RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of the persistent AKI risk index (PARI) in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days in patients hospitalized due to acute respiratory failure. METHODS: This study was done in a cohort of diagnoses of consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit of eight hospitals in Curitiba, Brazil, between March and September 2020 due to acute respiratory failure secondary to suspected COVID-19. The COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed or refuted by RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The ability of PARI to predict acute kidney injury at 72 hours, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days was analyzed by ROC curves in comparison to delta creatinine, SOFA, and APACHE II. RESULTS: Of the 1,001 patients in the cohort, 538 were included in the analysis. The mean age was 62 ± 17 years, 54.8% were men, and the median APACHE II score was 12. At admission, the median SOFA score was 3, and 83.3% had no renal dysfunction. After admission to the intensive care unit, 17.1% had acute kidney injury within 72 hours, and through 7 days, 19.5% had persistent acute kidney injury, 5% underwent renal replacement therapy, and 17.1% died. The PARI had an area under the ROC curve of 0.75 (0.696 - 0.807) for the prediction of acute kidney injury at 72 hours, 0.71 (0.613 - 0.807) for renal replacement therapy, and 0.64 (0.565 - 0.710) for death. CONCLUSION: The PARI has acceptable accuracy in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours and renal replacement therapy within 7 days of admission to the intensive care unit, but it is not significantly better than the other scores.
Assuntos
Injúria Renal Aguda , COVID-19 , Insuficiência Respiratória , Masculino , Adulto , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Feminino , Teste para COVID-19 , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Injúria Renal Aguda/diagnóstico , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Respiratória/diagnósticoRESUMO
ABSTRACT Objective: To compare, within a cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure, the phenotypes of patients with and without COVID-19 in the context of the pandemic and evaluate whether COVID-19 is an independent predictor of intensive care unit mortality. Methods: This historical cohort study evaluated 1001 acute respiratory failure patients with suspected COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit of 8 hospitals. Patients were classified as COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 cases according to real-time polymerase chain reaction results. Data on clinical and demographic characteristics were collected on intensive care unit admission, as well as daily clinical and laboratory data and intensive care unit outcomes. Results: Although the groups did not differ in terms of APACHE II or SOFA scores at admission, the COVID-19 group had more initial symptoms of fever, myalgia and diarrhea, had a longer duration of symptoms, and had a higher prevalence of obesity. They also had a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower platelet levels than non-COVID-19 patients, and more metabolic changes, such as higher levels of blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and lactic dehydrogenase. Patients with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory failure had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma and cardiopathy. Patients with COVID-19 stayed in the hospital longer and had more complications, such as acute kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe infection. The all-cause mortality rate was also higher in this group (43.7% in the COVID-19 group versus 27.4% in the non-COVID-19 group). The diagnosis of COVID-19 was a predictor of intensive care unit mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; 95%CI, 1.89 - 4.07; p < 0.001), regardless of age or Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Conclusion: In a prospective cohort of patients admitted with acute respiratory failure, patients with COVID-19 had a clearly different phenotype and a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. This may help to outline more accurate screening and appropriate and timely treatment for these patients.
RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar, em uma coorte de pacientes com insuficiência respiratória aguda, os fenótipos de pacientes com e sem COVID-19, no contexto da pandemia, e avaliar se a COVID-19 é um preditor independente de mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Este estudo de coorte histórico avaliou 1.001 pacientes com insuficiência respiratória aguda e suspeita de COVID-19 internados na unidade de terapia intensiva de oito hospitais. Os pacientes foram classificados como casos com e sem COVID-19 segundo os resultados da RT-PCR. Foram coletados dados sobre características clínicas e demográficas na admissão à unidade de terapia intensiva, bem como dados clínicos e laboratoriais diários e desfechos da unidade de terapia intensiva. Resultados: Embora os grupos não tenham diferido nos escores APACHE II ou SOFA na admissão, o grupo COVID-19 apresentou mais sintomas iniciais de febre, mialgia e diarreia e teve maior duração dos sintomas e maior prevalência de obesidade. Eles também apresentaram menor relação PaO2/FiO2 e níveis mais baixos de plaquetas do que os pacientes sem COVID-19 e mais alterações metabólicas, como níveis mais altos de glicemia, proteína C-reativa e desidrogenase lática. Os pacientes com insuficiência respiratória aguda sem COVID-19 apresentaram maior prevalência de doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica/asma e cardiopatia. Os pacientes com COVID-19 permaneceram mais tempo no hospital e tiveram mais complicações, como insuficiência renal aguda, síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo grave e infecção grave. A taxa de mortalidade por todas as causas também foi maior nesse grupo (43,7% no grupo com COVID-19 versus 27,4% no grupo sem COVID-19). O diagnóstico de COVID-19 foi um preditor de mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva (razão de chances de 2,77; IC95% 1,89 - 4,07; p < 0,001), independentemente da idade ou da pontuação do Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson. Conclusão: Em uma coorte prospectiva de pacientes admitidos com insuficiência respiratória aguda, os pacientes com COVID-19 apresentaram fenótipo claramente diferente e uma mortalidade mais alta do que os pacientes sem COVID-19. Isso pode ajudar a traçar uma triagem mais precisa e um tratamento adequado e oportuno para esses pacientes.
RESUMO
ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of the persistent AKI risk index (PARI) in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days in patients hospitalized due to acute respiratory failure. Methods: This study was done in a cohort of diagnoses of consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit of eight hospitals in Curitiba, Brazil, between March and September 2020 due to acute respiratory failure secondary to suspected COVID-19. The COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed or refuted by RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The ability of PARI to predict acute kidney injury at 72 hours, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days was analyzed by ROC curves in comparison to delta creatinine, SOFA, and APACHE II. Results: Of the 1,001 patients in the cohort, 538 were included in the analysis. The mean age was 62 ± 17 years, 54.8% were men, and the median APACHE II score was 12. At admission, the median SOFA score was 3, and 83.3% had no renal dysfunction. After admission to the intensive care unit, 17.1% had acute kidney injury within 72 hours, and through 7 days, 19.5% had persistent acute kidney injury, 5% underwent renal replacement therapy, and 17.1% died. The PARI had an area under the ROC curve of 0.75 (0.696 - 0.807) for the prediction of acute kidney injury at 72 hours, 0.71 (0.613 - 0.807) for renal replacement therapy, and 0.64 (0.565 - 0.710) for death. Conclusion: The PARI has acceptable accuracy in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours and renal replacement therapy within 7 days of admission to the intensive care unit, but it is not significantly better than the other scores.
RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar a acurácia do persistent AKI risk index (PARI) na predição de injúria renal aguda em 72 horas após a admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva, injúria renal aguda persistente, terapia de substituição renal e óbito, em até 7 dias em pacientes internados por insuficiência respiratória aguda. Métodos: Estudo de método-diagnóstico com base em coorte de inclusão consecutiva de pacientes adultos internados em unidade de terapia intensiva de oito hospitais de Curitiba (PR) entre março e setembro de 2020, por insuficiência respiratória aguda secundária à suspeita de COVID-19, com confirmação ou refutação diagnóstica dada pelo resultado de RT-PCR para detecção do SARS-CoV-2. O potencial preditor do PARI foi analisado por curva ROC em relação a delta creatinina, SOFA e APACHE II, para os desfechos injúria renal aguda em 72 horas; injúria renal aguda persistente; terapia de substituição renal e mortalidade em até 7 dias. Resultados: Dos 1.001 pacientes da coorte, 538 foram incluídos na análise. A média de idade foi de 62 ± 17 anos, 54,8% eram homens e o APACHE II mediano foi de 12. Na admissão, o SOFA mediano era 3, e 83,3% não apresentavam disfunção renal. Após admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva, 17,1% apresentaram injúria renal aguda em 72 horas e, até o sétimo dia, 19,5% apresentaram injúria renal aguda persistente, 5% realizaram terapia de substituição renal, e 17,1% foram a óbito. O PARI apresentou área sob a curva ROC de 0,75 (0,696 - 0,807) para predição de injúria renal aguda em 72 horas, 0,71 (0,613 - 0,807) para terapia de substituição renal e 0,64 (0,565 - 0,710) para mortalidade. Conclusão: O PARI tem acurácia aceitável na predição de injúria renal aguda em 72 horas e terapia de substituição renal em até 7 dias da admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva, porém sem diferença significativa dos demais escores.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak ) is one of the most important measures in clinical practice, the high cost and time consumption have led to the search for simpler devices and the development of the estimating cardiopulmonary fitness (eCPF) equation. Since the lungs are one of the sites most affected by rheumatoid arthritis (RA), this study aimed to create a predictive equation for VO2peak obtained by simple sampling technology in women with RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated 47 women with RA-ILD. The participants underwent the following evaluations: computed tomography (CT); evaluation of disease activity through the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI); measurement of physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI); pulmonary function testing, including spirometry, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (DlCO ), nitrogen single-breath washout (N2 SBW) test, and impulse oscillometry; and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) using FitMate™. RESULTS: VO2peak was correlated with age (r = -0.550, p < 0.0001), rheumatoid factor (r = -0.443, p = 0.002), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (r = -0.410, p = 0.004), CDAI (r = -0.462, p = 0.001), HAD-DI (r = -0.486, p = 0.0005), forced vital capacity (r = 0.491, p = 0.0004), DlCO (r = 0.621, p < 0.0001), phase III slope of N2 SBW (r = -0.647, p < 0.0001), resonance frequency (Fres , r = -0.717, p < 0.0001), integrated low-frequency reactance (r = -0.535, p = 0.0001), and the inhomogeneity of respiratory system resistance between 4 and 20 Hz (r = -0.631, p < 0.0001). In the CT examination, patients with extensive ILD had significantly lower VO2peak than patients with limited ILD (p < 0.0001). In the stepwise forward regression analysis, Fres , DlCO and age explained 61% of the VO2peak variability. CONCLUSIONS: As assessed by CPET, women with RA-ILD show reduced cardiopulmonary fitness, which can be explained at least in part by the presence of small airway disease, deterioration of pulmonary gas exchange, and advanced age. These associations of pulmonary variables with eCPF may be clinically important and support the use of the eCPF equation to improve patient outcomes.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To compare, within a cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure, the phenotypes of patients with and without COVID-19 in the context of the pandemic and evaluate whether COVID-19 is an independent predictor of intensive care unit mortality. METHODS: This historical cohort study evaluated 1001 acute respiratory failure patients with suspected COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit of 8 hospitals. Patients were classified as COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 cases according to real-time polymerase chain reaction results. Data on clinical and demographic characteristics were collected on intensive care unit admission, as well as daily clinical and laboratory data and intensive care unit outcomes. RESULTS: Although the groups did not differ in terms of APACHE II or SOFA scores at admission, the COVID-19 group had more initial symptoms of fever, myalgia and diarrhea, had a longer duration of symptoms, and had a higher prevalence of obesity. They also had a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower platelet levels than non-COVID-19 patients, and more metabolic changes, such as higher levels of blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and lactic dehydrogenase. Patients with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory failure had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma and cardiopathy. Patients with COVID-19 stayed in the hospital longer and had more complications, such as acute kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe infection. The all-cause mortality rate was also higher in this group (43.7% in the COVID-19 group versus 27.4% in the non-COVID-19 group). The diagnosis of COVID-19 was a predictor of intensive care unit mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; 95%CI, 1.89 - 4.07; p < 0.001), regardless of age or Charlson Comorbidity Index score. CONCLUSION: In a prospective cohort of patients admitted with acute respiratory failure, patients with COVID-19 had a clearly different phenotype and a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. This may help to outline more accurate screening and appropriate and timely treatment for these patients.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Insuficiência Respiratória , Humanos , Estudos de Coortes , Estudos Prospectivos , APACHERESUMO
RESUMO Objetivo: Definir o perfil epidemiológico e os principais determinantes de morbimortalidade dos pacientes cirúrgicos não cardíacos de alto risco no Brasil. Métodos: Estudo prospectivo, observacional e multicêntrico. Todos os pacientes cirúrgicos não cardíacos admitidos nas unidades de terapia intensiva, ou seja, considerados de alto risco, no período de 1 mês, foram avaliados e acompanhados diariamente por, no máximo, 7 dias na unidade de terapia intensiva, para determinação de complicações. As taxas de mortalidade em 28 dias de pós-operatório, na unidade de terapia intensiva e hospitalar foram avaliadas. Resultados: Participaram 29 unidades de terapia intensiva onde foram realizadas cirurgias em 25.500 pacientes, dos quais 904 (3,5%) de alto risco (intervalo de confiança de 95% - IC95% 3,3% - 3,8%), tendo sido incluídos no estudo. Dos pacientes envolvidos, 48,3% eram de unidades de terapia intensiva privadas e 51,7% de públicas. O tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva foi de 2,0 (1,0 - 4,0) dias e hospitalar de 9,5 (5,4 - 18,6) dias. As taxas de complicações foram 