Impact of COVID-19 vaccination status on hospitalization and disease severity: A descriptive study in Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was extraordinarily harmful, with high rates of infection and hospitalization. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination status and other factors on hospitalization and disease severity, using data from Nagasaki Prefecture, Japan. Confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection with vaccination status were included and the differences in characteristics between different vaccination statuses, hospitalization or not, and patients with varying levels of disease severity were analyzed. Furthermore, logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to evaluate the association of various factors with hospitalization and disease severity. From March 14, 2020 to August 31, 2022, 23,139 patients were unvaccinated 13,668 vaccinated the primary program with one or two doses, and 4,575 completed the booster. Vaccination reduced the risk of hospitalization with an odd ratio of 0.759 (95% CI: 0.654-0.881) and the protective effect of completed booster vaccination was more pronounced (OR: 0.261, 95% CI: 0.207-0.328). Similarly, vaccination significantly reduced the risk of disease severity (vaccinated primary program: OR: 0.191, 95% CI: 0.160-0.228; completed booster vaccination: OR: 0.129, 95% CI: 0.099-0.169). Overall, unvaccinated, male, elderly, immunocompromised, obese, and patients with other severe illness factors were all risk factors for COVID-19-related hospitalization and disease severity. Vaccination was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization and disease severity, and highlighted the benefits of completing booster.

Inspiratory effort impacts the accuracy of pulse pressure variations for fluid responsiveness prediction in mechanically ventilated patients with spontaneous breathing activity: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure variation (PPV) is unreliable in predicting fluid responsiveness (FR) in patients receiving mechanical ventilation with spontaneous breathing activity. Whether PPV can be valuable for predicting FR in patients with low inspiratory effort is unknown. We aimed to investigate whether PPV can be valuable in patients with low inspiratory effort. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted in an intensive care unit at a university hospital and included acute circulatory failure patients receiving volume-controlled ventilation with spontaneous breathing activity. Hemodynamic measurements were collected before and after a fluid challenge. The degree of inspiratory effort was assessed using airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) and airway pressure swing during a whole breath occlusion (ΔPocc) before fluid challenge. Patients were classified as fluid responders if their cardiac output increased by ≥ 10%. Areas under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and gray zone approach were used to assess the predictive performance of PPV. RESULTS: Among the 189 included patients, 53 (28.0%) were defined as responders. A PPV > 9.5% enabled to predict FR with an AUROC of 0.79 (0.67-0.83) in the whole population. The predictive performance of PPV differed significantly in groups stratified by the median value of P0.1 (P0.1 < 1.5 cmH2O and P0.1 ≥ 1.5 cmH2O), but not in groups stratified by the median value of ΔPocc (ΔPocc < - 9.8 cmH2O and ΔPocc ≥ - 9.8 cmH2O). Specifically, in patients with P0.1 < 1.5 cmH2O, PPV was associated with an AUROC of 0.90 (0.82-0.99) compared with 0.68 (0.57-0.79) otherwise (p = 0.0016). The cut-off values of PPV were 10.5% and 9.5%, respectively. Besides, patients with P0.1 < 1.5 cmH2O had a narrow gray zone (10.5-11.5%) compared to patients with P0.1 ≥ 1.5 cmH2O (8.5-16.5%). CONCLUSIONS: PPV is reliable in predicting FR in patients who received controlled ventilation with low spontaneous effort, defined as P0.1 < 1.5 cmH2O. Trial registration NCT04802668. Registered 6 February 2021, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04802668.

Practice of diagnosis and management of acute respiratory distress syndrome in mainland China: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Although acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been recognized for more than 50 years, limited information exists about the incidence and management of ARDS in mainland China. To evaluate the potential for improvement in management of patients with ARDS, this study was designed to describe the incidence and management of ARDS in mainland China. METHODS: National prospective multicenter observational study over one month (August 31st to September 30th, 2012) of all patients who fulfilled the Berlin or American European Consensus Conference (AECC) definition of ARDS in 20 intensive care units, with data collection related to the management of ARDS, patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1,814 patients admitted during the enrollment period, 149 (8.2%) and 147 (8.1%) patients were diagnosed by AECC and Berlin definition, respectively. Lung protective strategy with low tidal volume (Vt) (≤8 mL/kg) and limitation of the plateau pressure (Pplat) (≤30 cmH2O) was performed in 75.2% patients. And, 36%, 21.1% and 4.1% patients with severe, moderate and mild ARDS had the driving pressure more than 14 cmH2O (P<0.05). Pplat and driving pressure increased significantly in patients with a higher degree of ARDS severity (P=0.002 and P<0.001, respectively), but Vt were comparable in the three groups (P>0.05). In severe ARDS, patient median positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 10.0 (8.0-11.3) cmH2O and median FiO2 was 90%. A recruitment maneuver was performed in 35.5% of the patients, and 8.7% of patients with severe ARDS received prone position. Overall hospital mortality was 34.0%. Hospital mortality was 21.8% for mild, 31.1% for moderate, and 60.0% for patients with severe ARDS (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Despite general acceptance of low Vt and limited Pplat, high driving pressure, low PEEP and low use of adjunctive measures may still be a concern in mainland China, especially in patients with severe ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01666834; date of registration release: August 14th 2012.