Rationale and study design for an Individualized PeriopeRative Open lung VEntilatory approach in Emergency Abdominal Laparotomy/scopy: study protocol for a prospective international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are the most frequent postoperative complications, with an estimated prevalence in elective surgery ranging from 20% in observational cohort studies to 40% in randomized clinical trials. However, the prevalence of PPCs in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is not well defined. Lung-protective ventilation aims to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury and reduce PPCs. The open lung approach (OLA), which combines recruitment manoeuvres (RM) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration, aims to minimize areas of atelectasis and the development of PPCs; however, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature that OLA can prevent PPCs. The purpose of this study is to compare an individualized perioperative OLA with conventional standardized lung-protective ventilation in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of intraoperative lung collapse. METHODS: Randomized international clinical trial to compare an individualized perioperative OLA (RM plus individualized PEEP and individualized postoperative respiratory support) with conventional lung-protective ventilation (standard PEEP of 5 cmH2O and conventional postoperative oxygen therapy) in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of lung collapse. Patients will be randomised to open-label parallel groups. The primary outcome is any severe PPC during the first 7 postoperative days, including: acute respiratory failure, pneumothorax, weaning failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary infection. The estimated sample size is 732 patients (366 per group). The final sample size will be readjusted during the interim analysis. DISCUSSION: The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy in emergency abdominal laparotomy (iPROVE-EAL) is the first multicentre, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents PPCs in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

Effectiveness of a specific follow up program for the management of the mental components of post-intensive care syndrome and chronic pain after COVID-19: results from the PAIN-COVID randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical COVID-19 survivors are at risk of developing Post-intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) and Chronic ICU-Related Pain (CIRP). We determined whether a specific care program improves the quality of life (QoL) of patients at risk of developing PICS and CIRP after COVID-19. METHODS: The PAIN-COVID trial was a parallel-group, single-centre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The intervention consisted of a follow up program, patient education on PICS and pain, and a psychological intervention based on Rehm's self-control model in patients with abnormal depression scores (≥8) in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at the baseline visit. QoL was evaluated with the 5-level EQ 5D (EQ 5D 5 L), mood disorders with the HADS, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with the PCL-5 checklist, and pain with the Brief Pain Inventory short form, the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. The primary outcome was to determine if the program was superior to standard-of-care on the EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) at 6 months after the baseline visit. The secondary outcomes were EQ VAS at 3 months, and EQ index, CIRP incidence and characteristics, and anxiety, depression, and PTSD at 3 and 6 months after baseline visits. CONCLUSIONS: This program was not superior to standard care in improving QoL in critical COVID-19 survivors as measured by the EQ VAS. However, our data can help establish better strategies for the study and management of PICS and CIRP in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: # NCT04394169, registered on 5/19/2020.

Eficacia de la tromboprofilaxis con heparina de bajo peso molecular en pacientes críticos con COVID-19: estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico / Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study

Introducción: Los pacientes COVID-19 presentan una coagulopatía caracterizada por una elevada incidencia de complicaciones tromboembólicas. Ante la controversia existente sobre el manejo de la tromboprofilaxis, se llevó a cabo un estudio con el objetivo de analizar el efecto de las diferentes dosis de heparina de bajo peso molecular (HBPM) utilizadas en los pacientes críticos con COVID-19. Material y métodos: Se evaluaron datos del Reg-COVID-19. Se compararon 2 grupos de pacientes según la dosis de HBPM administrada: profilaxis y tratamiento. El objetivo primario fue determinar si había relación de la dosis de HBPM con la mortalidad. Los objetivos secundarios incluyeron la incidencia de eventos trombóticos y hemorrágicos, la duración de la estancia en la UCI, la ventilación mecánica invasiva y los parámetros trombóticos e inflamatorios. Resultados: Se analizaron datos de 720 pacientes, 258 en el grupo de profilaxis y 462 en el de tratamiento. La proteína C reactiva, la ventilación mecánica invasiva y el tratamiento con tocilizumab o corticosteroides se relacionaron con la elección de la dosis de HBPM. La incidencia de complicaciones hemorrágicas (66/720, 9,2%) y trombóticas (69/720, 9,6%) fue similar en ambos grupos, al igual que el curso temporal de los eventos trombóticos, que ocurrieron antes que los hemorrágicos (9 [3-18] y 12 [6-19] días, respectivamente). La mortalidad fue menor en el grupo de profilaxis (25,2 frente al 35,1%), pero al aplicar un modelo de ponderación de probabilidad inversa, no se encontraron diferencias entre los grupos. Conclusión: No se encontraron efectos beneficiosos ni perjudiciales relacionados con la administración de dosis profilácticas o terapéuticas de HBPM en pacientes críticos COVID-19, con una tasa similar de complicaciones hemorrágicas o trombóticas. A partir de estos resultados, consideramos que son necesarios más estudios para determinar el protocolo óptimo de tromboprofilaxis en estos pacientes.(AU)

