Detailed Analysis of Primary Non-invasive Respiratory Support and Outcomes of Subjects With COVID-19 Acute Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure.

Background The role of non-invasive (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or Non-invasive ventilation (NIV)) respiratory support (NIRS) as a primary oxygenation strategy for COVID-19 patients with acute severe hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF), as opposed to invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive-MV), is uncertain. While NIRS may prevent complications related to invasive MV, prolonged NIRS and delays in intubation may lead to adverse outcomes. This study was conducted to assess the role of NIRS in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure and to explore the variables associated with NRIS failure. Methods This is a single-center, observational study of two distinct waves of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Patients initially managed with non-invasive respiratory support with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure were included. Demographics, comorbidities, admission laboratory variables, and ICU admission scores were extracted from electronic health records. Univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to summarise survival between the ventilatory and time-to-intubation groups. Results There were 291 patients, of which 232 were managed with NIRS as an initial ventilation strategy. There was a high incidence of failure (48.7%). Admission APACHE II score, SOFA score, HACOR score, ROX index, and PaO2/FiO2 were all predictive of NIRS failure. Daily (days 1-4) HACOR scores and ROX index measurements highly predicted NIRS failure. Late NIRS failure (>24 hours) was independently associated with increased mortality (44%). Conclusion NIRS is effective as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients with AHRF. However, failure, particularly delayed failure, is associated with significant mortality. Early prediction of NIRS failure may prevent adverse outcomes.

Caring for COVID-19 patients through a pandemic in the intensive care setting: A narrative review.

Since the declaration of the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic, health systems/ health-care-workers globally have been overwhelmed by a vast number of COVID-19 related hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. During the early stages of the pandemic, the lack of formalized evidence-based guidelines in all aspects of patient management was a significant challenge. Coupled with a lack of effective pharmacotherapies resulted in unsatisfactory outcomes in ICU patients. The anticipated increment in ICU surge capacity was staggering, with almost every ICU worldwide being advised to increase their capacity to allow adequate care provision in response to multiple waves of the pandemic. This increase in surge capacity required advanced planning and reassessments at every stage, taking advantage of experienced gained in combination with emerging evidence. In University Hospital Southampton General Intensive Care Unit (GICU), despite the initial lack of national and international guidance, we enhanced our ICU capacity and developed local guidance on all aspects of care to address the rapid demand from the increasing COVID-19 admissions. The main element of this success was a multidisciplinary team approach intertwined with equipment and infrastructural reorganization. This narrative review provides an insight into the approach adopted by our center to manage patients with COVID-19 critical illness, exploring the initial planning process, including contingency preparations to accommodate (360% capacity increment) and adaptation of our management pathways as more evidence emerged throughout the pandemic to provide the most appropriate levels of care to our patients. We hope our experience will benefit other intensive care units worldwide. This article is categorized under: Infectious Diseases > Genetics/Genomics/Epigenetics.

Prediction of mortality in critically-ill elderly trauma patients: a single centre retrospective observational study and comparison of the performance of trauma scores.

BACKGROUND: Trauma in the elderly (≥ 65 years) population is increasing. This study compares the performance of trauma scoring systems in predicting 30-day mortality among the traumatised elderly patients admitted to the intensive care unit in a major trauma centre. METHODS: We collected retrospective data for all elderly trauma patients admitted to our intensive care units between January 2012 and December 2017. We assessed Injury Severity Score (ISS), Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) and the Trauma Audit and Research Network's (TARN) Probability of Survival (Ps17) between survivors and non-survivors. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the performance of these scoring systems. RESULTS: There were 255 elderly trauma patients with overall 30-day survival of 76%. There was a statistically significant difference in ISS, GTOS and Ps17 scores between survivors and non-survivors (p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was statistically significant for all 3, with AUROC of 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.74) for the ISS, 0.68 (95% CI 0.61-0.76) for the GTOS and 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.85) for the Ps17. The optimal cut-off points were ≥ 28, ≥ 142, ≤ 76.73 for ISS, GTOS and Ps17, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both ISS and GTOS scoring systems preformed equally in predicting 30-day mortality in traumatised elderly patients admitted to the intensive care unit, however neither were robust enough to utilise in clinical practise. The Ps17 performed more robustly, although was not developed for prognosticating on individual patients. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these scoring systems in critically-ill elderly traumatised patients, which may help to facilitate early prognostication.