Assuntos
Delírio , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Melatonina , Qualidade do Sono , Melatonina/uso terapêutico , HumanosRESUMO
ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the impact of delirium severity in critically ill COVID-19 patients and its association with outcomes. Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed in two tertiary intensive care units in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. COVID-19 patients were evaluated daily during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Confusion Method Assessment for Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7). Delirium severity was correlated with outcomes and one-year mortality. Results: Among the 277 COVID-19 patients included, delirium occurred in 101 (36.5%) during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay, and it was associated with a higher length of intensive care unit stay in days (IQR 13 [7 - 25] versus 6 [4 - 12]; p < 0.001), higher hospital mortality (25.74% versus 5.11%; p < 0.001) and additional higher one-year mortality (5.3% versus 0.6%, p < 0.001). Delirium was classified by CAM-ICU-7 in terms of severity, and higher scores were associated with higher in-hospital mortality (17.86% versus 34.38% versus 38.46%, 95%CI, p value < 0.001). Severe delirium was associated with a higher risk of progression to coma (OR 7.1; 95%CI 1.9 - 31.0; p = 0.005) and to mechanical ventilation (OR 11.09; 95%CI 2.8 - 58.5; p = 0.002) in the multivariate analysis, adjusted by severity and frailty. Conclusion: In patients admitted with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, delirium was an independent risk factor for the worst prognosis, including mortality. The delirium severity assessed by the CAM-ICU-7 during the first week in the intensive care unit was associated with poor outcomes, including progression to coma and to mechanical ventilation.
RESUMO Objetivo: Investigar como a gravidade do delirium afeta pacientes graves com COVID-19 e sua associação com os desfechos. Métodos: Estudo de coorte prospectivo realizado em duas unidades de terapia intensiva terciárias no Rio de Janeiro (RJ). Os pacientes com COVID-19 foram avaliados diariamente durante os primeiros 7 dias de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva usando a escala de agitação e sedação de Richmond, a Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) e a Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7). A gravidade do delirium foi correlacionada com os desfechos e a mortalidade em 1 ano. Resultados: Entre os 277 pacientes com COVID-19 incluídos, o delirium ocorreu em 101 (36,5%) durante os primeiros 7 dias de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva e foi associado a maior tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva em dias (IQ: 13 [7 - 25] versus 6 [4 - 12]; p < 0,001), maior mortalidade hospitalar (25,74% versus 5,11%; p < 0,001) e maior mortalidade em 1 ano (5,3% versus 0,6%, p < 0,001). O delirium foi classificado pela CAM-ICU-7 em termos de gravidade, e escores maiores foram associados à maior mortalidade hospitalar (17,86% versus 34,38% versus 38,46%, IC95%, valor de p < 0,001). O delirium grave foi associado a um risco maior de progressão ao coma (RC de 7,1; IC95% 1,9 - 31,0; p = 0,005) e à ventilação mecânica (RC de 11,09; IC95% 2,8 - 58,5; p = 0,002) na análise multivariada, ajustada por gravidade e fragilidade Conclusão: Em pacientes internados com COVID-19 na unidade de terapia intensiva, o delirium foi fator de risco independente para o pior prognóstico, incluindo mortalidade. A gravidade do delirium avaliada pela CAM-ICU-7 durante a primeira semana na unidade de terapia intensiva foi associada a desfechos desfavoráveis, incluindo a progressão ao coma e à ventilação mecânica.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of delirium severity in critically ill COVID-19 patients and its association with outcomes. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed in two tertiary intensive care units in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. COVID-19 patients were evaluated daily during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Confusion Method Assessment for Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7). Delirium severity was correlated with outcomes and one-year mortality. RESULTS: Among the 277 COVID-19 patients included, delirium occurred in 101 (36.5%) during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay, and it was associated with a higher length of intensive care unit stay in days (IQR 13 [7 - 25] versus 6 [4 - 12]; p < 0.001), higher hospital mortality (25.74% versus 5.11%; p < 0.001) and additional higher one-year mortality (5.3% versus 0.6%, p < 0.001). Delirium was classified by CAM-ICU-7 in terms of severity, and higher scores were associated with higher in-hospital mortality (17.86% versus 34.38% versus 38.46%, 95%CI, p value < 0.001). Severe delirium was associated with a higher risk of progression to coma (OR 7.1; 95%CI 1.9 - 31.0; p = 0.005) and to mechanical ventilation (OR 11.09; 95%CI 2.8 - 58.5; p = 0.002) in the multivariate analysis, adjusted by severity and frailty. CONCLUSION: In patients admitted with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, delirium was an independent risk factor for the worst prognosis, including mortality. The delirium severity assessed by the CAM-ICU-7 during the first week in the intensive care unit was associated with poor outcomes, including progression to coma and to mechanical ventilation.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Delírio , Humanos , Brasil , Coma , Estado Terminal , Estudos ProspectivosRESUMO