Introduction: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. Metohds: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. Results: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (P=.819 and P=.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. Conclusion: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.(AU)

Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. METHODS: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. RESULTS: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. CONCLUSION: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

Perioperative neuromuscular blockade. 2020 update of the SEDAR (Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación) recommendations.

We present an update of the 2020 Recommendations on neuromuscular blockade of the SEDAR. The previous ones dated 2009. A modified Delphi consensus analysis (experts, working group, and previous extensive bibliographic revision) 10 recommendations were produced1: neuromuscular blocking agents were recommended for endotracheal intubation and to avoid faringo-laryngeal and tracheal lesions, including critical care patients.2 We recommend not to use neuromuscular blocking agents for routine insertion of supraglotic airway devices, and to use it only in cases of airway obstruction or endotracheal intubation through the device.3 We recommend to use a rapid action neuromuscular blocking agent with an hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia.4 We recommend profound neuromuscular block in laparoscopic surgery.5 We recommend quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade during the whole surgical procedure, provided neuromuscular blocking agents have been used.6 We recommend quantitative monitoring through ulnar nerve stimulation and response evaluation of the adductor pollicis brevis, acceleromyography being the clinical standard.7 We recommend a recovery of neuromuscular block of at least TOFr ≥ 0.9 to avoid postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade.8 We recommend drug reversal of neuromuscular block at the end of general anesthetic, before extubation, provided a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been reached.9 We recommend to choose anticholinesterases for neuromuscular block reversal only if TOF≥2 and a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been attained.10 We recommend to choose sugammadex instead of anticholinesterases for reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced with rocuronium.

Bloqueo neuromuscular perioperatorio. Actualización 2020 de las Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor (SEDAR) / Perioperative neuromuscular blockade. 2020 update of the SEDAR (Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación) recommendations

Se presenta la actualización 2020 de las Recomendaciones de bloqueo neuromuscular de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor (SEDAR). Las anteriores databan de 2009. Tras un análisis de consenso Delphi (expertos, grupo de trabajo y revisión bibliográfica previa) se generaron 10 recomendaciones: 1) Se recomienda el uso de fármacos bloqueantes neuromusculares (fbnm) para facilitar la intubación traqueal y evitar lesiones faringo-laringo-traqueales en cualquier paciente, incluidos pacientes críticos. 2) Se recomienda no utilizar fbnm para la inserción rutinaria de dispositivos supraglóticos y utilizar solo en caso de obstrucción de la vía aérea o intubación traqueal a través de este. 3) Se recomienda utilizar un fármaco bloqueante neuromuscular de inicio de acción rápido asociado al agente hipnótico en la inducción de secuencia rápida. 4) Se recomienda utilizar un nivel de bloqueo neuromuscular profundo en cirugía laparoscópica. 5) Se recomienda el uso de monitorización cuantitativa del bloqueo neuromuscular durante todo el procedimiento quirúrgico, siempre que se utilicen fbnm. 6) Se recomienda la monitorización cuantitativa mediante estimulación del nervio cubital y evaluación de la respuesta en el músculo aductor corto del pulgar, siendo el estándar clínico la aceleromiografía (AMG). 7) Se recomienda una recuperación del bloqueo neuromuscular al menos hasta alcanzar un TOFr ≥ 0,9 para evitar el bloqueo neuromuscular residual postoperatorio. 8) Se recomienda la reversión farmacológica del bloqueo neuromuscular al finalizar la anestesia general, previo a la extubación traqueal siempre que no se haya alcanzado un TOFr ≥ 0,9. 9) Se recomienda utilizar fármacos anticolinesterásicos para la reversión del bloqueo neuromuscular solo cuando el tren de cuatro estímulos (TOF) es ≥ 2 y no se haya alcanzado un TOFr ≥ 0,9. 10)...(AU)

