Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 20
Filter
1.
J Crit Care ; 72: 154165, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2061478

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The perceptions and practices of ICU physicians regarding initiating neuromuscular blocker infusions (NMBI) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may not be evidence-based amidst the surge of severe ARDS during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and new practice guidelines. We identified ICU physicians' perspectives and practices regarding NMBI use in adults with moderate-severe ARDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After extensive development and testing, an electronic survey was distributed to 342 ICU physicians from three geographically-diverse U.S. health systems(n = 12 hospitals). RESULTS: The 173/342 (50.5%) respondents (75% medical) somewhat/strongly agreed a NMBI should be reserved until: after a trial of deep sedation (142, 82%) or proning (59, 34%) and be dose-titrated based on train-of-four monitoring (107, 62%). Of 14 potential NMBI risks, 2 were frequently reported to be of high/very high concern: prolonged muscle weakness with steroid use (135, 79%) and paralysis awareness due to inadequate sedation (114, 67%). Absence of dyssychrony (93, 56%) and use ≥48 h (87, 53%) were preferred NMBI stopping criteria. COVID-19 + ARDS patients were twice as likely to receive a NMBI (56 ± 37 vs. 28 ± 19%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most intensivists agreed NMBI in ARDS should be reserved until after a deep sedation trial. Stopping criteria remain poorly defined. Unique considerations exist regarding the role of paralysis in COVID-19+ ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Physicians , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/therapeutic use , Paralysis
2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD015077, 2022 06 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1905767

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients.  RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/complications , Humans , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Systematic Reviews as Topic
3.
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 43(3): 453-460, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1873591

ABSTRACT

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) and prone position (PP) are two major adjunctive therapies that can improve outcome in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. NMBA should be used once lung-protective mechanical ventilation has been set, for 48 hours or less and as a continuous intravenous infusion. PP should be used as early as possible for long sessions; in COVID-19 its use has exploded. In nonintubated patients, PP might reduce the rate of intubation but not mortality. The goal of this article is to perform a narrative review on the pathophysiological rationale, the clinical effects, and the clinical use and recommendations of both NMBA and PP.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/therapeutic use , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy
4.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 141, 2022 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1846858

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not fully elucidated. Therefore, we aimed to investigate in COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS the impact of early use of NMBAs on 90-day mortality, through propensity score (PS) matching analysis. METHODS: We analyzed a convenience sample of patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, admitted to 244 intensive care units within the COVID-19 Critical Care Consortium, from February 1, 2020, through October 31, 2021. Patients undergoing at least 2 days and up to 3 consecutive days of NMBAs (NMBA treatment), within 48 h from commencement of IMV were compared with subjects who did not receive NMBAs or only upon commencement of IMV (control). The primary objective in the PS-matched cohort was comparison between groups in 90-day in-hospital mortality, assessed through Cox proportional hazard modeling. Secondary objectives were comparisons in the numbers of ventilator-free days (VFD) between day 1 and day 28 and between day 1 and 90 through competing risk regression. RESULTS: Data from 1953 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 210 cases from each group were well matched. In the PS-matched cohort, mean (± SD) age was 60.3 ± 13.2 years and 296 (70.5%) were male and the most common comorbidities were hypertension (56.9%), obesity (41.1%), and diabetes (30.0%). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death at 90 days in the NMBA treatment vs control group was 1.12 (95% CI 0.79, 1.59, p = 0.534). After adjustment for smoking habit and critical therapeutic covariates, the HR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.72, 1.61, p = 0.729). At 28 days, VFD were 16 (IQR 0-25) and 25 (IQR 7-26) in the NMBA treatment and control groups, respectively (sub-hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.67, 1.00, p = 0.055). At 90 days, VFD were 77 (IQR 0-87) and 87 (IQR 0-88) (sub-hazard ratio 0.86 (95% CI 0.69, 1.07; p = 0.177). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 and moderate-to-severe ARDS, short course of NMBA treatment, applied early, did not significantly improve 90-day mortality and VFD. In the absence of definitive data from clinical trials, NMBAs should be indicated cautiously in this setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Aged , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/therapeutic use , Propensity Score , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy
5.
Respir Care ; 67(2): 216-226, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1547585

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of mechanical ventilation parameters and management on outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ARDS is unclear. METHODS: This multi-center observational study enrolled consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to one of 7 Korean ICUs between February 1, 2020-February 28, 2021. Patients who were age < 17 y or had missing ventilation parameters for the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify which strategies or ventilation parameters that were independently associated with ICU mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 129 subjects (males, 60%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 69 (62-78) y were included. Neuromuscular blocker (NMB) use and prone positioning were applied to 76% and 16% of subjects, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 37%. In the multivariate analysis, higher dynamic driving pressure (ΔP) values during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation were associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.16 [95% CI 1.00-1.33], P = .046). NMB use was associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.27 [95% CI 0.09-0.81], P = .02). The median tidal volume values during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation and the ICU mortality rate were significantly lower in the NMB group than in the no NMB group. However, subjects who received NMB for ≥ 6 d (vs < 6 d) had higher ICU mortality rate. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with COVID-19 ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation, ΔP during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation was independently associated with mortality. The short-term use of NMB facilitated lung-protective ventilation and was independently associated with decreased mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Male , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Tidal Volume
7.
Chest ; 160(6): 2112-2122, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1272333

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: For patients with COVID-19 who undergo emergency endotracheal intubation, data are limited regarding the practice, outcomes, and complications of this procedure. RESEARCH QUESTION: For patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency endotracheal intubation, how do the procedural techniques, the incidence of first-pass success, and the complications associated with the procedure compare with intubations of critically ill patients before the COVID-19 pandemic? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients with COVID-19 at Montefiore Medical Center who underwent first-time endotracheal intubation by critical care physicians between July 19, 2019, and May 1, 2020. The first COVID-19 patient was admitted to our institution on March 11, 2020; patients admitted before this date are designated the prepandemic cohort. Descriptive statistics were used to compare groups. A Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables. For continuous variables, a two-tailed Student t test was used for parametric variables or a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for nonparametric variables. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred sixty intubations met inclusion criteria (782 prepandemic cohort, 478 pandemic cohort). Patients during the pandemic were more likely to be intubated for hypoxemic respiratory failure (72.6% vs 28.1%; P < .01). During the pandemic, operators were more likely to use video laryngoscopy (89.4% vs 53.3%; P < .01) and neuromuscular blocking agents (86.0% vs 46.2%; P < .01). First-pass success was higher during the pandemic period (94.6% vs 82.9%; P < .01). The rate of associated complications was higher during the pandemic (29.5% vs 15.2%; P < .01), a finding driven by a higher rate of hypoxemia during or immediately after the procedure (25.7% vs 8.2%; P < .01). INTERPRETATION: Video laryngoscopy and neuromuscular blockade were used increasingly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite a higher rate of first-pass success during the pandemic, the incidence of complications associated with the procedure was higher.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , Female , Humans , Incidence , Laryngoscopy , Male , Middle Aged , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents , Patient Selection , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
9.
Korean J Anesthesiol ; 74(4): 285-292, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1211980

ABSTRACT

This narrative review evaluates the evidence for using neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in patients being treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). While large prospective randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking at this point in time, smaller observational studies and case series are reviewed to ascertain the indications and utility of NMBAs. Additionally, large RCTs that address similar clinical scenarios are reviewed and the authors translate these findings to patients with COVID-19. Specifically, NMBAs can be helpful during endotracheal intubation to minimize the risk of patient coughing and possibly infecting healthcare personnel. NMBAs can also be used in patients to promote patient-ventilator synchrony while reducing the driving pressure needed with mechanical ventilation (MV), particularly in patients with the severe clinical presentation (Type H phenotype). Prone positioning has also become a cornerstone in managing refractory hypoxemia in patients with SARS-CoV-2 acute respiratory distress syndrome, and NMBAs can be useful in facilitating this maneuver. In the perioperative setting, deep levels of neuromuscular blockade can improve patient outcomes during laparoscopic operations and may theoretically reduce the risk of aerosolization as lower insufflation pressures may be utilized. Regardless of the indication, quantitative neuromuscular monitoring remains the only reliable method to confirm adequate recovery following cessation of neuromuscular blockade. Such monitors may serve a unique purpose in patients with COVID-19 as automation of measurements can reduce healthcare personnel-patient contact that would occur during periodic subjective evaluation with a peripheral nerve stimulator.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Neuromuscular Blockade/methods , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/administration & dosage , Patient Positioning/methods , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Crit Care Med ; 49(9): 1524-1534, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1191508

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, sedatives and opioids are commonly administered which may lead to increased vulnerability to neurologic dysfunction. We tested the hypothesis that patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome are at higher risk of in-hospital mortality due to prolonged coma compared with other patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome matched for disease severity. DESIGN: Propensity-matched cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in an academic hospital network, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA). PATIENTS: All mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients between March and May 2020 were identified and matched with patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiology. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using clinical data obtained from a hospital registry, we matched 114 coronavirus disease 2019 patients to 228 noncoronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress syndrome patients based on baseline disease severity. Coma was identified using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale less than or equal to -3. Multivariable logistic regression and mediation analyses were used to assess the percentage of comatose days, sedative medications used, and the association between coronavirus disease 2019 and in-hospital mortality. In-hospital mortality (48.3% vs 31.6%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.34-3.44; p = 0.002), the percentage of comatose days (66.0% ± 31.3% vs 36.0% ± 36.9%, adjusted difference, 29.35; 95% CI, 21.45-37.24; p < 0.001), and the hypnotic agent dose (51.3% vs 17.1% of maximum hypnotic agent dose given in the cohort; p < 0.001) were higher among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Brain imaging did not show a higher frequency of structural brain lesions in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (6.1% vs 7.0%; p = 0.76). Hypnotic agent dose was associated with coma (adjusted coefficient, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.78; p < 0.001) and mediated (p = 0.001) coma. Coma was associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 5.84; 95% CI, 3.58-9.58; p < 0.001) and mediated 59% of in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with matched patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiology, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 received higher doses of hypnotics, which was associated with prolonged coma and higher mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Coma/etiology , Hospital Mortality , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Aged , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Brain/diagnostic imaging , Brain/pathology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/therapeutic use , Propensity Score , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies
14.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(2): 157-174, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-737558

ABSTRACT

The rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a global pandemic. The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents with a spectrum of symptoms ranging from mild to critical illness requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a major complication in patients with severe COVID-19 disease. Currently, there are no recognized pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. However, a large number of COVID-19 patients require respiratory support, with a high percentage requiring invasive ventilation. The rapid spread of the infection has led to a surge in the rate of hospitalizations and ICU admissions, which created a challenge to public health, research, and medical communities. The high demand for several therapies, including sedatives, analgesics, and paralytics, that are often utilized in the care of COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, has created pressure on the supply chain resulting in shortages in these critical medications. This has led clinicians to develop conservation strategies and explore alternative therapies for sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients. Several of these alternative approaches have demonstrated acceptable levels of sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in different settings but they are not commonly used in the ICU. Additionally, they have unique pharmaceutical properties, limitations, and adverse effects. This narrative review summarizes the literature on alternative drug therapies for the management of sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients. Also, this document serves as a resource for clinicians in current and future respiratory illness pandemics in the setting of drug shortages.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , COVID-19/complications , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
16.
Am J Emerg Med ; 38(10): 2194-2202, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-634245

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an emerging viral pathogen that causes the novel coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) and may result in hypoxemic respiratory failure necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation in the most severe cases. OBJECTIVE: This narrative review provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of COVID-19 related respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. DISCUSSION: In severe cases, COVID-19 leads to hypoxemic respiratory failure that may meet criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The mainstay of treatment for ARDS includes a lung protective ventilation strategy with low tidal volumes (4-8 mL/kg predicted body weight), adequate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and maintaining a plateau pressure of < 30 cm H2O. While further COVID-19 specific studies are needed, current management should focus on supportive care, preventing further lung injury from mechanical ventilation, and treating the underlying cause. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of COVID-19 related respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/prevention & control , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , COVID-19/complications , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Humans , Neuromuscular Blocking Agents/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Tidal Volume , Vasodilator Agents/administration & dosage
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL