RESUMO
Background: Since publication of the 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), several developments have supported the need for an expansion of the definition, including the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, the expansion of the use of pulse oximetry in place of arterial blood gases, the use of ultrasound for chest imaging, and the need for applicability in resource-limited settings. Methods: A consensus conference of 32 critical care ARDS experts was convened, had six virtual meetings (June 2021 to March 2022), and subsequently obtained input from members of several critical care societies. The goal was to develop a definition that would 1) identify patients with the currently accepted conceptual framework for ARDS, 2) facilitate rapid ARDS diagnosis for clinical care and research, 3) be applicable in resource-limited settings, 4) be useful for testing specific therapies, and 5) be practical for communication to patients and caregivers. Results: The committee made four main recommendations: 1) include high-flow nasal oxygen with a minimum flow rate of ⩾30 L/min; 2) use PaO2:FiO2 ⩽ 300 mm Hg or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry SpO2:FiO2 ⩽ 315 (if oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry is ⩽97%) to identify hypoxemia; 3) retain bilateral opacities for imaging criteria but add ultrasound as an imaging modality, especially in resource-limited areas; and 4) in resource-limited settings, do not require positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygen flow rate, or specific respiratory support devices. Conclusions: We propose a new global definition of ARDS that builds on the Berlin definition. The recommendations also identify areas for future research, including the need for prospective assessments of the feasibility, reliability, and prognostic validity of the proposed global definition.
Assuntos
Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório , Humanos , Estudos Prospectivos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/diagnóstico , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório/terapia , Oximetria , OxigênioRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Herein, we conducted a review of the literature to better understand the issue of prolonged emergency department (ED) boarding by providing an overview of the current evidence on the available causes, consequences, and mitigation strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: Severely ill patients awaiting transfer to intensive care units (ICU) imposes additional burdens on the emergency care team from both a clinical and management perspective. The reasons for prolonged ED boarding are multifactorial. ED boarding compromises patients' safety and outcomes, and is associated with increased team burnout and dissatisfaction. Mitigation strategies include the optimization of patients' flow, the establishment of resuscitative care units, deployment of mobile critical care teams, and improvements in training. Staffing adjustments, changes in hospital operations, and quality improvement initiatives are required to improve this situation, while active bed management and implementation of capacity command centers may also help. SUMMARY: Considering the characteristics of healthcare systems, such as funding mechanisms, organizational structures, delivery models, access and quality of care, the challenge of ED boarding of critically ill patients requires a nuanced and adaptable approach. Solutions are complex but must involve the entirety of the hospital system, emergency department, staff adjustment, and education.
Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Transferência de Pacientes , Humanos , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/organização & administração , Transferência de Pacientes/organização & administração , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva/organização & administração , Aglomeração , Estado Terminal/terapia , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricos , Melhoria de Qualidade , Admissão do Paciente , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Cuidados Críticos/organização & administraçãoRESUMO
PURPOSE: Independence in activities of daily living (ADLs) is associated with quality of life (QoL) in individuals with dementia. However, the contribution of physical and cognitive functions to this relationship needs further examination. This study aims to examine the mediating effect of physical fitness and cognitive function in the relationship between independence in basic ADLs and QoL among older adults with dementia. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 107 older adults with dementia (74.8% women; age 78.21 ± 7.70 years). Independence in basic ADL and QoL were evaluated using the Barthel Index (BI) and QoL- Alzheimer's Disease Scale, respectively. The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale and the Mini-Mental State Examination were applied to assess cognitive function. Physical fitness was evaluated using the 30-s chair stand, 2-min step and the Timed-Up and Go tests. A structural equation modelling (SEM) with bootstrapping estimation was conducted to determine the relationship between all variables. RESULTS: Independence in basic ADL positively affected QoL and this association was mediated by physical fitness (ß = 0.242, p = 0.011). No statistically significant results were observed when testing cognitive function as a mediator between BI and QoL (ß = 0.009, p = 0.345). CONCLUSIONS: Physical fitness (i.e., lower body strength, aerobic capacity, and mobility) plays a role in the relationship between basic ADL independence and QoL of older adults with dementia, reinforcing the need to improve and monitor these parameters throughout the disease progression. Future longitudinal studies should explore the temporal relationship between physical and cognitive function and its contribution to basic ADL independence and QoL.
Assuntos
Atividades Cotidianas , Doença de Alzheimer , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Masculino , Atividades Cotidianas/psicologia , Doença de Alzheimer/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Estudos Transversais , Cognição , Aptidão FísicaRESUMO
Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Produtos de Degradação da Fibrina e do Fibrinogênio , Hemorragia , Trombose , Humanos , COVID-19/sangue , COVID-19/complicações , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Produtos de Degradação da Fibrina e do Fibrinogênio/análise , Produtos de Degradação da Fibrina e do Fibrinogênio/metabolismo , Hemorragia/sangue , Hemorragia/diagnóstico , Hemorragia/etiologia , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Masculino , Feminino , Trombose/sangue , Trombose/etiologia , Trombose/diagnóstico , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Hospitalização , Fatores de Risco , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).
Assuntos
Antivirais/administração & dosagem , Azitromicina/administração & dosagem , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Hidroxicloroquina/administração & dosagem , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Azitromicina/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus , Brasil , COVID-19 , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Hospitalização , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Gravidade do Paciente , SARS-CoV-2 , Falha de Tratamento , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effects of a multicomponent training (MT) physical exercise intervention in the cognitive function, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and quality of life of older adults with major neurocognitive disorder (NCD). METHODS: Quasi-experimental controlled trial. Thirty-six individuals (25 female) were equally distributed to an exercise group (aged 74.33 ± 5.87 years) or a control group (aged 81.83 ± 6.18 years). The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive (ADAS-Cog), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and the Quality of Life - Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD) tests were performed before and after the intervention. RESULTS: There was no clear interaction effect factor of intervention on ADAS-Cog (B = 1.33, 95% CI: -2.61 - 5.28, P = .513), NPI (B = -8.35, 95% CI: -18.48 - 1.72, P = .115), and QoL-AD (B = 2.87, 95% CI: .01 - 5.73, P = .058). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-month MT physical exercise intervention did not present evidence of slowing down cognitive decline neither improving neuropsychiatric symptomatology, and quality of life of older adults with major NCD. Future studies with larger samples are needed to better understand the impact of physical exercise interventions using MT methodology on specific cognitive abilities, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and quality of life domains.
Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer , Demência , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Doença de Alzheimer/terapia , Cognição , Demência/terapia , Exercício Físico , Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
Rationale: The effects of balanced crystalloid versus saline on clinical outcomes for ICU patients may be modified by the type of fluid that patients received for initial resuscitation and by the type of admission. Objectives: To assess whether the results of a randomized controlled trial could be affected by fluid use before enrollment and admission type. Methods: Secondary post hoc analysis of the BaSICS (Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study) trial, which compared a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) with 0.9% saline in the ICU. Patients were categorized according to fluid use in the 24 hours before enrollment in four groups (balanced solutions only, 0.9% saline only, a mix of both, and no fluid before enrollment) and according to admission type (planned, unplanned with sepsis, and unplanned without sepsis). The association between 90-day mortality and the randomization group was assessed using a hierarchical logistic Bayesian model. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 10,520 patients were included. There was a low probability that the balanced solution was associated with improved 90-day mortality in the whole trial population (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 89% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-10.51; probability of benefit, 0.58); however, probability of benefit was high for patients who received only balanced solutions before enrollment (regardless of admission type, OR, 0.78; 89% CrI, 0.56-1.03; probability of benefit, 0.92), mostly because of a benefit in unplanned admissions due to sepsis (OR, 0.70; 89% CrI, 0.50-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.96) and planned admissions (OR, 0.79; 89% CrI, 0.65-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.97). Conclusions: There is a high probability that balanced solution use in the ICU reduces 90-day mortality in patients who exclusively received balanced fluids before trial enrollment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Sepse , Adulto , Teorema de Bayes , Estado Terminal/terapia , Soluções Cristaloides/uso terapêutico , Hidratação/métodos , Humanos , Solução SalinaRESUMO
To evaluate the prevalence of musculoskeletal ultrasonography (MSUS) abnormalities in asymptomatic elderly individuals. A cross-sectional controlled study was conducted and MSUS of 23 joints (wrist, metacarpophalangeal-MCP, proximal interphalangeal-PIP, elbow, glenohumeral, hip, knee, ankle, and metatarsophalangeal-MTP joints) was performed in healthy individuals aged 18-29 (young, n = 32) and 60-80 years-old (elderly, n = 32). Quantitative synovial hypertrophy (SH) was measured in mm and a semiquantitative scoring system (0-3) was used to grade SH, power doppler (PD) and bone erosion (BE). Young and elderly participants were 26.2 ± 3.2 and 65.9 ± 4.4 years-old, respectively. As compared to the young participants, elderly individuals had higher SH values in 35% of the joint surfaces (P < 0.05), higher rates of scores 1-3 for SH at the dorsal surface of the 3rd MCP, palmar surface of the 2nd MCP, 2nd PIP, 3rd MCP and 3rd PIP and subtalar joints (17.2 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.002; 29.7 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.001; 12.5 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.016; 21.9 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.011; 21.9 vs. 7.8%, P = 0.025; and 24.2 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.005, respectively), BE at the radiocarpal, ulnocarpal, dorsal surface of the 2nd MCP and posterior area of the glenohumeral joints (10.9 vs. 1.6%, P = 0.028; 12.5 vs. 0%, P = 0.003; 9.4 vs. 0%, P = 0.012; and 29.7 vs. 10.9%, P = 0.008, respectively) and PD at the dorsal surface of the 2nd and 3rd MCP joints (9.4 vs. 0%; P = 0.012 and 7.8 vs. 0%; P = 0.023, respectively). BE scores ≥ 1 were more frequent in the elderly (P < 0.05) in 22 (88%) of the joint surfaces evaluated. MSUS abnormalities are more frequent in asymptomatic elderly individuals as compared to young subjects.
Assuntos
Sinovite , Ultrassonografia Doppler , Idoso , Humanos , Adulto Jovem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Transversais , Brasil/epidemiologia , UltrassonografiaRESUMO
The year 2019 brought three such impacts of high socio-environmental proportions in Brazil: the dam collapse in Brumadinho, oil spills on the coast, and fires in the Amazon. We investigated the Brazilian population's perceptions of the country's overall environmental situation, the degree to which Brazilians felt affected by these impacts considering personal and social factors, and the entities they held responsible for these disasters. Through Facebook's social media networks, we disseminated structured online surveys for Brazilian citizens above 18 years. Educational background explained how much the 775 respondents felt affected by the three evaluated events. Age was an explanatory factor for the degree to which the respondents felt affected by the dam collapse, and proximity to the disasters, while income levels were for the dam collapse and the fires in the Amazon. The government, criminal activity, and private companies were considered to be the main responsible for these three impacts. This perception reflects the series of changes in the country's environmental laws and protections that threaten biodiversity and the environment.
Assuntos
Desastres , Incêndios , Humanos , Brasil , BiodiversidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28â899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34â288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.
Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , Tratamento Farmacológico da COVID-19 , COVID-19/sangue , Enoxaparina/uso terapêutico , Heparina/uso terapêutico , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversos , Rivaroxabana/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Idoso , Coagulação Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Brasil/epidemiologia , Determinação de Ponto Final , Feminino , Produtos de Degradação da Fibrina e do Fibrinogênio , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Alta do Paciente , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Since the advent of critical care in the twentieth century, the core elements that are the foundation for critical care systems, namely to care for critically ill and injured patients and to save lives, have evolved enormously. The past half-century has seen dramatic advancements in diagnostic, organ support, and treatment modalities in critical care, with further improvements now needed to achieve personalized critical care of the highest quality. For critical care to be even higher quality in the future, advancements in the following areas are key: the physical ICU space; the people that care for critically ill patients; the equipment and technologies; the information systems and data; and the research systems that impact critically ill patients and families. With acutely and critically ill patients and their families as the absolute focal point, advancements across these areas will hopefully transform care and outcomes over the coming years.
Assuntos
Cuidados Críticos , Estado Terminal , Humanos , Estado Terminal/terapia , Exame FísicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction due to a dysregulated host response to infection. It is considered a major cause of health loss, but data for the global burden of sepsis are limited. As a syndrome caused by underlying infection, sepsis is not part of standard Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) estimates. Accurate estimates are important to inform and monitor health policy interventions, allocation of resources, and clinical treatment initiatives. We estimated the global, regional, and national incidence of sepsis and mortality from this disorder using data from GBD 2017. METHODS: We used multiple cause-of-death data from 109 million individual death records to calculate mortality related to sepsis among each of the 282 underlying causes of death in GBD 2017. The percentage of sepsis-related deaths by underlying GBD cause in each location worldwide was modelled using mixed-effects linear regression. Sepsis-related mortality for each age group, sex, location, GBD cause, and year (1990-2017) was estimated by applying modelled cause-specific fractions to GBD 2017 cause-of-death estimates. We used data for 8·7 million individual hospital records to calculate in-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality, stratified by underlying GBD cause. In-hospital sepsis-associated case-fatality was modelled for each location using linear regression, and sepsis incidence was estimated by applying modelled case-fatality to sepsis-related mortality estimates. FINDINGS: In 2017, an estimated 48·9 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 38·9-62·9) incident cases of sepsis were recorded worldwide and 11·0 million (10·1-12·0) sepsis-related deaths were reported, representing 19·7% (18·2-21·4) of all global deaths. Age-standardised sepsis incidence fell by 37·0% (95% UI 11·8-54·5) and mortality decreased by 52·8% (47·7-57·5) from 1990 to 2017. Sepsis incidence and mortality varied substantially across regions, with the highest burden in sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, south Asia, east Asia, and southeast Asia. INTERPRETATION: Despite declining age-standardised incidence and mortality, sepsis remains a major cause of health loss worldwide and has an especially high health-related burden in sub-Saharan Africa. FUNDING: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the University of Pittsburgh, the British Columbia Children's Hospital Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Fleming Fund.
Assuntos
Carga Global da Doença/estatística & dados numéricos , Sepse/epidemiologia , Sepse/mortalidade , Adolescente , Adulto , Distribuição por Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Causas de Morte , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Distribuição por Sexo , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.
Assuntos
Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Azitromicina/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Antivirais/efeitos adversos , Azitromicina/efeitos adversos , Betacoronavirus , Brasil/epidemiologia , COVID-19 , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/efeitos adversos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Terapia Respiratória , SARS-CoV-2 , Padrão de Cuidado , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation. DESIGN: ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. SUMMARY: The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.
Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/complicações , Enoxaparina/uso terapêutico , Rivaroxabana/uso terapêutico , Trombose/prevenção & controle , Administração Oral , Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem , Anticoagulantes/efeitos adversos , Brasil , COVID-19/sangue , COVID-19/mortalidade , Esquema de Medicação , Enoxaparina/administração & dosagem , Enoxaparina/efeitos adversos , Produtos de Degradação da Fibrina e do Fibrinogênio/análise , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Hospitalização , Humanos , Oxigenoterapia , Rivaroxabana/administração & dosagem , Rivaroxabana/efeitos adversos , Trombose/etiologia , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.
Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Críticos , Dexametasona/uso terapêutico , Gerenciamento Clínico , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Monofosfato de Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/uso terapêutico , Anticoagulantes , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Hemodinâmica , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina , Imunização Passiva , Posicionamento do Paciente , Ventilação , Soroterapia para COVID-19RESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss why severe COVID-19 should be considered sepsis and how co-infection and secondary infection can aggravate this condition and perpetuate organ dysfunction leading to high mortality rates. RECENT FINDINGS: In severe COVID-19, there is both direct viral toxicity and dysregulated host response to infection. Although both coinfection and/or secondary infection are present, the latest is of greater concern mainly in resource-poor settings. Patients with severe COVID-19 present a phenotype of multiorgan dysfunction that leads to death in an unacceptable high percentage of the patients, with wide variability around the world. Similarly to endemic sepsis, the mortality of COVID-19 critically ill patients is higher in low-income and middle-income countries as compared with high-income countries. Disparities, including hospital strain, resources limitations, higher incidence of healthcare-associated infections (HAI), and staffing issues could in part explain this variability. SUMMARY: The high mortality rates of critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 disease are not only related to the severity of patient disease but also to modifiable factors, such as the ICU strain, HAI incidence, and organizational aspects. Therefore, HAI prevention and the delivery of best evidence-based care for these patients to avoid additional damage is important. Quality improvement interventions might help in improving outcomes mainly in resource-limited settings.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Sepse , Estado Terminal , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.
Assuntos
COVID-19/complicações , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Insuficiência Respiratória/terapia , Insuficiência Respiratória/virologia , HumanosRESUMO
PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the association between health-related physical indicators-sarcopenia-related factors, physical fitness, independence in activities of daily living (ADL) and habitual physical activity-and self-rated quality of life (QoL) in people with neurocognitive disorder (NCD). METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 115 participants (78.22 ± 7.48 years; 74.8% female) clinically diagnosed with NCD. Self-rated QoL was evaluated using The Quality of Life-Alzheimer's Disease (QoL-AD). Dual energy X-ray Absorptiometry, handgrip strength, Short Physical Performance Battery, and the 6-m Walk test were used to assess sarcopenia-related factors. Senior Fitness Test and One Leg Balance test, Barthel Index, Baecke Modified Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire were used to determine physical fitness, independence in ADL and physical activity, respectively. Regressions analyses were performed to examine associations between these variables and QoL-AD. RESULTS: Data from univariable linear regression analysis revealed that self-rated QoL was associated with sarcopenia-related factors (lower body function, handgrip strength, gait speed, and appendicular skeletal muscle mass index-ASMI), physical fitness (upper-and-lower-body strength, agility/dynamic balance, cardiorespiratory fitness and body mass index), habitual physical activity and independence in ADL. Results from multivariable regression analysis showed that ASMI (B = 1.846, 95% CI 0.165-3.527, p = 0.032) and lower body function (B = 0.756, 95% CI 0.269-1.242, p = 0.003) were positively associated with self-rated QoL. These variables explained 20.1% of the variability seen in self-rated QoL, controlling for age, sex, marital status and education. CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia-related factors, namely lower body function and ASMI, should be acknowledged in future research studies as critical health-related indicators associated with QoL in people with NCD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov-identifier number NCT04095962.
Assuntos
Força da Mão , Qualidade de Vida , Atividades Cotidianas , Idoso , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Força Muscular , Transtornos Neurocognitivos , Qualidade de Vida/psicologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The cuff leak test (CLT) is used to assess laryngeal edema prior to extubation. There is limited evidence for its diagnostic accuracy and conflicting guidelines surrounding its use in critically ill patients who do not have risk factors for laryngeal edema. The primary study aim was to describe intensivists' beliefs, attitudes, and practice regarding the use of the CLT. METHODS: A 13-item survey was developed, pilot-tested, and subjected to clinical sensibility testing. The survey was distributed electronically through MetaClinician®. Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analysis were performed to examine associations between participant demographics and survey responses. RESULTS: 1184 practicing intensivists from 17 countries in North and South America, Europe, Oceania, and Asia participated. The majority (59%) of respondents reported rarely or never perform the CLT prior to extubating patients not at high risk of laryngeal edema, which correlated with 54% of respondents reporting they believed a failed CLT did not predict reintubation. Intensivists from the Middle East were 2.4 times more likely to request a CLT compared to those from North America. Intensivists with base training in medicine or emergency medicine were more likely to request a CLT prior to extubation compared to those with base training in anesthesiology. CONCLUSION: Use of the CLT prior to extubating patients not at high risk of laryngeal edema in the intensive care unit is highly variable. Practice appears to be influenced by country of practice and base specialty training.
Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Edema Laríngeo , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Intubação Intratraqueal/efeitos adversos , Edema Laríngeo/etiologia , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Rationale: Although proposed as a clinical prompt to sepsis based on predictive validity for mortality, the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is often used as a screening tool, which requires high sensitivity.Objectives: To assess the predictive accuracy of qSOFA for mortality in Brazil, focusing on sensitivity.Methods: We prospectively collected data from two cohorts of emergency department and ward patients. Cohort 1 included patients with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction or sepsis (22 hospitals: 3 public and 19 private). Cohort 2 included patients with sepsis (54 hospitals: 24 public and 28 private). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The predictive accuracy of qSOFA was examined considering only the worst values before the suspicion of infection or sepsis.Measurements and Main Results: Cohort 1 contained 5,460 patients (mortality rate, 14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1-15.0), among whom 78.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.5-9.1). The sensitivity of a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 for predicting mortality was 53.9% and the 95% CI was 50.3 to 57.5. The sensitivity was higher for a qSOFA greater than or equal to 1 (84.9%; 95% CI, 82.1-87.3), a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or lactate greater than 2 mmol/L (91.3%; 95% CI, 89.0-93.2), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus organ dysfunction (68.7%; 95% CI, 65.2-71.9). Cohort 2 contained 4,711 patients, among whom 62.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 17.3%; 95% CI, 15.9-18.7), whereas in public hospitals the mortality rate was 39.3% (95% CI, 35.5-43.3).Conclusions: A qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 has low sensitivity for predicting death in patients with suspected infection in a developing country. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 as a screening tool for sepsis may miss patients who ultimately die. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or adding lactate to a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 may improve sensitivity.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03158493).