We present an update of the 2020 Recommendations on neuromuscular blockade of the SEDAR. The previous ones dated 2009. A modified Delphi consensus analyisis (experts, working group, and previous extensive bibliographic revision) 10 recommendations were produced: (1) neuromuscular blocking agents were recommended for endotracheal intubation and to avoid faringo-laryngeal and tracheal lesions, including critical care patients. (2) We recommend not to use neuromuscular blocking agents for routine insertion of supraglotic airway devices, and to use it only in cases of airway obstruction or endotracheal intubation through the device. (3) SWe recommend to use a rapid action neuromuscular blocking agent with an hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia. (4) We recommed profound neuromuscular block in laparoscopic surgery. (5) We recommend quantitative monitoring Sof neuromuscular blockade during the whole surgical procedure, provided neuromuscular blocking agents have been used. (6) We recommend quantitative monitoring through ulnar nerve stimulation and response evaluation of the adductor pollicis brevis, acceleromyography being the clinical standard. (7) We recommned a recovery of neuromuscular block of at least TOFr ≥ 0.9 to avoid postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade. (8) We recommend drug reversal of neuromuscular block at the end of general anesthetic, before extubation, provided a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been reached. (9) We recommend to choose anticholinesterases for neuromuscular block reversal only if TOF ≥ 2 and a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been atained. (10) We recommend to choose sugammadex instead of anticholinesterases for reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced with rocuronium.(AU)

[Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study]. / Eficacia de la tromboprofilaxis con heparina de bajo peso molecular en pacientes críticos con COVID-19: estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico.

Introduction: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. Metohds: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. Results: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (P=.819 and P=.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. Conclusion: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

Clinical guide to perioperative management for videothoracoscopy lung resection (Section of Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Anesthesia, SEDAR; Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery, SECT; Spanish Society of Physiotherapy).

The introduction of video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) techniques has led to a new approach in thoracic surgery. VATS is performed by inserting a thoracoscope through a small incisions in the chest wall, thus maximizing the preservation of muscle and tissue. Because of its low rate of morbidity and mortality, VATS is currently the technique of choice in most thoracic procedures. Lung resection by VATS reduces prolonged air leaks, arrhythmia, pneumonia, postoperative pain and inflammatory markers. This reduction in postoperative complications shortens hospital length of stay, and is particularly beneficial in high-risk patients with low tolerance to thoracotomy. Compared with conventional thoracotomy, the oncological results of VATS surgery are similar or even superior to those of open surgery. This aim of this multidisciplinary position statement produced by the thoracic surgery working group of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Reanimation (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery (SECT), and the Spanish Association of Physiotherapy (AEF) is to standardize and disseminate a series of perioperative anaesthesia management guidelines for patients undergoing VATS lung resection surgery. Each recommendation is based on an in-depth review of the available literature by the authors. In this document, the care of patients undergoing VATS surgery is organized in sections, starting with the surgical approach, and followed by the three pillars of anaesthesia management: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative anaesthesia.

