Incidence, risk factors and outcome of acute kidney injury in critically ill COVID-19 patients in Tyrol, Austria: a prospective multicenter registry study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury is a frequent complication in critically ill patients with and without COVID-19. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of, and risk factors for, acute kidney injury and its effect on clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients in Tyrol, Austria. METHODS: This multicenter prospective registry study included adult patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction, who were treated in one of the 12 dedicated intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 2020 until May 2022. RESULTS: In total, 1042 patients were included during the study period. The median age of the overall cohort was 66 years. Of the included patients, 267 (26%) developed acute kidney injury during their intensive care unit stay. In total, 12.3% (n = 126) required renal replacement therapy with a median duration of 9 (IQR 3-18) days. In patients with acute kidney injury the rate of invasive mechanical ventilation was significantly higher with 85% (n = 227) compared to 41% (n = 312) in the no acute kidney injury group (p < 0.001). The most important risk factors for acute kidney injury were invasive mechanical ventilation (OR = 4.19, p < 0.001), vasopressor use (OR = 3.17, p < 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (OR = 2.30, p < 0.001) in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Hospital and intensive care unit mortality were significantly higher in patients with acute kidney injury compared to patients without acute kidney injury (Hospital mortality: 52.1% vs. 17.2%, p < 0.001, ICU-mortality: 47.2% vs. 14.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As in non-COVID-19 patients, acute kidney injury is clearly associated with increased mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Among known risk factors, invasive mechanical ventilation has been identified as an independent and strong predictor of acute kidney injury.

Link between both infratentorial and supratentorial intracranial pressure burdens and final outcome in patients with infratentorial brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is most likely not being transmitted uniformly within the cranium. The ICP profiles in the supra- and infratentorial compartments remain largely unclear. Increased ICP in the cerebellum, however, is insufficiently captured by supratentorial ICP (ICPsup) monitoring due to compartmentalization through the tentorium. The authors hypothesized that additional infratentorial ICP (ICPinf) monitoring can be clinically valuable in selected patients. The aims of this study were to demonstrate the safety and feasibility of ICPinf monitoring and to investigate the influence of the ICPinf on clinical outcome in a real-world setting. METHODS: Fifteen consecutive patients with posterior fossa (PF) lesions requiring surgery and anticipated prolonged neurointensive care between June 2019 and December 2021 were included. Simultaneous ICPsup and ICPinf were recorded. ICP burden was defined as a 15-minute interval with a mean ICP > 22 mm Hg. The Glasgow Outcome Scale score was assessed after 3 months. RESULTS: The mean ICPinf was substantially higher compared with ICPsup throughout the entire period of ICP recording (16.08 ± 4.44 vs 10.74 ± 3.6 mm Hg, p < 0.01). ICPinf was significantly higher in patients with unfavorable outcome when compared with those with favorable outcome (mean 17.2 ± 4.1 vs 11.4 ± 3.5 mm Hg, p < 0.05). Patients with unfavorable outcome showed significantly higher ICPinf burden compared with those with favorable outcome (mean 40.6 ± 43.8 vs 0.3 ± 0.4 hours, p < 0.05). Neither absolute ICPsup nor ICPsup burden was significantly associated with unfavorable outcome (p = 0.13). No monitoring-associated complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementary ICPinf monitoring is safe and reliable. There is a significant transtentorial pressure gradient within the cranium showing elevated ICPs in the PF. Elevated ICP levels in the PF were strongly associated with unfavorable neurological outcome irrespective of ICPsup values.

Bed rest after incidental durotomy in lumbar surgery: a redundant measure in case of watertight dural repair.

BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CFS) leaks are a well-known complication in spinal surgery, caused mostly by incidental durotomy (ID). Management of ID is a matter of ongoing debate. Different treatment strategies have been described ranging from no specific treatment to intraoperative suture or even complex reconstructive procedures. The role of bedrest has also been controversially discussed. The aim of this study was thus to evaluate a potential benefit of postoperative bedrest after ID. METHODS: ID management following lumbar spine surgery at a high-volume center between 01/2014 and 12/2017 was retrospectively assessed. Several risk factors such as type of surgery, size of dural lesion, intraoperatively chosen strategy, postoperative management (e.g., bedrest) and surgery-related complications were analyzed. Failure of the chosen strategy was defined as symptomatic CSF leakage, requiring revision surgery. RESULTS: Sufficient data was available for 135 patients with intraoperatively detected incidental durotomy. Eighty-seven patients with intraoperatively detected ID (64.4%) were additionally managed with bedrest, whereas 48 patients (35.6%) were immediately mobilized after surgery. Sixteen patients overall needed to be revised. However, patients treated with additional bedrest did not show a significant reduction of CSF fistula rate (P=0.27). The degree of laceration (>5mm) negatively affected the outcome (P=0.027). The hospital stay was significantly prolonged in patients, who were subjected to additional bedrest (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative CSF leakage represents a serious postoperative complication of lumbar surgery. Intraoperative dural repair plays a crucial role to avoid further neurological morbidity. Postoperative bedrest might be spared in case of watertight dural closure.

Changes in characteristics and outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients in Tyrol (Austria) over 1 year.

BACKGROUND: Widely varying mortality rates of critically ill Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) patients in the world highlighted the need for local surveillance of baseline characteristics, treatment strategies and outcome. We compared two periods of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify important differences in characteristics and therapeutic measures and their influence on the outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This multicenter prospective register study included all patients with a SARS-CoV­2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction, who were treated in 1 of the 12 intensive care units (ICU) from 8 hospitals in Tyrol, Austria during 2 defined periods (1 February 2020 until 17 July: first wave and 18 July 2020 until 22 February 2021: second wave) of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Overall, 508 patients were analyzed. The majority (n = 401) presented during the second wave, where the median age was significantly higher (64 years, IQR 54-74 years vs. 72 years, IQR 62-78 years, p < 0.001). Invasive mechanical ventilation was less frequent during the second period (50.5% vs 67.3%, p = 0.003), as was the use of vasopressors (50.3% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.001) and renal replacement therapy (12.0% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.061), which resulted in shorter ICU length of stay (10 days, IQR 5-18 days vs. 18 days, IQR 5-31 days, p < 0.001). Nonetheless, ICU mortality did not change (28.9% vs. 21.5%, p = 0.159) and hospital mortality even increased (22.4% vs. 33.4%, p = 0.039) in the second period. Age, frailty and the number of comorbidities were significant predictors of hospital mortality in a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the overall cohort. CONCLUSION: Advanced treatment strategies and learning effects over time resulted in reduced rates of mechanical ventilation and vasopressor use in the second wave associated with shorter ICU length of stay. Despite these improvements, age appears to be a dominant factor for hospital mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients.