Central venous pressure and dynamic indices to assess fluid appropriateness in critically ill patients: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The correct identification of the appropriateness of fluid administration is important for the treatment of critically ill patients. Static and dynamic indices used to identify fluid responsiveness have been developed throughout the years, nonetheless fluid responsiveness does not indicate that fluid administration is appropriate, and indexes to evaluate appropriateness of fluid administration are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate if central venous pressure (CVP) anddynamic indices could correctly identify fluid appropriateness for critically ill patients. METHODS: Data from 31 ICU patients, for a total of 53 observations, was included in the analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the appropriateness of fluid administration. Fluid appropriateness was defined in presence of a low cardiac index (< 2.5 l/min/m2) without any sign of fluid overload, as assessed by global end-diastolic volume index, extravascular lung water index or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. RESULTS: For 10 patients, fluid administration was deemed appropriate, while for 21 patients it was deemed inappropriate. Central venous pressure was not different between the two cohorts (mean CVP 11 (4) mmHg in the fluid inappropriate group, 12 (4) mmHg in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.58). The same is true for pulse pressure variation (median PPV 5 [2, 9] % in the fluid inappropriate group, 4 [3, 13] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.57), for inferior vena cava distensibility (mean inferior vena cava distensibility 24 (14) % in the fluid inappropriate group, 22 (16) % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.75) and for changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test (median d.ETCO2 1.5 [0.0, 2.0]% in the fluid inappropriate group, 1.0 [0.0, 2.0] % in the fluid appropriate group, p 0.98). There was no association between static and dynamic indices and fluid appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: Central venous pressure, pulse pressure variation, changes in end tidal carbon dioxide during a passive leg raising test, inferior vena cava distensibility were not associated with fluid appropriateness in our cohorts.

COVID-19 ARDS Is Characterized by Increased Dead Space Ventilation Compared With Non-COVID ARDS.

BACKGROUND: ARDS in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized by microcirculatory alterations in the pulmonary vascular bed, which could increase dead-space ventilation more than in non-COVID-19 ARDS. We aimed to establish if dead-space ventilation is different in patients with COVID-19 ARDS when compared with patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS. METHODS: A total of 187 subjects with COVID-19 ARDS and 178 subjects with non-COVID-19 ARDS who were undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were included in the study. The association between the ARDS types and dead-space ventilation, compliance of the respiratory system, subjects' characteristics, organ failures, and mechanical ventilation was evaluated by using data collected in the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Corrected minute ventilation (V˙E), a dead-space ventilation surrogate, was higher in the subjects with COVID-19 ARDS versus in those with non-COVID-19 ARDS (median [interquartile range] 12.6 [10.2-15.8] L/min vs 9.4 [7.5-11.6] L/min; P < .001). Increased corrected V˙E was independently associated with COVID-19 ARDS (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.07-1.47; P = .007). The best compliance of the respiratory system, obtained after testing different PEEPs, was similar between the subjects with COVID-19 ARDS and the subjects with non-COVID-19 ARDS (mean ± SD 38 ± 11 mL/cm H2O vs 37 ± 11 mL/cm H2O, respectively; P = .61). The subjects with COVID-19 ARDS received higher median (interquartile range) PEEP (12 [10-14] cm H2O vs 8 [5-9] cm H2O; P < .001) and lower median (interquartile range) tidal volume (5.8 [5.5-6.3] mL/kg vs 6.6 [6.1-7.3] mL/kg; P < .001) than the subjects with non-COVID-19 ARDS, being these differences maintained at multivariable analysis. In the multivariable analysis, the subjects with COVID-19 ARDS showed a lower risk of anamnestic arterial hypertension (odds ratio 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.45; P < .001) and lower neurologic sequential organ failure assessment score (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.27; P < .001) than the subjects with non-COVID-19 ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect measurements of dead space were higher in subjects with COVID-19 ARDS compared with subjects with non-COVID-19 ARDS. The best compliance of the respiratory system was similar in both ARDS forms provided that different PEEPs were applied. A wide range of compliance is present in every ARDS type; therefore, the setting of mechanical ventilation should be individualized patient by patient and not based on the etiology of ARDS.

Evaluation of Nociception Using Quantitative Pupillometry and Skin Conductance in Critically Ill Unconscious Patients: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment is a challenge in critically ill patients, in particular those who are unable to express movements in reaction to noxious stimuli. The purpose of the study was to compare the pupillary response and skin conductance to pain stimulation in critically ill unconscious patients. METHODS: This observational study included adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale < 9 with a motor response < 5) and/or requirements for deep level of sedation. Automated pupillometry (Algiscan, ID-MED, Marseille, France) was used to determine pupillary reflex dilation during tetanic stimulation. The maximum intensity of the stimulation value allowed the determination of a pupillary pain index score ranging from 1 (no nociception) to 9 (high nociception): a pupillary pain index (PPI) score of ≤4 was used to reflect adequate pain control. For skin conductance (SC), the number of SC peaks per second (NSCF) was collected concomitantly to tetanic stimulation. An NSCF of ≤0.07 peak/second was used to reflect adequate pain control. RESULTS: Of the 51 included patients, there were 32 with brain injury and 19 receiving deep sedation. Mean PPI score was 5 (Interquartile Range= 2-7); a total of 28 (55%) patients showed inadequate control of the nociceptive stimulation according to the PPI assessment. Only 15 (29%) patients showed a detectable skin conductance, with NSCF values from 0.07 to 0.47/s. No correlation was found between skin conductance algesimeter (SCA)-derived variables and PPI score or pupillary dilation to pain. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of inadequate pain control might vary according to the method used to assess nociception in ICU patients. A poor agreement between quantitative pupillometry and skin conductance was observed.

