RESUMO
Background: We report the characteristics, timing, and factors related to the decision to perform a tracheostomy in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection admitted to eight Italian intensive care units (ICUs). Materials and methods: Prospective observational cohort study of patients with COVID-19 disease on mechanical ventilation. Long-term functional impairment (up to 180 days' post-hospital discharge) was assessed using the Karnofsky scale. Kaplan-Meier analysis assessed differences in survival and freedom from tracheostomy in relation to ICU stay. Cox regression model was used to assess which variables impacted on tracheostomy as a categorical outcome. Results: A total of 248 patients were recruited in the eight participating ICUs. Patients undergoing tracheostomy (n = 128) had longer ICU (25 (18-36) vs. 10 (7-16), P = 0.001) and hospital (37 (26.5-50) vs. 19 (8.5-34.5) P = 0.02) stays. ICU and hospital mortality of patients tracheostomized was 34% and 37%, respectively. Cumulative survival Kaplan-Meier analysis documented improved survival rates in patients undergoing tracheostomy (Log-Rank, Mantel-Cox = 4.8, P = 0.028). Median Karnofsky scale values improved over time but were similar between survivors receiving or not receiving tracheostomy. No healthcare worker involved in the tracheostomy procedure developed COVID-19 infection during the study period. Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 infection who underwent tracheostomy had a better cumulative survival but similar long-term functional outcomes at 30, 60, and 180 days after hospital discharge.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This study aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of high-dose (> 0.2 L/kg of treated plasma per day) coupled plasma filtration-adsorption (CPFA) in treating patients with septic shock. METHODS: Multicentre, randomised, adaptive trial, performed in 12 Italian intensive care units (ICUs). Patients aged 14 or more, admitted to the ICU with septic shock, or had developed it during the stay were eligible. The final outcome was mortality at discharge from the last hospital at which the patient received care. RESULTS: Between May 2015, and October 2017, 115 patients were randomised. The first interim analysis revealed a number of early deaths, prompting an unplanned analysis. Last hospital mortality was non-significantly higher in the CPFA (55.6%) than in the control group (46.2%, p = 0.35). The 90-day survival curves diverged in favour of the controls early after randomisation and remained separated afterwards (p = 0.100). An unplanned analysis showed higher mortality in CPFA compared to controls among patients without severe renal failure (p = 0.025); a dose-response relationship was observed between treated plasma volume and mortality (p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: The COMPACT-2 trial was stopped due to the possible harmful effect of CPFA in patients with septic shock. The harmful effect, if present, was particularly marked in the early phase of septic shock. Patients not requiring renal replacement therapy seemed most exposed to the possible harm, with evidence of a dose-response effect. Until the mechanisms behind these results are fully understood, the use of CPFA for the treatment of patients with septic shock is not recommended.
