Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 124
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
N Engl J Med ; 388(6): 499-510, 2023 02 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36688507

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).


Asunto(s)
Fluidoterapia , Hipotensión , Sepsis , Humanos , Fluidoterapia/efectos adversos , Fluidoterapia/métodos , Fluidoterapia/mortalidad , Sepsis/complicaciones , Sepsis/mortalidad , Sepsis/terapia , Hipotensión/etiología , Hipotensión/mortalidad , Hipotensión/terapia , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Vasoconstrictores/administración & dosificación , Vasoconstrictores/efectos adversos , Vasoconstrictores/uso terapéutico
2.
N Engl J Med ; 389(5): 418-429, 2023 Aug 03.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37326325

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Whether video laryngoscopy as compared with direct laryngoscopy increases the likelihood of successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 17 emergency departments and intensive care units (ICUs), we randomly assigned critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation to the video-laryngoscope group or the direct-laryngoscope group. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications during intubation; severe complications were defined as severe hypoxemia, severe hypotension, new or increased vasopressor use, cardiac arrest, or death. RESULTS: The trial was stopped for efficacy at the time of the single preplanned interim analysis. Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis (91.5% of whom underwent intubation that was performed by an emergency medicine resident or a critical care fellow), successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 of the 705 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 of the 712 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct-laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; DEVICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05239195.).


Asunto(s)
Laringoscopios , Laringoscopía , Humanos , Adulto , Laringoscopía/efectos adversos , Laringoscopía/métodos , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Intubación Intratraqueal/métodos , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Grabación en Video
3.
N Engl J Med ; 384(16): 1503-1516, 2021 04 22.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33631066

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with immune dysregulation and hyperinflammation, including elevated interleukin-6 levels. The use of tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor, has resulted in better outcomes in patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in case reports and retrospective observational cohort studies. Data are needed from randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with severe Covid-19 pneumonia in a 2:1 ratio receive a single intravenous infusion of tocilizumab (at a dose of 8 mg per kilogram of body weight) or placebo. Approximately one quarter of the participants received a second dose of tocilizumab or placebo 8 to 24 hours after the first dose. The primary outcome was clinical status at day 28 on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 (discharged or ready for discharge) to 7 (death) in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all the patients who had received at least one dose of tocilizumab or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 452 patients who underwent randomization, 438 (294 in the tocilizumab group and 144 in the placebo group) were included in the primary and secondary analyses. The median value for clinical status on the ordinal scale at day 28 was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0 to 1.0) in the tocilizumab group and 2.0 (non-ICU hospitalization without supplemental oxygen) (95% CI, 1.0 to 4.0) in the placebo group (between-group difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.5 to 0; P = 0.31 by the van Elteren test). In the safety population, serious adverse events occurred in 103 of 295 patients (34.9%) in the tocilizumab group and in 55 of 143 patients (38.5%) in the placebo group. Mortality at day 28 was 19.7% in the tocilizumab group and 19.4% in the placebo group (weighted difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -7.6 to 8.2; nominal P = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial involving hospitalized patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia, the use of tocilizumab did not result in significantly better clinical status or lower mortality than placebo at 28 days. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and the Department of Health and Human Services; COVACTA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04320615.).


Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Receptores de Interleucina-6/antagonistas & inhibidores , Adulto , Anciano , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/efectos adversos , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/terapia , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Hospitalización , Humanos , Infusiones Intravenosas , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Respiración Artificial , Insuficiencia del Tratamiento
4.
Crit Care Med ; 52(3): 407-419, 2024 Mar 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37909824