RESUMO Objetivo: Caracterizar o conhecimento e as atitudes percebidas em relação às intervenções farmacológicas para sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica e entender as lacunas atuais, comparando a prática atual com as recomendações das Diretrizes de Prática Clínica para a Prevenção e Tratamento da Dor, Agitação/Sedação, Delirium, Imobilidade e Interrupção do Sono em Pacientes Adultos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. Métodos: Trata-se de estudo de coorte transversal baseado na aplicação de um questionário eletrônico centrado nas práticas de sedação. Resultados: Responderam ao inquérito 303 médicos intensivistas. A maioria dos entrevistados relatou uso de rotina de uma escala de sedação estruturada (281; 92,6%). Quase metade dos entrevistados relatou realizar interrupções diárias da sedação (147; 48,4%), e a mesma percentagem de participantes (48,0%) concordou com a afirmação de que os pacientes costumam ser sedados em excesso. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, os participantes relataram que os pacientes tinham maior chance de receber midazolam do que antes da pandemia (178; 58,8% versus 106; 34,0%; p = 0,05); além disso, a sedação profunda foi mais comum durante a pandemia da COVID-19 (241; 79,4% versus 148; 49,0%; p = 0,01). Conclusão: Este inquérito fornece dados valiosos sobre as atitudes percebidas dos médicos intensivistas brasileiros em relação à sedação. Embora a interrupção diária da sedação fosse um conceito bem conhecido e as escalas de sedação fossem frequentemente utilizadas pelos entrevistados, foi colocado esforço insuficiente no monitoramento frequente, no uso de protocolos e na implementação sistemática de estratégias de sedação. Apesar da percepção dos benefícios associados à sedação superficial, há necessidade de identificar metas de melhoria para se proporem estratégias educacionais que melhorem as práticas atuais.
ABSTRACT Objective: To characterize the knowledge and perceived attitudes toward pharmacologic interventions for light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and to understand the current gaps comparing current practice with the recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. Methods: This was a cross-sectional cohort study based on the application of an electronic questionnaire focused on sedation practices. Results: A total of 303 critical care physicians provided responses to the survey. Most respondents reported routine use of a structured sedation scale (281; 92.6%). Almost half of the respondents reported performing daily interruptions of sedation (147; 48.4%), and the same percentage of participants (48.0%) agreed that patients are often over sedated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participants reported that patients had a higher chance of receiving midazolam compared to before the pandemic (178; 58.8% versus 106; 34.0%; p = 0.05), and heavy sedation was more common during the COVID-19 pandemic (241; 79.4% versus 148; 49.0%; p = 0.01). Conclusion: This survey provides valuable data on the perceived attitudes of Brazilian intensive care physicians regarding sedation. Although daily interruption of sedation was a well-known concept and sedation scales were often used by the respondents, insufficient effort was put into frequent monitoring, use of protocols and systematic implementation of sedation strategies. Despite the perception of the benefits linked with light sedation, there is a need to identify improvement targets to propose educational strategies to improve current practices.
RESUMO
The ongoing chronic use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine (HCQ/CQ) in rheumatic patients might impact their outcomes after a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, we sought to assess the mortality in rheumatic patients with chronic HCQ/CQ use who developed a COVID-19 infection through a comparison between individuals chronically using HCQ/CQ with those not taking these drugs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central. We included full-length reports, prospective observational cohorts, and clinical trials of adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who were diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection. Case studies, case series, letters, comments, and editorials were excluded. The main outcome was all-cause mortality. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022341678). We identified 541 studies, of which 20 studies were included, comprising 236,997 patients. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in patients with prior chronic use of HCQ/CQ compared to those with no previous usage (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.94; p = 0.01). There was a considerably lower incidence of hospitalization among patients with chronic HCQ/CQ use compared to their counterparts without HCQ/CQ usage (OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.99; p = 0.04). All-cause mortality and hospitalization were significantly lower in rheumatic patients with chronic HCQ/CQ use who developed a COVID-19 infection.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the knowledge and perceived attitudes toward pharmacologic interventions for light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and to understand the current gaps comparing current practice with the recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study based on the application of an electronic questionnaire focused on sedation practices. RESULTS: A total of 303 critical care physicians provided responses to the survey. Most respondents reported routine use of a structured sedation scale (281; 92.6%). Almost half of the respondents reported performing daily interruptions of sedation (147; 48.4%), and the same percentage of participants (48.0%) agreed that patients are often over sedated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participants reported that patients had a higher chance of receiving midazolam compared to before the pandemic (178; 58.8% versus 106; 34.0%; p = 0.05), and heavy sedation was more common during the COVID-19 pandemic (241; 79.4% versus 148; 49.0%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This survey provides valuable data on the perceived attitudes of Brazilian intensive care physicians regarding sedation. Although daily interruption of sedation was a well-known concept and sedation scales were often used by the respondents, insufficient effort was put into frequent monitoring, use of protocols and systematic implementation of sedation strategies. Despite the perception of the benefits linked with light sedation, there is a need to identify improvement targets to propose educational strategies to improve current practices.
