taken several precautions regarding the reduction in social activities and quarantine for the limitation of the COVID-19 transmission. SARS-CoV-2 is known to cause complications that may include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multi-organ failure, septic shock, and death. To prevent and treat COVID-19, some significant studies have been conducted since the outbreak. One of the most noticeable therapeutic approaches is related to a multifunctional protein, lactoferrin. Lactoferrin (Lf) is an 80 kDa cationic glycoprotein that has a great range of benefits from improving the immunity to antiviral effects due to its unique characteristics such as the iron-binding ability. This review summarizes the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 and the potential applications of Lf for the prevention, treatment, and recovery of COVID-19.

Quality of life and persistent symptoms after hospitalization for COVID-19. A prospective observational study comparing ICU with non-ICU patients

Background

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are prone to develop persistent symptoms and to show reduced quality of life following hospital admission.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients admitted to a hospital from March 1 to April 30, 2020. The primary outcome was to compare health related quality of life and persistent symptoms six months after hospital admission, of COVID-19 patients who required ICU admission with those who did not.

Results

Among the 242 patients hospitalized during the defined period of time, 44 (18.2%) needed ICU admission. Forty (16.5%) patients died during hospital admission. Two hundred and two (83.5%) patients were discharged alive from the hospital. At six months, 183 (75.6%) patients completed the questionnaires (32 ICU patients and 151 non ICU patients). Ninety-six (52.4%) reported decreased quality of life and 143 (78.1%) described persistent symptoms. More ICU patients showed worsening of their quality of life (71.9% vs 43.7%, P = 0.004). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with persistent symptoms between ICU and non ICU patients (87.5% vs 76.2%, P = 0.159). ICU patients showed more frequently dyspnea on exertion (78.1% vs 47.7%, P = 0.02), dyspnea on light exertion (37.5% vs 4.6%, P < 0.001), and asthenia (56.3 vs 29.1, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Survivors of COVID-19 needing hospitalization had persistent symptoms and a decline in the quality of life. ICU patients referred a large decrease of their quality of life compared with non ICU patients.

Effect of high versus low dose of dexamethasone on clinical worsening in patients hospitalised with moderate or severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: an open-label, randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Low dose dexamethasone demonstrated clinical improvement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) needing oxygen therapy; however, evidence on the efficacy of high dose of dexamethasone is limited.

METHODS

We performed a randomised, open-label, controlled trial involving hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia needing oxygen therapy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive low dose dexamethasone (6 mg once daily for 10 days) or high dose dexamethasone (20 mg once daily for 5 days, followed by 10 mg once daily for additional 5 days). The primary outcome was clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation. Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to recovery, and clinical status at day 5, 11, 14 and 28 on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (discharged) to 7 (death).

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients (mean (sd) age, 64 (14) years; 62% male) were enrolled. Thirty-two patients of 102 (31.4%) enrolled in the low dose group and 16 of 98 (16.3%) in the high dose group showed clinical worsening within 11 days since randomisation (rate ratio, 0.427; 95% CI, 0.216-0.842; p=0.014). The 28-day mortality was 5.9% in the low dose group and 6.1% in the high dose group (p=0.844). There was no significant difference in time to recovery, and in the 7-point ordinal scale at day 5, 11, 14 and 28.

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospitalised COVID-19 patients needing oxygen therapy, high dose of dexamethasone reduced clinical worsening within 11 days after randomisation as compared with low dose.

Prone Positioning of Nonintubated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020.

SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION

Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

Practice of tracheostomy in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 - Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study

Objective

Invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) potentially benefit from tracheostomy. The aim of this study was to determine the practice of tracheostomy during the first wave of the pandemic in 2020 in the Netherlands, to ascertain whether timing of tracheostomy had an association with outcome, and to identify factors that had an association with timing.

Methods

Secondary analysis of the ‘PRactice of VENTilation in COVID–19’ (PRoVENT–COVID) study, a multicenter observational study, conducted from March 1, 2020 through June 1, 2020 in 22 Dutch intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving tracheostomy; secondary endpoints were timing of tracheostomy, duration of ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, mortality, and factors associated with timing.

Results

Of 1023 patients, 189 patients (18.5%) received a tracheostomy at median 21 [17 to 28] days from start of ventilation. Timing was similar before and after online publication of an amendment to the Dutch national guidelines on tracheostomy focusing on COVID–19 patients (21 [17–28] vs. 21 [17–26] days). Tracheostomy performed ≤ 21 days was independently associated with shorter duration of ventilation (median 26 [21 to 32] vs. 40 [34 to 47] days) and higher mortality in ICU (22.1% vs. 10.2%), hospital (26.1% vs. 11.9%) and at day 90 (27.6% vs. 14.6%). There were no patient demographics or ventilation characteristics that had an association with timing of tracheostomy.

