Evaluation of the discrimination and calibration of predictive scores of mortality in ECMO for patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The criteria for the selection of COVID-19 patients that could benefit most from ECMO organ support are yet to be defined. In this study, we evaluated the predictive performance of ECMO mortality predictive models in patients with COVID-19. We also performed a cost-benefit analysis depending on the mortality predicted probability. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in COVID-19 patients who received ECMO at two tertiary care hospitals between March 2020 to July 2021. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the discrimination (C-statistic), calibration (Cox calibration), and accuracy of the prediction of death due to severe ARDS in V-V ECMO score (PRESERVE), the Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Score (RESP) score, and the PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy-Score (PRESET) score. In addition, we compared the RESP score with Plateau pressure instead of Peak pressure. RESULTS: We included a total of 36 patients, 29 (80%) of them male and with a median (IQR) APACHE of 10 (8-15). The PRESET score had the highest discrimination (AUROCs 0.81 [95%CI 0.67-0.94]) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large 0.5 [95%CI -1.4 to 0.3]; calibration slope 2.2 [95%CI 0.7/3.7]). The RESP score with Plateau pressure had higher discrimination than the conventional RESP score. The cost per QALY in the USA, adjusted to life expectancy, was higher than USD 100 000 in patients older than 45 years with a PRESET > 10. CONCLUSION: The PRESET score had the highest predictive performance and could help in the selection of patients that benefit most from this resource-demanding and highly invasive organ support.

Development and validation of nonattendance predictive models for scheduled adult outpatient appointments in different medical specialties.

INTRODUCTION: Nonattendance is a critical problem that affects health care worldwide. Our aim was to build and validate predictive models of nonattendance in all outpatients appointments, general practitioners, and clinical and surgical specialties. METHODS: A cohort study of adult patients, who had scheduled outpatient appointments for General Practitioners, Clinical and Surgical specialties, was conducted between January 2015 and December 2016, at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires. We evaluated potential predictors grouped in baseline patient characteristics, characteristics of the appointment scheduling process, patient history, characteristics of the appointment, and comorbidities. Patients were divided between those who attended their appointments, and those who did not. We generated predictive models for nonattendance for all appointments and the three subgroups. RESULTS: Of 2,526,549 appointments included, 703,449 were missed (27.8%). The predictive model for all appointments contains 30 variables, with an area under the ROC (AUROC) curve of 0.71, calibration-in-the-large (CITL) of 0.046, and calibration slope of 1.03 in the validation cohort. For General Practitioners the model has 28 variables (AUROC of 0.72, CITL of 0.053, and calibration slope of 1.01). For clinical subspecialties, the model has 23 variables (AUROC of 0.71, CITL of 0.039, and calibration slope of 1), and for surgical specialties, the model has 22 variables (AUROC of 0.70, CITL of 0.023, and calibration slope of 1.01). CONCLUSION: We build robust predictive models of nonattendance with adequate precision and calibration for each of the subgroups.

Bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the efficacy and complications associated with performing bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Prospective observational study conducted between March of 2020 and February of 2022. All adult patients who underwent elective bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomy were included. The efficacy of the procedure was evaluated based either on the success rate in the execution or on the need for conversion to open technique. Percutaneous tracheostomy-related complications were registered during the procedure. We performed 6-month follow-up for identifying late complications. RESULTS: During the study period, 312 bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomies were analyzed. One hundred and eighty-three were performed in COVID-19 patients and 129 among non-COVID-19 patients. Overall, 64.1% (200) of patients were male, with a median age of 66 (interquartile range 54-74), and 65% (205) presented at least 1 comorbidity. Overall, oxygen desaturation was the main complication observed (20.8% [65]), being more frequent in the COVID-19 group occurring in 27.3% (50) with a statistically significant difference versus the non-COVID-19 patients' group (11.6% [15]); P < .01). Major complications such as hypotension, arrhythmias, and pneumothorax were more frequently observed among COVID-19 patients as well but with no significant differences. Percutaneous tracheostomy could be executed quickly and satisfactorily in all the patients with no need for conversion to the open technique. Likewise, no suspension of the procedure was required in any case. During 6-month follow-up, we found an incidence of 0.96% (n = 3) late complications, 2 tracheal granulomas, and 1 ostomal infection. CONCLUSION: Bronchoscopy-guided percutaneous tracheostomy can be considered an effective and safe procedure in COVID-19 patients. Nevertheless, it is highly remarkable that in the series under study, a great number of COVID-19 patients presented oxygen desaturation during the procedure.

Changes in the management and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic. / Modificações no manejo e desfechos clínicos de pacientes críticos sem COVID-19 durante a pandemia.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether changes in medical care due to the application of COVID-19 protocols affected clinical outcomes in patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study carried out in a thirty-eight-bed surgical and medical intensive care unit of a high complexity private hospital. Patients with respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit during March and April 2020 and the same months in 2019 were selected. We compared interventions and outcomes of patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic with patients admitted in 2019. The main variables analyzed were intensive care unit respiratory management, number of chest tomography scans and bronchoalveolar lavages, intensive care unit complications, and status at hospital discharge. RESULTS: In 2020, a significant reduction in the use of a high-flow nasal cannula was observed: 14 (42%) in 2019 compared to 1 (3%) in 2020. Additionally, in 2020, a significant increase was observed in the number of patients under mechanical ventilation admitted to the intensive care unit from the emergency department, 23 (69%) compared to 11 (31%) in 2019. Nevertheless, the number of patients with mechanical ventilation after 5 days of admission was similar in both years: 24 (69%) in 2019 and 26 (79%) in 2020. CONCLUSION: Intensive care unit protocols based on international recommendations for the COVID-19 pandemic have produced a change in non-COVID-19 patient management. We observed a reduction in the use of a high-flow nasal cannula and an increased number of tracheal intubations in the emergency department. However, no changes in the percentage of intubated patients in the intensive care unit, the number of mechanical ventilation days or the length of stay in intensive care unit.