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Metabolic syndrome is known to predict outcomes in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) but has never been studied in non-COVID-19 ARDS. We therefore aimed to determine the association of metabolic syndrome with mortality among ARDS trial subjects. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of ARDS trials' data. SETTING: An ancillary analysis was conducted using data from seven ARDS Network and Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network randomized trials within the Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center database. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with ARDS and metabolic syndrome (defined by obesity, diabetes, and hypertension) were compared with similar patients without metabolic syndrome (those with less than three criteria). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Among 4288 ARDS trial participants, 454 (10.6%) with metabolic syndrome were compared with 3834 controls (89.4%). In adjusted analyses, the metabolic syndrome group was associated with lower 28-day and 90-day mortality when compared with control (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.89] and 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95], respectively). With each additional metabolic criterion from 0 to 3, adjusted 28-day mortality was reduced by 18%, 22%, and 40%, respectively. In subgroup analyses stratifying by ARDS etiology, mortality was lower for metabolic syndrome vs. control in ARDS caused by sepsis or pneumonia (at 28 d, aOR 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.84] and 90 d, aOR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53-0.89]), but not in ARDS from noninfectious causes (at 28 d, aOR 1.18 [95% CI, 0.70-1.99] and 90 d, aOR 1.26 [95% CI, 0.77-2.06]). Interaction p = 0.04 and p = 0.02 for 28- and 90-day comparisons, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic syndrome in ARDS was associated with a lower risk of mortality in non-COVID-19 ARDS. The relationship between metabolic inflammation and ARDS may provide a novel biological pathway to be explored in precision medicine-based trials.


Asunto(s)
Lesión Pulmonar Aguda , Síndrome Metabólico , Neumonía , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria , Humanos , Síndrome Metabólico/complicaciones , Estudios Retrospectivos
5.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 30(3): 260-267, 2024 06 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38690955

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Venous pressure is an often-unrecognized cause of patient morbidity. However, bedside assessment of PV is challenging. We review the clinical significance of venous pressure measurement, existing techniques, and introduce the Venous Excess Ultrasound (VExUS) Score as a novel approach using doppler ultrasound to assess venous pressure. RECENT FINDINGS: Studies show clear associations between elevated venous pressure and adverse outcomes in critically ill patients. Current venous pressure measurement techniques include physical examination, right heart catheterization (RHC), two-dimensional ultrasound, and a variety of labor-intensive research-focused physiological maneuvers. Each of these techniques have specific shortcomings, limiting their clinical utility. To address these gaps, Beaubien-Souligny et al. introduced the VExUS Score, a novel doppler ultrasound-based method that integrates IVC diameter with doppler measurements of the hepatic, portal, and renal veins to generate a venous congestion assesment. Studies show strong correlations between VExUS score and RHC measurements, and well as an association between VExUS score and improvement in cardiorenal acute kidney injury, diuretic response, and fluid status shifts. However, studies in noncardiac populations have been small, heterogenous, and inconclusive. SUMMARY: Early studies evaluating the use of doppler ultrasound to assess venous congestion show promise, but further research is needed in diverse patient populations and clinical settings.


Asunto(s)
Ultrasonografía Doppler , Humanos , Ultrasonografía Doppler/métodos , Enfermedad Crítica , Presión Venosa/fisiología , Vena Cava Inferior/diagnóstico por imagen , Vena Cava Inferior/fisiopatología , Monitoreo Fisiológico/métodos , Cuidados Críticos/métodos
6.
Crit Care ; 28(1): 231, 2024 Jul 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38992663

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Early fluid management in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and sepsis-induced hypotension is challenging with limited evidence to support treatment recommendations. We aimed to compare an early restrictive versus liberal fluid management for sepsis-induced hypotension in patients with advanced CKD. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis included patients with advanced CKD (eGFR of less than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or history of end-stage renal disease on chronic dialysis) from the crystalloid liberal or vasopressor early resuscitation in sepsis (CLOVERS) trial. The primary endpoint was death from any cause before discharge home by day 90. RESULTS: Of 1563 participants enrolled in the CLOVERS trial, 196 participants had advanced CKD (45% on chronic dialysis), with 92 participants randomly assigned to the restrictive treatment group and 104 assigned to the liberal fluid group. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred significantly less often in the restrictive fluid group compared with the liberal fluid group (20 [21.7%] vs. 41 [39.4%], HR 0.5, 95% CI 0.29-0.85). Participants in the restrictive fluid group had more vasopressor-free days (19.7 ± 10.4 days vs. 15.4 ± 12.6 days; mean difference 4.3 days, 95% CI, 1.0-7.5) and ventilator-free days by day 28 (21.0 ± 11.8 vs. 16.5 ± 13.6 days; mean difference 4.5 days, 95% CI, 0.9-8.1). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced CKD and sepsis-induced hypotension, an early restrictive fluid strategy, prioritizing vasopressor use, was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 as compared with an early liberal fluid strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03434028 (2018-02-09), BioLINCC 14149.