Conclusions

Tracheostomy was performed late in COVID–19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands and timing of tracheostomy possibly had an association with outcome. However, prospective studies are needed to further explore these associations. It remains unknown which factors influenced timing of tracheostomy in COVID–19 patients.

Factors associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Identification of high-risk patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 may inform management strategies. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine factors associated with mortality among adults with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care by searching databases for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 6 December 2020. Observational studies of COVID-19 adults admitted to critical care were included. Studies of mixed cohorts and intensive care cohorts restricted to a specific patient sub-group were excluded. Dichotomous variables were reported with pooled OR and 95%CI, and continuous variables with pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95%CI. Fifty-eight studies (44,305 patients) were included in the review. Increasing age (SMD 0.65, 95%CI 0.53-0.77); smoking (OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.03-1.90); hypertension (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.29-1.85); diabetes (OR 1.41, 95%CI 1.22-1.63); cardiovascular disease (OR 1.91, 95%CI 1.52-2.38); respiratory disease (OR 1.75, 95%CI 1.33-2.31); renal disease (OR 2.39, 95%CI 1.68-3.40); and malignancy (OR 1.81, 95%CI 1.30-2.52) were associated with mortality. A higher sequential organ failure assessment score (SMD 0.86, 95%CI 0.63-1.10) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation-2 score (SMD 0.89, 95%CI 0.65-1.13); a lower PaO₂ :F_I O₂ (SMD -0.44, 95%CI -0.62 to -0.26) and the need for mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 2.53, 95%CI 1.90-3.37) were associated with mortality. Higher white cell counts (SMD 0.37, 95%CI 0.22-0.51); neutrophils (SMD 0.42, 95%CI 0.19-0.64); D-dimers (SMD 0.56, 95%CI 0.43-0.69); ferritin (SMD 0.32, 95%CI 0.19-0.45); lower platelet (SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.10); and lymphocyte counts (SMD -0.37, 95%CI -0.54 to -0.19) were all associated with mortality. In conclusion, increasing age, pre-existing comorbidities, severity of illness based on validated scoring systems, and the host response to the disease were associated with mortality; while male sex and increasing BMI were not. These factors have prognostic relevance for patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19.

[Quality of life and persistent symptoms after hospitalization for COVID-19. A prospective observational study comparing ICU with non-ICU Patients]

Antecedentes/contexto

Existe una tendencia en los pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 a desarrollar síntomas persistentes y a presentar una disminución en su calidad de vida tras el ingreso hospitalario.

Métodos

Estudio de cohorte prospectivo de pacientes con COVID-19 con ingreso hospitalario entre el 1 de marzo al 30 de abril de 2020. El objetivo primario fue comparar la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y la presencia de síntomas persistentes seis meses después del ingreso, comparando los pacientes que requirieron ingreso en UCI con los que no lo precisaron.

Resultados

De los 242 pacientes hospitalizados durante el período de estudio, 44 (18,2%) necesitaron ingreso en UCI. Cuarenta (16,5%) pacientes fallecieron durante el ingreso hospitalario. Doscientos dos (83,5%) pacientes fueron dados de alta del hospital. A los seis meses, 183 (75,6%) pacientes completaron los cuestionarios (32 pacientes UCI y 151 pacientes no UCI). Noventa y seis (52,4%) refirieron disminución de la calidad de vida y 143 (78,1%) describieron síntomas persistentes. Un número mayor de pacientes de UCI mostraron un empeoramiento de su calidad de vida (71,9 vs. 43,7%, p = 0,004). No hubo diferencias en la proporción de pacientes con síntomas persistentes entre los pacientes con UCI y sin UCI (87,5 vs. 76,2%, p = 0,159). Los pacientes de UCI mostraron con mayor frecuencia disnea de esfuerzo (78,1 vs. 47,7%, p = 0,02), disnea de pequeños esfuerzos (37,5 vs. 4,6%, p < 0,001) y astenia (56,3 vs. 29,1%, p = 0,003).

Conclusiones

Los supervivientes de COVID-19 que necesitaron hospitalización presentaron síntomas persistentes y un deterioro de su calidad de vida. Los pacientes de UCI refirieron una mayor disminución de su calidad de vida, en comparación con los pacientes que no precisaron UCI.