OBJETIVO: Analisar se as modificações na atenção médica em razão da aplicação dos protocolos para COVID-19 afetaram os desfechos clínicos de pacientes sem a doença durante a pandemia. MÉTODOS: Este foi um estudo observacional de coorte retrospectiva conduzido em uma unidade de terapia intensiva clínica e cirúrgica com 38 leitos, localizada em hospital privado de alta complexidade na cidade de Buenos Aires, Argentina, e envolveu os pacientes com insuficiência respiratória admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva no período compreendido entre março e abril de 2020 em comparação com o mesmo período no ano de 2019. Compararam-se as intervenções e os desfechos dos pacientes sem COVID-19 tratados durante a pandemia em 2020 e os pacientes admitidos em 2019. As principais variáveis avaliadas foram os cuidados respiratórios na unidade de terapia intensiva, o número de exames de tomografia computadorizada do tórax e lavados broncoalveolares, complicações na unidade de terapia intensiva e condições quando da alta hospitalar. RESULTADOS: Observou-se, em 2020, uma redução significante do uso de cânula nasal de alto fluxo: 14 (42%), em 2019, em comparação com 1 (3%), em 2020. Além disso, em 2020, observou-se aumento significante no número de pacientes sob ventilação mecânica admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva a partir do pronto-socorro, de 23 (69%) em comparação com 11 (31%) em 2019. Contudo, o número de pacientes com ventilação mecânica 5 dias após a admissão foi semelhante em ambos os anos: 24 (69%), em 2019, e 26 (79%) em 2020. CONCLUSÃO: Os protocolos para unidades de terapia intensiva com base em recomendações internacionais para a pandemia de COVID-19 modificaram o manejo de pacientes sem COVID-19. Observamos redução do uso da cânula nasal de alto fluxo e aumento no número de intubações traqueais no pronto-socorro. Entretanto, não se identificaram alterações na percentagem de pacientes intubados na unidade de terapia intensiva, número de dias sob ventilação mecânica ou número de dias na unidade de terapia intensiva.

Modificações no manejo e desfechos clínicos de pacientes críticos sem COVID-19 durante a pandemia / Changes in the management and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic

RESUMO Objetivo: Analisar se as modificações na atenção médica em razão da aplicação dos protocolos para COVID-19 afetaram os desfechos clínicos de pacientes sem a doença durante a pandemia. Métodos: Este foi um estudo observacional de coorte retrospectiva conduzido em uma unidade de terapia intensiva clínica e cirúrgica com 38 leitos, localizada em hospital privado de alta complexidade na cidade de Buenos Aires, Argentina, e envolveu os pacientes com insuficiência respiratória admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva no período compreendido entre março e abril de 2020 em comparação com o mesmo período no ano de 2019. Compararam-se as intervenções e os desfechos dos pacientes sem COVID-19 tratados durante a pandemia em 2020 e os pacientes admitidos em 2019. As principais variáveis avaliadas foram os cuidados respiratórios na unidade de terapia intensiva, o número de exames de tomografia computadorizada do tórax e lavados broncoalveolares, complicações na unidade de terapia intensiva e condições quando da alta hospitalar. Resultados: Observou-se, em 2020, uma redução significante do uso de cânula nasal de alto fluxo: 14 (42%), em 2019, em comparação com 1 (3%), em 2020. Além disso, em 2020, observou-se aumento significante no número de pacientes sob ventilação mecânica admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva a partir do pronto-socorro, de 23 (69%) em comparação com 11 (31%) em 2019. Contudo, o número de pacientes com ventilação mecânica 5 dias após a admissão foi semelhante em ambos os anos: 24 (69%), em 2019, e 26 (79%) em 2020. Conclusão: Os protocolos para unidades de terapia intensiva com base em recomendações internacionais para a pandemia de COVID-19 modificaram o manejo de pacientes sem COVID-19. Observamos redução do uso da cânula nasal de alto fluxo e aumento no número de intubações traqueais no pronto-socorro. Entretanto, não se identificaram alterações na percentagem de pacientes intubados na unidade de terapia intensiva, número de dias sob ventilação mecânica ou número de dias na unidade de terapia intensiva.

Abstract Objective: To analyze whether changes in medical care due to the application of COVID-19 protocols affected clinical outcomes in patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic. Methods: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study carried out in a thirty-eight-bed surgical and medical intensive care unit of a high complexity private hospital. Patients with respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit during March and April 2020 and the same months in 2019 were selected. We compared interventions and outcomes of patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic with patients admitted in 2019. The main variables analyzed were intensive care unit respiratory management, number of chest tomography scans and bronchoalveolar lavages, intensive care unit complications, and status at hospital discharge. Results: In 2020, a significant reduction in the use of a high-flow nasal cannula was observed: 14 (42%) in 2019 compared to 1 (3%) in 2020. Additionally, in 2020, a significant increase was observed in the number of patients under mechanical ventilation admitted to the intensive care unit from the emergency department, 23 (69%) compared to 11 (31%) in 2019. Nevertheless, the number of patients with mechanical ventilation after 5 days of admission was similar in both years: 24 (69%) in 2019 and 26 (79%) in 2020. Conclusion: Intensive care unit protocols based on international recommendations for the COVID-19 pandemic have produced a change in non-COVID-19 patient management. We observed a reduction in the use of a high-flow nasal cannula and an increased number of tracheal intubations in the emergency department. However, no changes in the percentage of intubated patients in the intensive care unit, the number of mechanical ventilation days or the length of stay in intensive care unit.