Clinical guide to perioperative management for videothoracoscopy lung resection (Section of Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Anesthesia, SEDAR; Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery, SECT; Spanish Society of Physiotherapy). / Guía clínica en el manejo perioperatorio para la cirugía de resección pulmonar por videotoracoscopia (Sección de Anestesia Cardiaca, Vascular y Torácica, SEDAR; Sociedad Española de Cirugía Torácica, SECT; Asociación Española de Fisioterapia, AEF).

The introduction of video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) techniques has led to a new approach in thoracic surgery. VATS is performed by inserting a thoracoscope through a small incisions in the chest wall, thus maximizing the preservation of muscle and tissue. Because of its low rate of morbidity and mortality, VATS is currently the technique of choice in most thoracic procedures. Lung resection by VATS reduces prolonged air leaks, arrhythmia, pneumonia, postoperative pain and inflammatory markers. This reduction in postoperative complications shortens hospital length of stay, and is particularly beneficial in high-risk patients with low tolerance to thoracotomy. Compared with conventional thoracotomy, the oncological results of VATS surgery are similar or even superior to those of open surgery. This aim of this multidisciplinary position statement produced by the thoracic surgery working group of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Reanimation (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery (SECT), and the Spanish Association of Physiotherapy (AEF) is to standardize and disseminate a series of perioperative anaesthesia management guidelines for patients undergoing VATS lung resection surgery. Each recommendation is based on an in-depth review of the available literature by the authors. In this document, the care of patients undergoing VATS surgery is organized in sections, starting with the surgical approach, and followed by the three pillars of anaesthesia management: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative anaesthesia.

Secondary infections in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: An overlooked matter?

OBJECTIVE: The susceptibility to infection probably increases in COVID-19 patients due to a combination of virusand drug-induced immunosuppression. The reported rate of secondary infections was quite low in previous studies. The objectives of our study were to investigate the rate of secondary infections, risk factors for secondary infections and risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 critically ill patients. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study in mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to our Critical Care Unit (CCU). We recorded the patients' demographic data; clinical data; microbiology data and incidence of secondary infection during CCU stay, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and nosocomial bacteremia (primary and secondary). RESULTS: A total of 107 patients with a mean age 62.2 ± 10.6 years were included. Incidence of secondary infection during CCU stay was 43.0% (46 patients), including nosocomial bacteremia (34 patients) and VAP (35 patients). Age was related to development of secondary infection (65.2 ± 7.3 vs. 59.9 ± 12.2 years, p=0.007). Age ≥ 65 years and secondary infection were independent predictors of mortality (OR=2.692, 95% CI 1.068-6.782, p<0.036; and OR=3.658, 95% CI 1.385- 9.660, p=0.009, respectively). The hazard ratio for death within 90 days in the ≥ 65 years group and in patients infected by antimicrobial resistant pathogens was 1.901 (95% CI 1.198- 3.018; p= 0.005 by log-rank test) and 1.787 (95% CI 1.023-3.122; p= 0.036 by log-rank test), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the incidence of secondary infection and infection by antimicrobial resistant pathogens is very high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 with a significant impact on prognosis.

Coagulación intravascular diseminada como forma de presentación de la enfermedad por coronavirus-19. Caso clínico / Disseminated intravascular coagulation as a form of presentation of coronavirus-19 disease. Clinical case

La enfermedad covid-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) es una infección de reciente aparición que está causando una pandemia a nivel mundial. La forma de presentación varía desde una infección asintomática hasta una neumonía con síndrome de distrés respiratorio. Presentamos el caso de un paciente que presentó una neumonía por covid-19 junto a una coagulación intravascular diseminada con trombosis arterial y venosa en múltiples localizaciones y un estado de choque que requirió ingreso en unidad de cuidados intensivos. La alteración de las pruebas de coagulación en pacientes afectos de covid-19 se ha descrito desde los primeros casos observados en Wuhan, China, así como una mayor incidencia de trombosis venosas. Al contrario, una mayor incidencia de trombosis arterial no ha sido descrita en estos pacientes. El caso inusual que presentamos podría representar una manifestación de estas alteraciones.(AU)

