Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome.

METHODS

We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters.

RESULTS

Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose.

CONCLUSION

We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

[Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study]

Introduction

COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome.

Metohds

We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters.

Results

Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (P=.819 and P=.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose.

Conclusion

We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

Patient characteristics, clinical course and factors associated to ICU mortality in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain: A prospective, cohort, multicentre study

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 [SpO₂ 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%.

Patient characteristics, clinical course and factors associated to ICU mortality in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain: A prospective, cohort, multicentre study

Antecedentes

No se ha reportado plenamente la evolución clínica de los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 durante su ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI), incluyendo las complicaciones médicas e infecciosas y terapias de soporte, así como su asociación con la mortalidad en UCI.

Objetivo

El objetivo de este estudio es describir las características clínicas y la evolución de los pacientes ingresados en UCI por COVID-19 y determinar los factores de riesgo de la mortalidad en UCI de dichos pacientes.

Métodos

Estudio prospectivo, multicéntrico y de cohorte, que incluyó a los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 ingresados en 30 UCI de España y Andorra. Se incluyó a los pacientes consecutivos del 12 de marzo al 26 de mayo del 2020 si habían fallecido o habían recibido el alta de la UCI durante el periodo de estudio. Se reportaron los datos demográficos, los síntomas, los signos vitales, los marcadores de laboratorio, las terapias de soporte, terapias farmacológicas y las complicaciones médicas e infecciosas, realizándose una comparación entre los pacientes fallecidos y los pacientes dados de alta.

Resultados

Se incluyó a un total de 663 pacientes. La mortalidad general en UCI fue del 31% (203 pacientes). Al ingreso en UCI los no supervivientes eran más hipoxémicos (SpO₂ con mascarilla de no reinhalación, de 90 [RIC 83-93] vs. 91 [RIC 87-94]; p < 0,001] y con mayor puntuación en la escala SOFA-Evaluación de daño orgánico secuencial (SOFA, 7 [RIC 5-9] vs. 4 [RIC 3-7]; p <0,001]). Las complicaciones fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes: síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA) (95% vs. 89%; p = 0,009), insuficiencia renal aguda (IRA) (58% vs. 24%; p < 10^–6), shock (42% vs. 14%; p < 10^–13) y arritmias (24% vs. 11%; p < 10^–4). Las superinfecciones respiratorias, infecciones del torrente sanguíneo y los shock sépticos fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes (33% vs. 25%; p = 0,03, 33% vs. 23%; p = 0,01 y 15% vs. 3%, p = 10^–7, respectivamente). El modelo de regresión multivariable reflejó que la edad estaba asociada a la mortalidad y que cada año incrementaba el riesgo de muerte en un 1% (IC del 95%: 1-10, p = 0,014). Cada incremento de 5 puntos en la escala APACHE II predijo de manera independiente la mortalidad (odds ratio [OR]: 1,508 [1,081, 2,104], p = 0,015). Los pacientes con IRA (OR: 2,468 [1,628, 3,741], p < 10^–4)], paro cardiaco (OR: 11,099 [3,389, 36,353], p = 0,0001] y shock séptico [OR: 3,224 [1,486, 6,994], p= 0,002) tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado.

Conclusiones

Los pacientes mayores de COVID-19 con puntuaciones APACHE II más altas al ingreso, que desarrollaron IRA en grados ii o iii o shock séptico durante la estancia en UCI tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado. La mortalidad en UCI fue del 31%.

[Combined regional-general anesthesia with use of the Proseal laryngeal mask during prolonged peripheral plastic surgery]

The ProSeal laryngeal mask offers a better interface for controlled ventilation than does a traditional mask because of the ProSeal's improved airway seal and the possibility of draining the digestive tract. Limb reconstructive surgery is normally a long procedure involving the use of grafts or flaps located at a distance from the lesion. Regional anesthesia is therefore of limited use. We report a series of 24 adult patients who underwent peripheral plastic surgery under combined regional and general intravenous anesthesia and in whom the ProSeal mask was used. Data recorded included assessment of the airway and intubation difficulty, disease and duration of the procedure, type of regional anesthesia, respiratory and hemodynamic variables, patient satisfaction, laryngeal complications, and postoperative analgesia. All patients were adequately ventilated. One episode of bradycardia was controlled with atropine. In the immediate postoperative period, no patient presented laryngeal complications and only 1 patient reported significant pain (8 on a visual analog scale). The ProSeal mask was a good choice for use with combined regional-general anesthesia, ensuring control of the airway without causing complications. Analgesia was adequate in most cases.

[Mortality in patients with multiple injuries: analysis using the trauma and injury severity score in a referral hospital]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A growing number of patients with multiple injuries are being treated. Injury severity scales can be used to assess outcomes objectively. This study aimed to assess our hospital's cases on the basis of the Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and compare outcomes to those reported in the Major Trauma Outcome Study, as well as to determine preventable mortality and analyze causes of death and associated factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from the records of patients admitted with multiple injuries in 2005 and were used to calculate the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), the Injury Severity Score (ISS), and the TRISS or probability of survival. Hospital mortality was also calculated. A TRISS between 25 and 50 was considered to indicate a preventable avoidable death; a TRISS over 50 indicated a preventable death. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with mortality.

RESULTS

We studied the cases of 198 patients with a mean (SD) age of 43.9 (19) years. Ninety-three percent had suffered blunt trauma. The mean ISS, the prehospital RTS, and the TRISS were 16.9 (11.2), 10.8 (2.5), and 0.95 (0.2), respectively. Twenty-five patients died. Fifteen deaths were classified as preventable or potentially preventable. Factors related to exitus were head injury and age (odds ratios, 4.6 and 4.0, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of preventable death in our hospital was higher than expected. Mortality was strongly associated with head injury and age. The TRISS model can identify preventable deaths objectively.