OBJETIVO: Caracterizar o conhecimento e as atitudes percebidas em relação às intervenções farmacológicas para sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica e entender as lacunas atuais, comparando a prática atual com as recomendações das Diretrizes de Prática Clínica para a Prevenção e Tratamento da Dor, Agitação/Sedação, Delirium, Imobilidade e Interrupção do Sono em Pacientes Adultos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. MÉTODOS: Trata-se de estudo de coorte transversal baseado na aplicação de um questionário eletrônico centrado nas práticas de sedação. RESULTADOS: Responderam ao inquérito 303 médicos intensivistas. A maioria dos entrevistados relatou uso de rotina de uma escala de sedação estruturada (281; 92,6%). Quase metade dos entrevistados relatou realizar interrupções diárias da sedação (147; 48,4%), e a mesma percentagem de participantes (48,0%) concordou com a afirmação de que os pacientes costumam ser sedados em excesso. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, os participantes relataram que os pacientes tinham maior chance de receber midazolam do que antes da pandemia (178; 58,8% versus 106; 34,0%; p = 0,05); além disso, a sedação profunda foi mais comum durante a pandemia da COVID-19 (241; 79,4% versus 148; 49,0%; p = 0,01). CONCLUSÃO: Este inquérito fornece dados valiosos sobre as atitudes percebidas dos médicos intensivistas brasileiros em relação à sedação. Embora a interrupção diária da sedação fosse um conceito bem conhecido e as escalas de sedação fossem frequentemente utilizadas pelos entrevistados, foi colocado esforço insuficiente no monitoramento frequente, no uso de protocolos e na implementação sistemática de estratégias de sedação. Apesar da percepção dos benefícios associados à sedação superficial, há necessidade de identificar metas de melhoria para se proporem estratégias educacionais que melhorem as práticas atuais.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Médicos , Adulto , Humanos , Brasil , Respiração Artificial/métodos , Estudos Transversais , Pandemias , Cuidados Críticos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Inquéritos e Questionários , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Hipnóticos e SedativosRESUMO
The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic will disproportionately impact countries with weak economies and vulnerable populations including people with dementia. Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs) are burdened with unstable economic development, fragile health systems, massive economic disparities, and a high prevalence of dementia. Here, we underscore the selective impact of SARS-CoV-2 on dementia among LACs, the specific strain on health systems devoted to dementia, and the subsequent effect of increasing inequalities among those with dementia in the region. Implementation of best practices for mitigation and containment faces particularly steep challenges in LACs. Based upon our consideration of these issues, we urgently call for a coordinated action plan, including the development of inexpensive mass testing and multilevel regional coordination for dementia care and related actions. Brain health diplomacy should lead to a shared and escalated response across the region, coordinating leadership, and triangulation between governments and international multilateral networks.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Delirium features can vary greatly depending on the postoperative population studied; however, most studies focus only on high-risk patients. Describing the impact of delirium and risk factors in mixed populations can help in the development of preventive actions. METHODS: The occurrence of delirium was evaluated prospectively in 465 consecutive nonventilated postoperative patients admitted to a surgical intensive care unit (SICU) using the confusion assessment method (CAM). Patients with and without delirium were compared. A multiple logistic regression was performed to identify the main risk factors for delirium in the first 24 h of admission to the SICU and the main predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: Delirium was diagnosed in 43 (9.2%) individuals and was more frequent on the second and third days of admission. The presence of delirium resulted in longer lengths of SICU and hospital stays [6 days (3-13) vs. 2 days (1-3), p < 0.001 and 26 days (12-39) vs. 6 days (3-13), p <0.001, respectively], as well as higher hospital and SICU mortality rates [16.3% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.004 and 6.5% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.042, respectively]. The risk factors for delirium were age (odds ratio (OR), 1.04 [1.02-1.07]), Acute Physiologic Score (APS; OR, 1.11 [1.04-1.2]), emergency surgery (OR, 8.05 [3.58-18.06]), the use of benzodiazepines (OR, 2.28 [1.04-5.00]), and trauma (OR, 6.16 [4.1-6.5]). CONCLUSIONS: Delirium negatively impacts postoperative nonventilated patients. Risk factors can be used to detect high-risk patients in a mixed population of SICU patients.