Asunto(s)
Fluidoterapia , Hipotensión , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica , Sepsis , Humanos , Sepsis/complicaciones , Sepsis/terapia , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/terapia , Insuficiencia Renal Crónica/complicaciones , Anciano , Fluidoterapia/métodos , Hipotensión/etiología , Hipotensión/terapia
7.
Crit Care ; 28(1): 197, 2024 06 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38858766

RESUMEN

Though the novel venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) score is increasingly used as a noninvasive means of venous congestion measurement, the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-user reproducibility (IUR), and utility of concurrent ECG have not been evaluated. We conducted a multicenter study of the IRR, IUR, and utility of ECG for VExUS interpretation between four attending physicians of diverse specialties, reporting the Kappa statistic (KS) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) for IRR and IUR for scans with and without ECG. Eighty-four paired VExUS exams from 42 patients, 60 of which had a concurrent ECG tracing, were interpreted. They showed substantial IRR, with a KS of 0.71 and ICC of 0.83 for the overall VExUS grade (p < 0.001), and IUR, with a KS 0.63 and ICC of 0.8. There was greater agreement among images with an ECG tracing. These results suggest that ECG-augmented VExUS may be a reliable and reproducible measure interpretable by clinicians with diverse backgrounds.


Asunto(s)
Ultrasonografía , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ultrasonografía/métodos , Ultrasonografía/normas , Anciano , Hiperemia/diagnóstico por imagen , Adulto , Electrocardiografía/métodos
8.
JAMA ; 2024 May 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38762798

RESUMEN

Importance: Acetaminophen (paracetamol) has many pharmacological effects that might be beneficial in sepsis, including inhibition of cell-free hemoglobin-induced oxidation of lipids and other substrates. Objective: To determine whether acetaminophen increases days alive and free of organ dysfunction in sepsis compared with placebo. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted from October 2021 to April 2023 with 90-day follow-up. Adults with sepsis and respiratory or circulatory organ dysfunction were enrolled in the emergency department or intensive care unit of 40 US academic hospitals within 36 hours of presentation. Intervention: Patients were randomized to 1 g of acetaminophen intravenously every 6 hours or placebo for 5 days. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was days alive and free of organ support (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and kidney replacement therapy) to day 28. Treatment effect modification was evaluated for acetaminophen by prerandomization plasma cell-free hemoglobin level higher than 10 mg/dL. Results: Of 447 patients enrolled (mean age, 64 [SD, 15] years, 51% female, mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score, 5.4 [SD, 2.5]), 227 were randomized to acetaminophen and 220 to placebo. Acetaminophen was safe with no difference in liver enzymes, hypotension, or fluid balance between treatment arms. Days alive and free of organ support to day 28 were not meaningfully different for acetaminophen (20.2 days; 95% CI, 18.8 to 21.6) vs placebo (19.6 days; 95% CI, 18.2 to 21.0; P = .56; difference, 0.6; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.6). Among 15 secondary outcomes, total, respiratory, and coagulation SOFA scores were significantly lower on days 2 through 4 in the acetaminophen arm as was the rate of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome within 7 days (2.2% vs 8.5% acetaminophen vs placebo; P = .01; difference, -6.3; 95% CI, -10.8 to -1.8). There was no significant interaction between cell-free hemoglobin levels and acetaminophen. Conclusions and Relevance: Intravenous acetaminophen was safe but did not significantly improve days alive and free of organ support in critically ill sepsis patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04291508.