The covid-19 disease (coronavirus disease 2019) is a novel disease causing a world pandemic. Its presentation varies from an asymptomatic infection to a pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We present a case presenting initially as a covid-19 pneumonia together with a disseminated intravascular coagulopathy consisting of arterial and venous thrombosis in different locations and a shock requiring admission in the intensive care unit. The abnormal coagulation test in covid-19 patients have been described since the first cases observed in Wuhan, China, as well as an increased incidence of venous thrombosis. On the contrary, a higher incidence of arterial thrombosis has not been described in these patients. The unusual case we present could be a manifestation of this altered tests.(AU)

High D dimers and low global fibrinolysis coexist in COVID19 patients: what is going on in there?

BACKGROUD: COVID-19 coagulopathy linked to increased D-dimer levels has been associated with high mortality (Fei Z et al. in Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 395(10229):1054-62, 2020). While D-dimer is accepted as a disseminated intravascular coagulation marker, rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) also detects fibrinolysis (Wright FL et al. in Fibrinolysis shutdown correlates to thromboembolic events in severe COVID-19 infection. J Am Coll Surg (2020). Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32422349/ [cited 14 Jun 2020]; Schmitt FCF et al. in Acute fibrinolysis shutdown occurs early in septic shock and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality: results of an observational pilot study. Ann Intensive Care 9(1):19, 2019). We describe the ROTEM profile in severely ill COVID-19 patients and compare it with the standard laboratory coagulation test. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU were prospectively enrolled after Ethics Committee approval (HCB/2020/0371). All patients received venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; those on therapeutic anticoagulation were excluded. The standard laboratory coagulation test and ROTEM were performed simultaneously at 24-48 h after ICU admission. Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) scores were calculated at sample collection. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included with median SOFA-score of 4 (2-6), DIC-score of 1 (0-3) and SIC-score of 1.8 (0.9). Median fibrinogen, D-dimer levels and platelet count were 6.2 (4.8-7.6 g/L), 1000 (600-4200 ng/ml) and 236 (136-364 109/L), respectively. Clot firmness was above the normal range in the EXTEM and FIBTEM tests while clot lysis was decreased. There was no significant correlation between ROTEM or D-dimer parameters and the SOFA score. CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 patients, the ROTEM pattern was characterized by a hypercoagulable state with decreased fibrinolytic capacity despite a paradoxical increase in D-dimer levels. We suggest that, in COVID-19 patients, the lungs could be the main source of D-dimer, while a systemic hypofibrinolytic state coexists. This hypothesis should be confirmed by future studies.

Stroke units could be a valid alternative to intensive care units for patients with low-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: According to current guidelines, patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) are mostly managed in intensive care units (ICUs) regardless of baseline severity. We aimed to assess the prognostic and economic implications of initial admission of patients with low-grade aSAH into a stroke unit (SU) compared to initial ICU admission. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively registered data from consecutive aSAH patients with a World Federation of Neurosurgery Societies grade <3, admitted to our Comprehensive Stroke Centre between April 2013 and September 2018. Clinical and radiological baseline traits, in-hospital complications, length of stay (LOS) and poor outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale score > 2) were compared between the ICU and SU groups in the whole population and in a propensity-score-matched cohort. RESULTS: Of 131 patients, 74 (56%) were initially admitted to the ICU and 57 (44%) to the SU. In-hospital complication rates were similar in the ICU and SU groups and included rebleeding (10% vs. 7%; P = 0.757), angiographic vasospasm (61% vs. 60%; P = 0.893), delayed cerebral ischaemia (12% vs. 12%; P = 0.984), pneumonia (6% vs. 4%; P = 0.697) and death (10% vs. 5%; P = 0.512). LOS did not differ between groups (median [interquartile range] 22 [16-30] vs. 19 [14-26] days; P = 0.160). In adjusted multivariate models, the location of initial admission was not associated with long-term poor outcome either in the whole population (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-4.19; P = 0.825) or in the matched cohort (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.24-4.06; P = 0.974). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated SU, with care from a multidisciplinary team, might be an optimal alternative to ICU for initial admission of patients with low-risk aSAH.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation as a form of presentation of coronavirus-19 disease. Clinical case. / Coagulación intravascular diseminada como forma de presentación de la enfermedad por coronavirus-19. Caso clínico.

The covid-19 disease (coronavirus disease 2019) is a novel disease causing a world pandemic. Its presentation varies from an asymptomatic infection to a pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We present a case presenting initially as a covid-19 pneumonia together with a disseminated intravascular coagulopathy consisting of arterial and venous thrombosis in different locations and a shock requiring admission in the intensive care unit. The abnormal coagulation test in covid-19 patients have been described since the first cases observed in Wuhan, China, as well as an increased incidence of venous thrombosis. On the contrary, a higher incidence of arterial thrombosis has not been described in these patients. The unusual case we present could be a manifestation of this altered tests.

Características, evolución clínica y factores asociados a la mortalidad en UCI de los pacientes críticos infectados por SARS-CoV-2 en España: estudio prospectivo, de cohorte y multicéntrico / Patient characteristics, clinical course and factors associated to ICU mortality in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain: a prospective, cohort, multicentre study

ANTECEDENTES: No se ha reportado plenamente la evolución clínica de los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 durante su ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI), incluyendo las complicaciones médicas e infecciosas y terapias de soporte, así como su asociación con la mortalidad en ICU. OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio es describir las características clínicas y la evolución de los pacientes ingresados en UCI por COVID-19, y determinar los factores de riesgo de la mortalidad en UCI de dichos pacientes. MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo, multi-céntrico y de cohorte, que incluyó a los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 ingresados en 30 UCIs de España y Andorra. Se incluyó a los pacientes consecutivos de 12 de Marzo a 26 de Mayo de 2020 si habían fallecido o habían recibido el alta de la UCI durante el periodo de estudio. Se reportaron los datos demográficos, síntomas, signos vitales, marcadores de laboratorio, terapias de soporte, terapias farmacológicas, y complicaciones médicas e infecciosas, realizándose una comparación entre los pacientes fallecidos y los pacientes dados de alta. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 663 pacientes. La mortalidad general en UCI fue del 31% (203 pacientes). Al ingreso en UCI los no supervivientes eran más hipoxémicos [SpO2 sin mascarilla de no reinhalación, de 90 (RIC 83-93) vs 91 (RIC 87-94); p < 0,001] y con mayor puntuación en la escala SOFA - Evaluación de daño orgánico secuencial - [SOFA, 7 (RIC 5-9) vs 4 (RIC 3-7); p < 0,001]. Las complicaciones fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes: síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA) (95% vs 89%; p = 0,009), insuficiencia renal aguda (IRA) (58% vs 24%; p < 10−16), shock (42% vs 14%; p < 10−13), y arritmias (24% vs 11%; p < 10−4). Las súper-infecciones respiratorias, infecciones del torrente sanguíneo y los shock sépticos fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes (33% vs 25%; p = 0,03, 33% vs 23%; p = 0,01 y 15% vs 3%, p = 10−7), respectivamente. El modelo de regresión multivariable reflejó que la edad estaba asociada a la mortalidad, y que cada año incrementaba el riesgo de muerte en un 1% (95%IC: 1-10, p = 0,014). Cada incremento de 5 puntos en la escala APACHE II predijo de manera independiente la mortalidad [OR: 1,508 (1,081, 2,104), p = 0,015]. Los pacientes con IRA [OR: 2,468 (1,628, 3,741), p < 10−4)], paro cardiaco [OR: 11,099 (3,389, 36,353), p = 0,0001], y shock séptico [OR: 3,224 (1,486, 6,994), p = 0,002] tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes mayores de COVID-19 con puntuaciones APACHE II más altas al ingreso, que desarrollaron IRA en grados II o III y/o shock séptico durante la estancia en UCI tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado. La mortalidad en UCI fue del 31%

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of COVID-19 critically ill patients, during their admission in the intensive care unit (UCI), including medical and infectious complications and support therapies, as well as their association with in-ICU mortality has not been fully reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe clinical characteristics and clinical course of ICU COVID-19 patients, and to determine risk factors for ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted into 30 ICUs from Spain and Andorra. Consecutive patients from March 12th to May 26th, 2020 were enrolled if they had died or were discharged from ICU during the study period. Demographics, symptoms, vital signs, laboratory markers, supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments, medical and infectious complications were reported and compared between deceased and discharged patients. RESULTS: A total of 663 patients were included. Overall ICU mortality was 31% (203 patients). At ICU admission non-survivors were more hypoxemic [SpO2 with non-rebreather mask, 90 (IQR 83-93) vs 91 (IQR 87-94); p < 0.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5-9) vs 4 (IQR 3-7); p < 0.001]. Complications were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs 89%; p = 0.009), acute kidney injury (AKI) (58% vs 24%; p < 10−16), shock (42% vs 14%; p < 10−13), and arrhythmias (24% vs 11%; p < 10−4). Respiratory super-infection, bloodstream infection and septic shock were higher in non-survivors (33% vs 25%; p = 0.03, 33% vs 23%; p = 0.01 and 15% vs 3%, p = 10−7), respectively. The multivariable regression model showed that age was associated with mortality, with every year increasing risk-of-death by 1% (95%CI: 1-10, p = 0.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), p = 0.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), p < 10−4)], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), p = 0.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), p = 0.002] had an increased risk-of-death. CONCLUSIONS: Older COVID-19 patients with higher APACHE II scores on admission, those who developed AKI grades II or III and/or septic shock during ICU stay had an increased risk-of-death. ICU mortality was 31%

Publicación en la Revista Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación de protocolos de estudios / Publication in the Spanish Journal of Anesthesiology and Reanimation of study protocols

No disponible

Patient characteristics, clinical course and factors associated to ICU mortality in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain: A prospective, cohort, multicentre study. / Características, evolución clínica y factores asociados a la mortalidad en UCI de los pacientes críticos infectados por SARS-CoV-2 en España: estudio prospectivo, de cohorte y multicéntrico.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of COVID-19 critically ill patients, during their admission in the intensive care unit (UCI), including medical and infectious complications and support therapies, as well as their association with in-ICU mortality has not been fully reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe clinical characteristics and clinical course of ICU COVID-19 patients, and to determine risk factors for ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted into 30 ICUs from Spain and Andorra. Consecutive patients from March 12th to May 26th, 2020 were enrolled if they had died or were discharged from ICU during the study period. Demographics, symptoms, vital signs, laboratory markers, supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments, medical and infectious complications were reported and compared between deceased and discharged patients. RESULTS: A total of 663 patients were included. Overall ICU mortality was 31% (203 patients). At ICU admission non-survivors were more hypoxemic [SpO2 with non-rebreather mask, 90 (IQR 83 to 93) vs. 91 (IQR 87 to 94); P<.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5 to 9) vs. 4 (IQR 3 to 7); P<.001]. Complications were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs. 89%; P=.009), acute kidney injury (AKI) (58% vs. 24%; P<10-16), shock (42% vs. 14%; P<10-13), and arrhythmias (24% vs. 11%; P<10-4). Respiratory super-infection, bloodstream infection and septic shock were higher in non-survivors (33% vs. 25%; P=.03, 33% vs. 23%; P=.01 and 15% vs. 3%, P=10-7), respectively. The multivariable regression model showed that age was associated with mortality, with every year increasing risk-of-death by 1% (95%CI: 1 to 10, P=.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), P=.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), P<10-4)], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), P=.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), P=.002] had an increased risk-of-death. CONCLUSIONS: Older COVID-19 patients with higher APACHE II scores on admission, those who developed AKI grades ii or iii and/or septic shock during ICU stay had an increased risk-of-death. ICU mortality was 31%.

Anestesiología y los anestesiólogos en la COVID-19 / Anesthesiology and the Anesthesiologists at COVID-19

No disponible