Temporal trends in respiratory pathogens following the COVID-19 pandemic and climate variables: A unicentric retrospective evaluation of 24 pathogens in a temperate subtropical region.

Temperature and humidity are studied in the context of seasonal infections in temperate and tropical zones, but the relationship between viral trends and climate variables in temperate subtropical zones remains underexplored. Our retrospective study analyzes respiratory pathogen incidence and its correlation with climate data in a subtropical zone. Retrospective observational study at Moinhos de Vento Hospital, South Brazil, aiming to assess seasonal trends in respiratory pathogens, correlating them with climate data. The study included patients of all ages from various healthcare settings, with data collected between April 2022 and July 2023. Biological samples were analyzed for 24 pathogens using polymerase chain reaction and hybridization techniques; demographic variables were also collected. The data was analyzed descriptively and graphically. Spearman tests and Poisson regression were used as correlation tests. Tests were clustered according to all pathogens, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), influenza viruses, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Between April 2022 and July 2023, 3329 tests showed a 71.6% positivity rate. Rhinovirus and RSV predominated, exhibiting seasonal patterns. Temperature was inversely correlated with the viruses, notably rhinovirus, but SARS-CoV-2 was positively correlated. Air humidity was positively correlated with all pathogens, RSV, rhinovirus, and atmospheric pressure with all pathogens and rhinovirus. Our results showed statistically significant correlations, with modest effect sizes. Our study did not evaluate causation effects. Despite the correlation between climate and respiratory pathogens, our work suggests additional factors influencing transmission dynamics. Our findings underscore the complex interplay between climate and respiratory infections in subtropical climates.

Anticipating ICU discharge and long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to summarize recent literature findings on long-term outcomes following critical illness and to highlight potential strategies for preventing and managing health deterioration in survivors of critical care. RECENT FINDINGS: A substantial number of critical care survivors experience new or exacerbated impairments in their physical, cognitive or mental health, commonly named as postintensive care syndrome (PICS). Furthermore, those who survive critical illness often face an elevated risk of adverse outcomes in the months following their hospital stay, including infections, cardiovascular events, rehospitalizations and increased mortality. These findings underscore the need for effective prevention and management of long-term health deterioration in the critical care setting. While robust evidence from well designed randomized clinical trials is limited, potential interventions encompass sedation limitation, early mobilization, delirium prevention and family presence during intensive care unit (ICU) stay, as well as multicomponent transition programs (from ICU to ward, and from hospital to home) and specialized posthospital discharge follow-up. SUMMARY: In this review, we offer a concise overview of recent insights into the long-term outcomes of critical care survivors and advancements in the prevention and management of health deterioration after critical illness.

Long-Term Mortality and Health-Related Quality of Life After Continuous Versus Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapy in ICU Survivors: A Secondary Analysis of the Quality of Life After ICU Study.

Purpose: We assessed long-term outcomes in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors with acute kidney injury (AKI) submitted to intermittent or continuous renal replacement therapy (RRT) for comparisons between groups. Methods: The multicenter prospective cohort study included 195 adult ICU survivors with an ICU stay >72 h in 10 ICUs that had at least one episode of AKI treated with intermittent RRT (IRRT) or continuous RRT (CRRT) during ICU stay. The main outcomes were mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Hospital readmissions and physical dependence were also assessed. Results: Regarding RRT, 83 (42.6%) patients received IRRT and 112 (57.4%) received CRRT. Despite the similarity regarding sociodemographic characteristics, pre-ICU state of health and type of admission between groups, the risk of death (23.5% vs 42.7%; P < .001), the prevalence of sepsis (60.7%) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (17%) were higher at ICU admission among CRRT patients. The severity of critical illness was higher among CRRT patients, regarding the need for mechanical ventilation (75.0% vs 50.6%, P = .002) and vasopressors (91.1% vs 63.9%, P < .001). One year after ICU discharge, 67 of 195 ICU survivors died (34.4%) and, after adjustment for confounders, there were no significant differences in mortality when comparing IRRT and CRTT patients (34.9% vs 33.9%; P = .590), on HRQoL in both physical (41.9% vs 42.2%; P = .926) and mental dimensions (57.6% vs 56.6%; P = .340), and on the number of hospital readmissions and physical dependence. Conclusions: Our study suggests that among ICU survivors RRT modality (IRRT vs CRRT) in the ICU does not impact long-term outcomes after ICU discharge.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

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.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

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.).