The Prognostic Role of Lactate Concentrations after Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

Blood lactate concentrations are often used to assess global tissue perfusion in critically ill patients; however, there are scarce data on lactate concentrations after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). We aimed to assess the prognostic role of serial blood lactate measurements on hospital mortality and neurological outcomes at 3 months after SAH. We reviewed all SAH patients admitted to the intensive care unit from 2007 to 2019 and recorded the highest daily arterial lactate concentration for the first 6 days. Patients with no lactate concentration were excluded. Hyperlactatemia was defined as a blood lactate concentration >2.0 mmol/L. A total of 456 patients were included: 158 (35%) patients died in hospital and 209 (46%) had an unfavorable outcome (UO) at 3 months. The median highest lactate concentration was 2.7 (1.8-3.9) mmol/L. Non-survivors and patients with UO had significantly higher lactate concentrations compared to other patients. Hyperlactatemia increased the chance of dying (OR 4.19 (95% CI 2.38-7.39)) and of having UO in 3 months (OR 4.16 (95% CI 2.52-6.88)) after adjusting for confounding factors. Therefore, initial blood lactate concentrations have prognostic implications in patients with SAH; their role in conjunction with other prognostic indicators should be evaluated in prospective studies.

Pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema in COVID-19: barotrauma or lung frailty?

BACKGROUND: In mechanically ventilated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients infected with the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we frequently recognised the development of pneumomediastinum and/or subcutaneous emphysema despite employing a protective mechanical ventilation strategy. The purpose of this study was to determine if the incidence of pneumomediastinum/subcutaneous emphysema in COVID-19 patients was higher than in ARDS patients without COVID-19 and if this difference could be attributed to barotrauma or to lung frailty. METHODS: We identified both a cohort of patients with ARDS and COVID-19 (CoV-ARDS), and a cohort of patients with ARDS from other causes (noCoV-ARDS).Patients with CoV-ARDS were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic and had microbiologically confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. NoCoV-ARDS was identified by an ARDS diagnosis in the 5 years before the COVID-19 pandemic period. RESULTS: Pneumomediastinum/subcutaneous emphysema occurred in 23 out of 169 (13.6%) patients with CoV-ARDS and in three out of 163 (1.9%) patients with noCoV-ARDS (p<0.001). Mortality was 56.5% in CoV-ARDS patients with pneumomediastinum/subcutaneous emphysema and 50% in patients without pneumomediastinum (p=0.46).CoV-ARDS patients had a high incidence of pneumomediastinum/subcutaneous emphysema despite the use of low tidal volume (5.9±0.8 mL·kg-1 ideal body weight) and low airway pressure (plateau pressure 23±4 cmH2O). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a seven-fold increase in pneumomediastinum/subcutaneous emphysema in CoV-ARDS. An increased lung frailty in CoV-ARDS could explain this finding more than barotrauma, which, according to its etymology, refers to high transpulmonary pressure.

Thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is associated with a lower death rate in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection. A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome CoronaVirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with hypercoagulability caused by direct invasion of endothelial cells and\or proinflammatory cytokine release. Thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin is recommended by current guidelines, but evidence is still weak. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin on hospital mortality in patients admitted for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The effects of enoxaparin on intensive care admission and hospital length-of-stay were evaluated as secondary outcomes. METHODS: Observational cohort study, with data collected from patients admitted to Poliambulanza Foundation with positive real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 from 20th February to 10th May 2020. Multivariate logistic regression with overlap weight propensity score was used to model hospital mortality and intensive care admission, hospital length-of-stay was analyzed with a multivariate Poisson regression. Seven hundred and ninety nine (57%) patients who received enoxaparin at least once during the hospitalization were included in the enoxaparin cohort, 604 (43%) patients who did not were included in the control cohort. FINDINGS: At the adjusted analysis enoxaparin was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (Odds Ratio 0·53, 95% C.I. 0·40-0·70) compared with no enoxaparin treatment. Hospital length-of-stay was longer for patients treated with enoxaparin (Incidence Rate Ratios 1·45, 95% C.I. 1·36-1·54). Enoxaparin treatment was associated with reduced risk of intensive care admission at the adjusted analysis (Odds Ratio 0·48, 95% C.I. 0·32-0·69). INTERPRETATION: This study shows that treatment with enoxaparin during hospital stay is associated with a lower death rate and, while results from randomized clinical trials are still pending, this study supports the use of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin in all patients admitted for COVID-19. Moreover, when enoxaparin is used on the wards, it reduces the risk of Intensive Care Unit admission.

Impact of Azithromycin and/or Hydroxychloroquine on Hospital Mortality in COVID-19.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has led to widespread use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin despite the lack of conclusive evidence for their safety and efficacy. We evaluated the association between treatment with hydroxychloroquine and/or azithromycin and hospital mortality as the primary outcome. We compared the hospital mortality of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, or their combination to the mortality of patients who received neither drug. A logistic multivariate model with overlap weight propensity score was used for estimation of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). One thousand four hundred and three patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were admitted to the hospital. At the time of the analysis, the outcome was available for 1376 (98%) of them. Five hundred and eighty-seven patients (42%) received azithromycin and 377 patients (27%) received hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination. In-hospital mortality was 26%. After the adjusted analysis, azithromycin alone was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85) compared to no treatment. Hydroxychloroquine alone (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53-1.08) and the combination of azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.77-1.69) were not associated with hospital mortality. In this cohort of patients, azithromycin alone was associated with lower hospital mortality but hydroxychloroquine was not associated with increased or reduced mortality. While we await randomized clinical trials, these data support the use of azithromycin in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and can contribute to better understanding of its role in further meta-analyses.