Septic shock 3.0 criteria application in severe COVID-19 patients: An unattended sepsis population with high mortality risk.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be associated with life-threatening organ dysfunction due to septic shock, frequently requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, respiratory and vasopressor support. Therefore, clear clinical criteria are pivotal for early recognition of patients more likely to need prompt organ support. Although most patients with severe COVID-19 meet the Sepsis-3.0 criteria for septic shock, it has been increasingly recognized that hyperlactatemia is frequently absent, possibly leading to an underestimation of illness severity and mortality risk. AIM: To identify the proportion of severe COVID-19 patients with vasopressor support requirements, with and without hyperlactatemia, and describe their clinical outcomes and mortality. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective cohort study. All adult patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 were included in the analysis and were further divided into three groups: Sepsis group, without both criteria; Vasoplegic Shock group, with persistent hypotension and vasopressor support without hyperlactatemia; and Septic Shock 3.0 group, with both criteria. COVID-19 was diagnosed using clinical and radiologic criteria with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive RT-PCR test. RESULTS: 118 patients (mean age 63 years, 87% males) were included in the analysis (n = 51 Sepsis group, n = 26 Vasoplegic Shock group, and n = 41 Septic Shock 3.0 group). SOFA score at ICU admission and ICU length of stay were different between the groups (P < 0.001). Mortality was significantly higher in the Vasoplegic Shock and Septic Shock 3.0 groups when compared with the Sepsis group (P < 0.001) without a significant difference between the former two groups (P = 0.713). The log rank tests of Kaplan-Meier survival curves were also different (P = 0.007). Ventilator-free days and vasopressor-free days were different between the Sepsis vs Vasoplegic Shock and Septic Shock 3.0 groups (both P < 0.001), and similar in the last two groups (P = 0.128 and P = 0.133, respectively). Logistic regression identified the maximum dose of vasopressor therapy used (AOR 1.046; 95%CI: 1.012-1.082, P = 0.008) and serum lactate level (AOR 1.542; 95%CI: 1.055-2.255, P = 0.02) as the major explanatory variables of mortality rates (R 2 0.79). CONCLUSION: In severe COVID-19 patients, the Sepsis 3.0 criteria of septic shock may exclude approximately one third of patients with a similarly high risk of a poor outcome and mortality rate, which should be equally addressed.

Predictive value of D-dimer in the clinical outcome of severe COVID19 patients: Are we giving it too much credit?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a new form of acute respiratory failure leading to multiorgan failure and ICU admission. Gathered evidence suggests that a 3-fold rise in D-dimer concentrations may be linked to poor prognosis and higher mortality. PURPOSE: To describe D-dimer admission profile in severe ICU COVID19 patients and its predictive role in outcomes and mortality. METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study. All adult patients admitted to ICU with COVID19 were divided into 3 groups: (1) Lower-values group (D-dimer levels < 3-fold normal range value [NRV] [500ng/mL]), Intermediate-values group (D-dimer ≥3-fold and <10-fold NRV) and Higher-value group (≥10-fold NRV). RESULTS: 118 patients (mean age 63 years, 73% males) were included (N = 73 Lower-values group, N = 31 Intermediate-values group; N = 11 Higher-values group). Mortality was not different between groups (p = 0.51). Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed no differences (p = 0.52) between groups, nor it was verified even when gender, age, ICU length of stay, and SOFA score were considered as covariables. CONCLUSIONS: In severe COVID19 patients, the D-dimer profile does not retain a predictive value regarding patients' survivability and should not be used as a surrogate of disease severity.

[Severe imported malaria in critical care patients]. / Malária grave importada em doentes críticos.

INTRODUCTION: Imported malaria is a frequent diagnosis in Portugal, and in the most severe clinical forms it may present a high mortality rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We present seven cases of severe imported malaria, admitted to an intensive care unit between 2000 and 2010, with particular focus on risk factors, clinical presentation, treatment and results. RESULTS: All patients had a history of recent travel to African endemic areas for malaria. Plasmodium falciparum was the agent isolated in all cases. Most patients had an inadequate prophylaxis. High parasitaemia in non-immune patients and treatment delay were associated with more severe clinical presentation. All the cases were complicated by organ failure, and three patients needed organ support and in two exchange blood transfusions were performed. There was one single death that was associated with marked delay in the initiation of therapy. CONCLUSION: In these patients, early and aggressive treatment, with a organ support in a critical care setting, allowed a good outcome with low mortality and no significant sequelae, despite the severity of presentation.