Reply to the letter "Understanding lactate and its clearance during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for supporting refractory cardiogenic shock patients".

This is a reply to the letter titled "Understanding lactate and its clearance during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for supporting refractory cardiogenic shock patients" by Eva Rully Kurniawati et al. In response to the concerns raised about our paper published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, titled "Association between serum lactate levels and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving mechanical circulatory support: a multicenter retrospective cohort study," we have addressed the confounding bias on the population included and the use of VA-ECMO and Impella CP. Furthermore, we have provided new data on the correlation of oxygen supply and lactate levels at admission of cardiogenic shock.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

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 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (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.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

Convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients: an open-label, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of convalescent plasma (CP) therapy in hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. This study investigates the effect of CP on clinical improvement in these patients. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated, randomised, parallel arm, open-label, superiority clinical trial. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to two infusions of CP plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinical improvement 28 days after enrolment. RESULTS: A total of 160 (80 in each arm) patients (66.3% critically ill, 33.7% severely ill) completed the trial. The median (interquartile range (IQR)) age was 60.5 (48-68) years; 58.1% were male and the median (IQR) time from symptom onset to randomisation was 10 (8-12) days. Neutralising antibody titres >1:80 were present in 133 (83.1%) patients at baseline. The proportion of patients with clinical improvement on day 28 was 61.3% in the CP+SOC group and 65.0% in the SOC group (difference -3.7%, 95% CI -18.8-11.3%). The results were similar in the severe and critically ill subgroups. There was no significant difference between CP+SOC and SOC groups in pre-specified secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality, days alive and free of respiratory support and duration of invasive ventilatory support. Inflammatory and other laboratory marker values on days 3, 7 and 14 were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: CP+SOC did not result in a higher proportion of clinical improvement on day 28 in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 compared to SOC alone.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

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.

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial.

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.

Exploring Patients' Perceptions on ICU Diaries: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Data Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to summarize the current qualitative evidence on patients' experiences of reading the ICU diaries. DATA SOURCES: We searched the online databases PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and EBSCO host from inception to July 2020. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that presented any qualitative findings regarding patients' experiences of reading an ICU diary were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Study design, location, publication year, data collection method, and mode, all qualitative themes identified and reported, and participant quotations, when appropriate. We also extracted data regarding the diary structure, when available. A thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze and synthesize qualitative data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies were analyzed. Most patients reported positive experiences with the ICU diary, such as understanding what they survived during critical illness, better understanding the process of recovery, gaining coherence of nightmares and delusional memories, realizing the importance of the presence of family and loved ones during ICU stay, and humanizing healthcare professionals that helped them survive critical illness. Patients also reported which components of the diary were important for their recovery, such as the presence of photographs and reading the diary with a healthcare professional, allowing the improvement of the concept of the ICU diary. CONCLUSION: This qualitative synthesis shows that patients recommend having an ICU diary, enlightening benefits such as better coping with the slow recovery from critical illness, strengthening family ties, and humanizing the ICU staff. It also identifies characteristics of the diary valued by the patients, in order to standardize the ICU diary according to their perspectives, and allowing future comparability between randomized controlled trials.

Mechanism of a Flexible ICU Visiting Policy for Anxiety Symptoms Among Family Members in Brazil: A Path Mediation Analysis in a Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the effect of a flexible ICU visiting policy that includes flexible visitation plus visitor education on anxiety symptoms of family members is mediated by satisfaction and involvement in patient care. DESIGN: We embedded a multivariable path mediation analysis within a cluster-randomized crossover trial as a secondary analysis of The ICU Visits Study (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02932358). SETTING: Thirty-six medical-surgical ICUs in Brazil. PATIENTS: Closest relatives of adult ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: Flexible visitation (12 hr/d) supported by family education or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hr/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 863 family members were assessed (mean age, 44.7 yr; women, 70.1%). Compared with the restricted visitation (n = 436), flexible visitation (n = 427) resulted in better mean anxiety scores (6.1 vs 7.8; mean difference, -1.78 [95% CI, -2.31 to -1.22]), as well as higher standardized scores of satisfaction (67% [95% CI, 55-79]) and involvement in patient care (77% [95% CI, 64-89]). The mediated effect of flexible visitation on mean anxiety scores through each incremental sd of satisfaction and involvement in patient care were -0.47 (95% CI, -0.68 to -0.24) and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.04-0.54), respectively. Upon exploratory analyses, emotional support, helping the ICU staff to understand patient needs, helping the patient to interpret ICU staff instructions, and patient reorientation were the domains of involvement in patient care associated with increased anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: A flexible ICU visiting policy reduces anxiety symptoms among family members and appears to work by increasing satisfaction. However, increased participation in some activities of patient care as a result of flexible visitation was associated with higher severity of anxiety symptoms.

Early and Late Mortality Following Discharge From the ICU: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the frequency, causes, and risk factors of early and late mortality among general adult patients discharged from ICUs. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective cohort study. SETTING: ICUs of 10 tertiary hospitals in Brazil. PATIENTS: One-thousand five-hundred fifty-four adult ICU survivors with an ICU stay greater than 72 hours for medical and emergency surgical admissions or greater than 120 hours for elective surgical admissions. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcomes were early (30 d) and late (31 to 365 d) mortality. Causes of death were extracted from death certificates and medical records. Twelve-month cumulative mortality was 28.2% (439 deaths). The frequency of early mortality was 7.9% (123 deaths), and the frequency of late mortality was 22.3% (316 deaths). Infections were the leading cause of death in both early (47.2%) and late (36.4%) periods. Multivariable analysis identified age greater than or equal to 65 years (hazard ratio, 1.65; p = 0.01), pre-ICU high comorbidity (hazard ratio, 1.59; p = 0.02), pre-ICU physical dependence (hazard ratio, 2.29; p < 0.001), risk of death at ICU admission (hazard ratio per 1% increase, 1.008; p = 0.03), ICU-acquired infections (hazard ratio, 2.25; p < 0.001), and ICU readmission (hazard ratio, 3.76; p < 0.001) as risk factors for early mortality. Age greater than or equal to 65 years (hazard ratio, 1.30; p = 0.03), pre-ICU high comorbidity (hazard ratio, 2.28; p < 0.001), pre-ICU physical dependence (hazard ratio, 2.00; p < 0.001), risk of death at ICU admission (hazard ratio per 1% increase, 1.010; p < 0.001), and ICU readmission (hazard ratios, 4.10, 4.17, and 1.82 for death between 31 and 60 days, 61 and 90 days, and greater than 90 days after ICU discharge, respectively; p < 0.001 for all comparisons) were associated with late mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Infections are the main cause of death after ICU discharge. Older age, pre-ICU comorbidities, pre-ICU physical dependence, severity of illness at ICU admission, and ICU readmission are associated with increased risk of early and late mortality, while ICU-acquired infections are associated with increased risk of early mortality.

Association between serum lactate levels and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving mechanical circulatory support: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the prognostic value of peak serum lactate and lactate clearance at several time points in cardiogenic shock treated with temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) using veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) or Impella CP®. METHODS: Serum lactate and clearance were measured before MCS and at 1 h, 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h post-MCS in 43 patients at four tertiary-care centers in Southern Brazil. Prognostic value was assessed by univariable and multivariable analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for 30-day mortality. RESULTS: VA-ECMO was the most common MCS modality (58%). Serum lactate levels at all time points and lactate clearance after 6 h were associated with mortality on unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Lactate levels were higher in non-survivors at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h after MCS. Serum lactate > 1.55 mmol/L at 24 h was the best single prognostic marker of 30-day mortality [area under the ROC curve = 0.81 (0.67-0.94); positive predictive value = 86%). Failure to improve serum lactate after 24 h was associated with 100% mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Serum lactate was an important prognostic biomarker in cardiogenic shock treated with temporary MCS. Serum lactate and lactate clearance at 24 h were the strongest independent predictors of short-term survival.

Effect of Dexamethasone on Days Alive and Ventilator-Free in Patients With Moderate or Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: The CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with substantial mortality and use of health care resources. Dexamethasone use might attenuate lung injury in these patients. Objective: To determine whether intravenous dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days among patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted in 41 intensive care units (ICUs) in Brazil. Patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, according to the Berlin definition, were enrolled from April 17 to June 23, 2020. Final follow-up was completed on July 21, 2020. The trial was stopped early following publication of a related study before reaching the planned sample size of 350 patients. Interventions: Twenty mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 5 days, 10 mg of dexamethasone daily for 5 days or until ICU discharge, plus standard care (n =151) or standard care alone (n = 148). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 days, clinical status of patients at day 15 using a 6-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1, not hospitalized to 6, death), ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (range, 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater organ dysfunction) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. Results: A total of 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 61 [14] years; 37% women) were enrolled and all completed follow-up. Patients randomized to the dexamethasone group had a mean 6.6 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 5.0-8.2) during the first 28 days vs 4.0 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 2.9-5.4) in the standard care group (difference, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.2-4.38; P = .04). At 7 days, patients in the dexamethasone group had a mean SOFA score of 6.1 (95% CI, 5.5-6.7) vs 7.5 (95% CI, 6.9-8.1) in the standard care group (difference, -1.16; 95% CI, -1.94 to -0.38; P = .004). There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at 28 days, ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, or the 6-point ordinal scale at 15 days. Thirty-three patients (21.9%) in the dexamethasone group vs 43 (29.1%) in the standard care group experienced secondary infections, 47 (31.1%) vs 42 (28.3%) needed insulin for glucose control, and 5 (3.3%) vs 9 (6.1%) experienced other serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS, use of intravenous dexamethasone plus standard care compared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free of mechanical ventilation) over 28 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04327401.

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms in adult critical care survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As more patients are surviving intensive care, mental health concerns in survivors have become a research priority. Among these, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can have an important impact on the quality of life of critical care survivors. However, data on its burden are conflicting. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the prevalence of PTSD symptoms in adult critical care patients after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, PsycNET, and Scopus databases from inception to September 2018. We included observational studies assessing the prevalence of PTSD symptoms in adult critical care survivors. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Studies were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model to estimate PTSD symptom prevalence at different time points, also estimating confidence and prediction intervals. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool and the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 13,267 studies retrieved, 48 were included in this review. Overall prevalence of PTSD symptoms was 19.83% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.72-23.13; I2 = 90%, low quality of evidence). Prevalence varied widely across studies, with a wide range of expected prevalence (from 3.70 to 43.73% in 95% of settings). Point prevalence estimates were 15.93% (95% CI, 11.15-21.35; I2 = 90%; 17 studies), 16.80% (95% CI, 13.74-20.09; I2 = 66%; 13 studies), 18.96% (95% CI, 14.28-24.12; I2 = 92%; 13 studies), and 20.21% (95% CI, 13.79-27.44; I2 = 58%; 7 studies) at 3, 6, 12, and > 12 months after discharge, respectively. CONCLUSION: PTSD symptoms may affect 1 in every 5 adult critical care survivors, with a high expected prevalence 12 months after discharge. ICU survivors should be screened for PTSD symptoms and cared for accordingly, given the potential negative impact of PTSD on quality of life. In addition, action should be taken to further explore the causal relationship between ICU stay and PTSD, as well as to propose early measures to prevent PTSD in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42017075124 , Registered 6 December 2017.

Effect of Flexible Family Visitation on Delirium Among Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: The ICU Visits Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of intensive care unit (ICU) visiting hours remain uncertain. Objective: To determine whether a flexible family visitation policy in the ICU reduces the incidence of delirium. Design, Setting and Participants: Cluster-crossover randomized clinical trial involving patients, family members, and clinicians from 36 adult ICUs with restricted visiting hours (<4.5 hours per day) in Brazil. Participants were recruited from April 2017 to June 2018, with follow-up until July 2018. Interventions: Flexible visitation (up to 12 hours per day) supported by family education (n = 837 patients, 652 family members, and 435 clinicians) or usual restricted visitation (median, 1.5 hours per day; n = 848 patients, 643 family members, and 391 clinicians). Nineteen ICUs started with flexible visitation, and 17 started with restricted visitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was incidence of delirium during ICU stay, assessed using the CAM-ICU. Secondary outcomes included ICU-acquired infections for patients; symptoms of anxiety and depression assessed using the HADS (range, 0 [best] to 21 [worst]) for family members; and burnout for ICU staff (Maslach Burnout Inventory). Results: Among 1685 patients, 1295 family members, and 826 clinicians enrolled, 1685 patients (100%) (mean age, 58.5 years; 47.2% women), 1060 family members (81.8%) (mean age, 45.2 years; 70.3% women), and 737 clinicians (89.2%) (mean age, 35.5 years; 72.9% women) completed the trial. The mean daily duration of visits was significantly higher with flexible visitation (4.8 vs 1.4 hours; adjusted difference, 3.4 hours [95% CI, 2.8 to 3.9]; P < .001). The incidence of delirium during ICU stay was not significantly different between flexible and restricted visitation (18.9% vs 20.1%; adjusted difference, -1.7% [95% CI, -6.1% to 2.7%]; P = .44). Among 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 did not differ significantly between flexible and restricted visitation, including ICU-acquired infections (3.7% vs 4.5%; adjusted difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.1% to 1.0%]; P = .38) and staff burnout (22.0% vs 24.8%; adjusted difference, -3.8% [95% CI, -4.8% to 12.5%]; P = .36). For family members, median anxiety (6.0 vs 7.0; adjusted difference, -1.6 [95% CI, -2.3 to -0.9]; P < .001) and depression scores (4.0 vs 5.0; adjusted difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4]; P = .003) were significantly better with flexible visitation. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the ICU, a flexible family visitation policy, vs standard restricted visiting hours, did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02932358.

Flexible Versus Restrictive Visiting Policies in ICUs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize data on outcomes related to patients, family members, and ICU professionals by comparing flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in ICUs. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Observational and randomized studies comparing flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in the ICU and evaluating at least one patient-, family member-, or ICU staff-related outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Duplicate independent review and data abstraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 16 studies identified for inclusion, seven were meta-analyzed. Most studies were rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Among patients, flexible visiting policies were associated with reduced frequency of delirium (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.69; I = 0%) and lower severity of anxiety symptoms (mean difference, -2.20; 95% CI, -3.80 to -0.61; I = 71%). Flexible visiting policies were not associated with increased risk of ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.38-1.36; I = 86%), ICU-acquired infections (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.42; I = 11%), or longer ICU stay (mean difference, -0.26 d; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.05; I = 54%). Among family members, flexible visiting policies were associated with greater satisfaction. Among ICU professionals, flexible visiting policies were associated with higher burnout levels. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible ICU visiting hours have the potential to reduce delirium and anxiety symptoms among patients and to improve family members' satisfaction. However, they may be associated with an increased risk of burnout among ICU professionals. These conclusions are based on few studies, with small samples and moderate risk of bias.