9.
Crit Care Med ; 51(12): 1727-1739, 2023 12 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37638787

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To define healthcare trajectories after tracheostomy to inform shared decision-making efforts for critically ill patients. DESIGN: Retrospective epidemiologic cohort study. SETTING: California Patient Discharge Database 2018-2019. PATIENTS: Patients who received a tracheostomy. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We tracked 1-year outcomes after tracheostomy, including survival and time alive in and out of a healthcare facility (HCF. Patients were stratified based on surgical status (did the patient require a major operating room procedure or not), age (65 yr old or older and less than 65 yr), pre-ICU comorbid states (frailty, chronic organ dysfunction, cancer, and robustness), and the need for dialysis during the tracheostomy admission. We identified 4,274 nonsurgical adults who received a tracheostomy during the study period with 50.9% being 65 years old or older. Among adults 65 years old or older, median survival after tracheostomy was less than 3 months for individuals with frailty, chronic organ dysfunction, cancer, or dialysis. Median survival was 3 months for adults younger than 65 years with cancer or dialysis. Most patients spent the majority of days alive after a tracheostomy in an HCF in the first 3 months. Older adults had very few days alive and out of an HCF in the first 3 months after tracheostomy. Most patients who ultimately died in the first year after tracheostomy spent almost all days alive in an HCF. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative mortality and median survival after a tracheostomy were very poor across most ages and groups. Older adults and several subgroups of younger adults experienced high rates of prolonged hospitalization with few days alive and out of an HCF. This information may aid some patients, surrogates, and providers in decision-making.


Asunto(s)
Fragilidad , Neoplasias , Humanos , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Retrospectivos , Traqueostomía , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica , Diálisis Renal , Atención a la Salud
10.
Crit Care ; 27(1): 205, 2023 05 26.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37237315

RESUMEN

Venous congestion is an under-recognized contributor to mortality in critically ill patients. Unfortunately, venous congestion is difficult to measure, and right heart catheterization (RHC) has been considered the most readily available means for measuring venous filling pressure. Recently, a novel "Venous Excess Ultrasound (VExUS)" score was developed to noninvasively quantify venous congestion using inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter and Doppler flow through the hepatic, portal, and renal veins. A preliminary retrospective study of post-cardiac surgery patients showed promising results, including a high positive-likelihood ratio of high VExUS grade for acute kidney injury. However, studies have not been reported in broader patient populations, and the relationship between VExUS and conventional measures of venous congestion is unknown. To address these gaps, we prospectively assessed the correlation of VExUS with right atrial pressure (RAP), with comparison to inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter. Patients undergoing RHC at Denver Health Medical Center underwent VExUS examination before their procedure. VExUS grades were assigned before RHC, blinding ultrasonographers to RHC outcomes. After controlling for age, sex, and common comorbidities, we observed a significant positive association between RAP and VExUS grade (P < 0.001, R2 = .68). VExUS had a favorable AUC for prediction of a RAP ≥ 12 mmHg (0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1) compared to IVC diameter (0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.92). These results suggest a strong correlation between VExUS and RAP in a diverse patient population, and support future studies of VExUS as a tool to assess venous congestion and guide management in a spectrum of critical illnesses.


Asunto(s)
Presión Atrial , Hiperemia , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Función del Atrio Derecho , Ultrasonografía , Vena Cava Inferior/diagnóstico por imagen
11.
J Intensive Care Med ; 38(12): 1136-1142, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37357730

RESUMEN

RATIONALE: Increased mortality in patients admitted to hospitals on weekends is a well-described phenomenon labeled the "weekend effect." Studies evaluating the weekend effect in intensive care units (ICUs) have arrived at conflicting results. Identifying a weekend effect for critically-ill patients may inform clinical care pathways and resource allocation. OBJECTIVES: Determine the association of initiation of mechanical ventilation (MV) upon admission on a weekend versus weekday with hospital mortality. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of non-surgical adult patients using the California Patient Discharge Database from 2018 to 2019. We identified MV initiated on the day of admission and diagnoses using discharge billing codes. The primary exposure was admission and initiation of MV on a weekend versus weekday and the primary outcome was hospital mortality. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine the association between hospital mortality and MV initiation timing, adjusting for case-mix. RESULTS: Among 90 288 admissions in 2018 and 2019 meeting inclusion criteria, 24 771 (27.5%) had MV initiated on weekends, while 65 517 (72.6%) had MV initiated on weekdays. Patient demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups. Chronic alcohol and substance use disorders, and acute intoxications and traumas were more prevalent among patients with MV initiated on weekends. No difference in hospital mortality was observed with initiation of MV on weekends versus weekdays (23.1% vs 22.8%, ARD = 0.3%, aOR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.98, 1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to prior studies, no increased mortality was observed among newly admitted patients initiated on MV on weekends compared to weekdays. While weekend effects may exist in other settings, newly admitted patients likely have MV initiated in the emergency department or ICU, which tend to have more consistent staffing levels. Further research is needed to determine if care patterns in these units could be used as a model for units where weekend effects continue to impact outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Admisión del Paciente , Respiración Artificial , Adulto , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Factores de Tiempo
12.
JAMA ; 329(14): 1170-1182, 2023 04 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37039791