29,9% (IC95% 26,4 - 33,7) e mortalidade em 28 dias pós-cirurgia 9,6% (IC95% 7,4 - 12,1). Os fatores independentes de risco para complicações foram Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3; razão de chance − RC = 1,02; IC95% 1,01 - 1,03) e Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) da admissão na unidade de terapia intensiva (RC =1,17; IC95% 1,09 - 1,25), tempo de cirurgia (RC = 1,001; IC95% 1,000 - 1,002) e cirurgias de emergências (RC = 1,93; IC95% 1,10 - 3,38). Em adição, foram associados com mortalidade em 28 dias idade (RC = 1,032; IC95% 1,011 - 1,052) SAPS 3 (RC = 1,041; IC95% 1,107 - 1,279), SOFA (RC = 1,175; IC95% 1,069 - 1,292) e cirurgias emergenciais (RC = 2,509; IC95% 1,040 - 6,051). Conclusão: Pacientes com escores prognósticos mais elevados, idosos, tempo cirúrgico e cirurgias emergenciais estiveram fortemente associados a maior mortalidade em 28 dias e mais complicações durante permanência em unidade de terapia intensiva.
ABSTRACT Objective: To define the epidemiological profile and the main determinants of morbidity and mortality in noncardiac high surgical risk patients in Brazil. Methods: This was a prospective, observational and multicenter study. All noncardiac surgical patients admitted to intensive care units, i.e., those considered high risk, within a 1-month period were evaluated and monitored daily for a maximum of 7 days in the intensive care unit to determine complications. The 28-day postoperative, intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates were evaluated. Results: Twenty-nine intensive care units participated in the study. Surgeries were performed in 25,500 patients, of whom 904 (3.5%) were high-risk (95% confidence interval - 95%CI 3.3% - 3.8%) and were included in the study. Of the participating patients, 48.3% were from private intensive care units, and 51.7% were from public intensive care units. The length of stay in the intensive care unit was 2.0 (1.0 - 4.0) days, and the length of hospital stay was 9.5 (5.4 - 18.6) days. The complication rate was 29.9% (95%CI 26.4 - 33.7), and the 28-day postoperative mortality rate was 9.6% (95%CI 7.4 - 12.1). The independent risk factors for complications were the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3; odds ratio - OR = 1.02; 95%CI 1.01 - 1.03) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA) on admission to the intensive care unit (OR = 1.17; 95%CI 1.09 - 1.25), surgical time (OR = 1.001, 95%CI 1.000 - 1.002) and emergency surgeries (OR = 1.93, 95%CI, 1.10 - 3.38). In addition, there were associations with 28-day mortality (OR = 1.032; 95%CI 1.011 - 1.052), SAPS 3 (OR = 1.041; 95%CI 1.107 - 1.279), SOFA (OR = 1.175, 95%CI 1.069 - 1.292) and emergency surgeries (OR = 2.509; 95%CI 1.040 - 6.051). Conclusion: Higher prognostic scores, elderly patients, longer surgical times and emergency surgeries were strongly associated with higher 28-day mortality and more complications during the intensive care unit stay.
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Brasil , Estudos Prospectivos , Medição de Risco , Unidades de Terapia IntensivaRESUMO
RESUMO A imobilidade pode causar várias complicações que influenciam na recuperação de doentes críticos, incluindo atrofia e fraqueza muscular esquelética. Esse efeito pode ser amenizado com a realização de mobilização precoce. Seis questões primordiais nortearam essa pesquisa: É segura? Quem é o candidato à mobilização precoce? Quais são as contraindicações? Qual a dose adequada e como defini-la? Quais os resultados obtidos? Quais os indicadores prognósticos em sua utilização? O objetivo desta diretriz foi elaborar um documento que reunisse recomendações e sugestões baseadas em níveis de evidência sobre a mobilização precoce do paciente crítico adulto, visando melhorar o entendimento sobre o tema, com impacto positivo no atendimento aos pacientes. Esta diretriz foi desenvolvida com base em uma revisão sistemática de artigos, utilizando a estratégia de busca no modelo PICO, conforme recomendado pelo Projeto de Diretrizes da Associação Médica Brasileira. Foram selecionados ensaios clínicos randomizados, estudos de coortes prognósticos, revisões sistemáticas com ou sem metanálise, sendo as evidências classificadas segundo Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine - Levels of Evidence. Em todas as questões abordadas, foram encontradas evidências suficientes para a realização da mobilização precoce de forma segura e bem definida, com indicadores prognósticos que evidenciam e recomendam a técnica. A mobilização precoce está associada a melhores resultados funcionais, devendo ser realizada sempre que indicada. É segura e deve ser meta de toda equipe multidisciplinar.
ABSTRACT Immobility can cause several complications, including skeletal muscle atrophy and weakness, that influence the recovery of critically ill patients. This effect can be mitigated by early mobilization. Six key questions guided this research: Is early mobilization safe? Which patients are candidates for early mobilization? What are the contraindications? What is the appropriate dose, and how should it be defined? What results are obtained? What are the prognostic indicators for the use of early mobilization? The objective of this guideline was to produce a document that would provide evidence-based recommendations and suggestions regarding the early mobilization of critically ill adult patients, with the aim of improving understanding of the topic and making a positive impact on patient care. This guideline was based on a systematic review of articles conducted using the PICO search strategy, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Associação Médica Brasileira. Randomized clinical trials, prognostic cohort studies, and systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were selected, and the evidence was classified according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence. For all the questions addressed, enough evidence was found to support safe and well-defined early mobilization, with prognostic indicators that support and recommend the technique. Early mobilization is associated with better functional outcomes and should be performed whenever indicated. Early mobilization is safe and should be the goal of the entire multidisciplinary team.
Assuntos
Humanos , Adulto , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Deambulação Precoce/métodos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Brasil , Estado Terminal/terapia , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Deambulação Precoce/normasRESUMO
Immobility can cause several complications, including skeletal muscle atrophy and weakness, that influence the recovery of critically ill patients. This effect can be mitigated by early mobilization. Six key questions guided this research: Is early mobilization safe? Which patients are candidates for early mobilization? What are the contraindications? What is the appropriate dose, and how should it be defined? What results are obtained? What are the prognostic indicators for the use of early mobilization? The objective of this guideline was to produce a document that would provide evidence-based recommendations and suggestions regarding the early mobilization of critically ill adult patients, with the aim of improving understanding of the topic and making a positive impact on patient care. This guideline was based on a systematic review of articles conducted using the PICO search strategy, as recommended by the Guidelines Project of the Associação Médica Brasileira. Randomized clinical trials, prognostic cohort studies, and systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis were selected, and the evidence was classified according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence. For all the questions addressed, enough evidence was found to support safe and well-defined early mobilization, with prognostic indicators that support and recommend the technique. Early mobilization is associated with better functional outcomes and should be performed whenever indicated. Early mobilization is safe and should be the goal of the entire multidisciplinary team.
A imobilidade pode causar várias complicações que influenciam na recuperação de doentes críticos, incluindo atrofia e fraqueza muscular esquelética. Esse efeito pode ser amenizado com a realização de mobilização precoce. Seis questões primordiais nortearam essa pesquisa: É segura? Quem é o candidato à mobilização precoce? Quais são as contraindicações? Qual a dose adequada e como defini-la? Quais os resultados obtidos? Quais os indicadores prognósticos em sua utilização? O objetivo desta diretriz foi elaborar um documento que reunisse recomendações e sugestões baseadas em níveis de evidência sobre a mobilização precoce do paciente crítico adulto, visando melhorar o entendimento sobre o tema, com impacto positivo no atendimento aos pacientes. Esta diretriz foi desenvolvida com base em uma revisão sistemática de artigos, utilizando a estratégia de busca no modelo PICO, conforme recomendado pelo Projeto de Diretrizes da Associação Médica Brasileira. Foram selecionados ensaios clínicos randomizados, estudos de coortes prognósticos, revisões sistemáticas com ou sem metanálise, sendo as evidências classificadas segundo Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine - Levels of Evidence. Em todas as questões abordadas, foram encontradas evidências suficientes para a realização da mobilização precoce de forma segura e bem definida, com indicadores prognósticos que evidenciam e recomendam a técnica. A mobilização precoce está associada a melhores resultados funcionais, devendo ser realizada sempre que indicada. É segura e deve ser meta de toda equipe multidisciplinar.