RESUMEN

Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022. Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension. Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Receptor de Angiotensina Tipo 1 , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina , Vasodilatadores , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Angiotensina II/metabolismo , Angiotensinas/administración & dosificación , Angiotensinas/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/complicaciones , COVID-19/mortalidad , COVID-19/fisiopatología , COVID-19/terapia , Hipoxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoxia/etiología , Hipoxia/mortalidad , Infusiones Intravenosas , Ligandos , Oligopéptidos/administración & dosificación , Oligopéptidos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Receptor de Angiotensina Tipo 1/administración & dosificación , Receptor de Angiotensina Tipo 1/uso terapéutico , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina/efectos de los fármacos , SARS-CoV-2 , Vasodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Vasodilatadores/uso terapéutico
13.
Crit Care Med ; 50(1): 93-102, 2022 01 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34166292

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Availability of long-term acute care hospitals has been associated with hospital discharge practices. It is unclear if long-term acute care hospital availability can influence patient care decisions. We sought to determine the association of long-term acute care hospital availability at different hospitals with the likelihood of tracheostomy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: California Patient Discharge Database, 2016-2018. PATIENTS: Adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using the California Patient Discharge Database 2016-2018, we identified all mechanically ventilated patients and those who received tracheostomy. We determine the association between tracheostomy and the distance between each hospital and the nearest long-term acute care hospital and the number of long-term acute care hospital beds within 20 miles of each hospital. Among 281,502 hospitalizations where a patient received mechanical ventilation, 22,899 (8.1%) received a tracheostomy. Patients admitted to a hospital closer to a long-term acute care hospital compared with those furthest from a long-term acute care hospital had 38.9% (95% CI, 33.3-44.6%) higher odds of tracheostomy (closest hospitals 8.7% vs furthest hospitals 6.3%, adjusted odds ratio = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.40-1.95). Patients had a 32.4% (95% CI, 27.6-37.3%) higher risk of tracheostomy when admitted to a hospital with more long-term acute care hospital beds in the immediate vicinity (most long-term acute care hospital beds within 20 miles 8.9% vs fewest long-term acute care hospital beds 6.7%, adjusted odds ratio = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.31-1.80). Distance to the nearest long-term acute care hospital was inversely correlated with hospital risk-adjusted tracheostomy rates (ρ = -0.25; p < 0.0001). The number of long-term acute care hospital beds within 20 miles was positively correlated with hospital risk-adjusted tracheostomy rates (ρ = 0.22; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Proximity and availability of long-term acute care hospital beds were associated with patient odds of tracheostomy and hospital tracheostomy practices. These findings suggest a hospital effect on tracheostomy decision-making over and above patient case-mix. Future studies focusing on shared decision-making for tracheostomy are needed to ensure goal-concordant care for prolonged mechanical ventilation.


Asunto(s)
Hospitales/provisión & distribución , Hospitales/estadística & datos numéricos , Respiración Artificial/estadística & datos numéricos , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , Traqueostomía/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , California , Comorbilidad , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Cuidados a Largo Plazo/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores Sociodemográficos , Transportes
14.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 204(7): e61-e87, 2021 10 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34609257

RESUMEN

Background: Severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (SAWS) is highly morbid, costly, and common among hospitalized patients, yet minimal evidence exists to guide inpatient management. Research needs in this field are broad, spanning the translational science spectrum. Goals: This research statement aims to describe what is known about SAWS, identify knowledge gaps, and offer recommendations for research in each domain of the Institute of Medicine T0-T4 continuum to advance the care of hospitalized patients who experience SAWS. Methods: Clinicians and researchers with unique and complementary expertise in basic, clinical, and implementation research related to unhealthy alcohol consumption and alcohol withdrawal were invited to participate in a workshop at the American Thoracic Society 2019 International Conference. The committee was subdivided into four groups on the basis of interest and expertise: T0-T1 (basic science research with translation to humans), T2 (research translating to patients), T3 (research translating to clinical practice), and T4 (research translating to communities). A medical librarian conducted a pragmatic literature search to facilitate this work, and committee members reviewed and supplemented the resulting evidence, identifying key knowledge gaps. Results: The committee identified several investigative opportunities to advance the care of patients with SAWS in each domain of the translational science spectrum. Major themes included 1) the need to investigate non-γ-aminobutyric acid pathways for alcohol withdrawal syndrome treatment; 2) harnessing retrospective and electronic health record data to identify risk factors and create objective severity scoring systems, particularly for acutely ill patients with SAWS; 3) the need for more robust comparative-effectiveness data to identify optimal SAWS treatment strategies; and 4) recommendations to accelerate implementation of effective treatments into practice. Conclusions: The dearth of evidence supporting management decisions for hospitalized patients with SAWS, many of whom require critical care, represents both a call to action and an opportunity for the American Thoracic Society and larger scientific communities to improve care for a vulnerable patient population. This report highlights basic, clinical, and implementation research that diverse experts agree will have the greatest impact on improving care for hospitalized patients with SAWS.


Asunto(s)
Alcoholismo/terapia , Investigación Biomédica , Depresores del Sistema Nervioso Central/efectos adversos , Etanol/efectos adversos , Hospitalización , Síndrome de Abstinencia a Sustancias/terapia , Alcoholismo/fisiopatología , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Humanos , Evaluación de Necesidades , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Sociedades Médicas , Síndrome de Abstinencia a Sustancias/fisiopatología , Investigación Biomédica Traslacional
15.
J Ment Health ; 31(4): 524-533, 2022 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34983279

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Ansiedad/epidemiología , Ansiedad/psicología , Depresión/psicología , Familia , Humanos , Salud Mental , SARS-CoV-2
16.
N Engl J Med ; 379(26): 2506-2516, 2018 12 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30346242

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation. RESULTS: Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).


Asunto(s)
Antipsicóticos/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad Crítica/psicología , Delirio/tratamiento farmacológico , Antagonistas de Dopamina/uso terapéutico , Haloperidol/uso terapéutico , Piperazinas/uso terapéutico , Tiazoles/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Antipsicóticos/efectos adversos , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Haloperidol/administración & dosificación , Haloperidol/efectos adversos , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Piperazinas/administración & dosificación , Piperazinas/efectos adversos , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/psicología , Choque/psicología , Tiazoles/administración & dosificación , Tiazoles/efectos adversos , Insuficiencia del Tratamiento
17.
Crit Care Med ; 49(2): 240-249, 2021 02 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33264125

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Prior work has shown substantial between-hospital variation in do-not-resuscitate orders, but stability of do-not-resuscitate preferences between hospitalizations and the institutional influence on do-not-resuscitate reversals are unclear. We determined the extent of do-not-resuscitate reversals between hospitalizations and the association of the readmission hospital with do-not-resuscitate reversal. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: California Patient Discharge Database, 2016-2018. PATIENTS: Nonsurgical patients admitted to an acute care hospital with an early do-not-resuscitate order (within 24 hr of admission). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified nonsurgical adult patients who survived an initial hospitalization with an early-do-not-resuscitate order and were readmitted within 30 days. The primary outcome was the association of do-not-resuscitate reversal with readmission to the same or different hospital from the initial hospital. Secondary outcomes included association of readmission to a low versus high do-not-resuscitate-rate hospital with do-not-resuscitate reversal. Among 49,336 patients readmitted within 30 days following a first do-not-resuscitate hospitalization, 22,251 (45.1%) experienced do-not-resuscitate reversal upon readmission. Patients readmitted to a different hospital versus the same hospital were at higher risk of do-not-resuscitate reversal (59.5% vs 38.5%; p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio = 2.4; 95% CI, 2.3-2.5). Patients readmitted to low versus high do-not-resuscitate-rate hospitals were more likely to have do-not-resuscitate reversals (do-not-resuscitate-rate quartile 1 77.0% vs quartile 4 27.2%; p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio = 11.9; 95% CI, 10.7-13.2). When readmitted to a different versus the same hospital, patients with do-not-resuscitate reversal had higher rates of mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1) and hospital death (adjusted odds ratio = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Do-not-resuscitate reversals at the time of readmission are more common than previously reported. Although changes in patient preferences may partially explain between-hospital differences, we observed a strong hospital effect contributing to high do-not-resuscitate-reversal rates with significant implications for patient outcomes and resource.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica/psicología , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Órdenes de Resucitación/psicología , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios de Cohortes , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/psicología , Readmisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo
18.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): 490-502, 2021 03 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33405409

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Prone position ventilation is a potentially life-saving ancillary intervention but is not widely adopted for coronavirus disease 2019 or acute respiratory distress syndrome from other causes. Implementation of lung-protective ventilation including prone positioning for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome is limited by isolation precautions and personal protective equipment scarcity. We sought to determine the safety and associated clinical outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with prolonged prone position ventilation without daily repositioning. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study. SETTING: Community academic medical ICU. PATIENTS: Sequential mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Lung-protective ventilation and prolonged protocolized prone position ventilation without daily supine repositioning. Supine repositioning was performed only when Fio2 less than 60% with positive end-expiratory pressure less than 10 cm H2O for greater than or equal to 4 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary safety outcome: proportion with pressure wounds by Grades (0-4). Secondary outcomes: hospital survival, length of stay, rates of facial and limb edema, hospital-acquired infections, device displacement, and measures of lung mechanics and oxygenation. Eighty-seven coronavirus disease 2019 patients were mechanically ventilated. Sixty-one were treated with prone position ventilation, whereas 26 did not meet criteria. Forty-two survived (68.9%). Median (interquartile range) time from intubation to prone position ventilation was 0.28 d (0.11-0.80 d). Total prone position ventilation duration was 4.87 d (2.08-9.97 d). Prone position ventilation was applied for 30.3% (18.2-42.2%) of the first 28 days. Pao2:Fio2 diverged significantly by day 3 between survivors 147 (108-164) and nonsurvivors 107 (85-146), mean difference -9.632 (95% CI, -48.3 to 0.0; p = 0·05). Age, driving pressure, day 1, and day 3 Pao2:Fio2 were predictive of time to death. Thirty-eight (71.7%) developed ventral pressure wounds that were associated with prone position ventilation duration and day 3 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. Limb weakness occurred in 58 (95.1%) with brachial plexus palsies in five (8.2%). Hospital-acquired infections other than central line-associated blood stream infections were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged prone position ventilation was feasible and relatively safe with implications for wider adoption in treating critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients and acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiologies.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/complicaciones , Evaluación de Procesos y Resultados en Atención de Salud , Posicionamiento del Paciente , Respiración Artificial/métodos , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/terapia , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapia , Centros Médicos Académicos , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Posición Prona , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/etiología , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/etiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiología
19.
Crit Care Med ; 49(3): 503-516, 2021 03 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33400475

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Proyectos de Investigación , Disnea , Humanos , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica , Recuperación de la Función , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Insuficiencia Respiratoria
20.
Crit Care Med ; 48(11): 1612-1621, 2020 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32804789

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Prioridades en Salud/organización & administración , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/normas , Adulto , Anciano , COVID-19 , Infecciones por Coronavirus/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Femenino , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/normas , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Pandemias/prevención & control , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , Proyectos de Investigación , SARS-CoV-2 , Evaluación de Síntomas , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA