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 [SpO 2 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%.

Resumen 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 UCI. 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, multicéntrico y de cohorte, que incluyó a los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 ingresados en 30 UCI de España y Andorra. Se incluyó a los pacientes consecutivos del 12 de marzo al 26 de mayo del 2020 si habían fallecido o habían recibido el alta de la UCI durante el periodo de estudio. Se reportaron los datos demográficos, los síntomas, los signos vitales, los marcadores de laboratorio, las terapias de soporte, terapias farmacológicas y las 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 (SpO 2 con 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 –6 ), shock (42% vs. 14%; p < 10 –13 ) y arritmias (24% vs. 11%; p < 10 –4 ). Las superinfecciones 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% (IC del 95%: 1-10, p = 0,014). Cada incremento de 5 puntos en la escala APACHE II predijo de manera independiente la mortalidad (odds ratio [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 o shock séptico durante...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Regional anesthesia techniques are commonly used for postoperative pain management during laparoscopic surgery. Our aim was to compare the analgesic efficacy of pre-incisional subcutaneous wound infiltration (WI) with that of the transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block as part of a multimodal analgesic approach in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Methods: In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial, 60 patients were assigned to either TAP or WI group. The main outcome was acute postoperative pain control assessed using the mean numeric rating scale (NRS) at the 24 hours postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were opioid requirements, procedure-related complications, overall complications, and length of stay.Results: In this study, 60 patients were randomized: 30 to TAP group and 28 to WI (two were excluded due to conversion to open surgery). We found no significant difference in the median (1Q, 3Q) NRS scores during the 24 h postoperatively neither at rest (TAP, 0 (0, 1) vs. WI, 0 (0, 1), P = 0.812), nor during movement (TAP, 1 (0, 2) vs. WI, 1 (0, 2), P = 0.708). There were no statistical differences in the postoperative intravenous morphine requirements in the TAP vs. WI groups during the same period (1.7 ± 3.1 vs. 1.8 ± 4.1 mg; P = 0.910). Only one patient in the TAP group presented with postoperative nausea and vomiting.Conclusions: Both pre-incisional subcutaneous WI and TAP blockade were associated with very low pain scores as part of a non-opioid multimodal analgesic regimen in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. This study did not demonstrate the benefits of WI over TAP.

Background: Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) provides analgesia minimizing opioids. OFA has not been evaluated in cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We aim to evaluate OFA feasibility and effectiveness in CRS.Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients (84) undergoing CRS in a tertiary center from May 2020 until June 2021. Predefined protocols for either opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) or OFA were followed.Results: OFA protocol patients (41) had better mean pain scores (1 ± 0.8 vs. 2 ± 1; p = 0.00) despite the avoidance of intravenous and epidural fentanyl intraoperatively (220 ± 104 and 194 ± 73 µg, respectively, in OBA vs. 0; p = 0.00). Postoperative epidural levobupivacaine was also lower in the OFA group (575 ± 192 vs. 706 ± 346 mg; p = 0.034) despite the lack of epidural fentanyl without difference in duration (4.3 ± 1.2 vs. 4 ± 1.2 days; p = 0.22). Morphine consumption was very low (4.1 ± 10 vs. 1.7 ± 5 mg; p = 0.16).Intraoperative hypertensive events and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were higher for OBA (43) (30.2% vs. 7.3%; p = 0.01% and 69.8% vs. 34.1%; p = 0.001, respectively). Postoperative epidural fentanyl was independently associated with PONV (p = 0.004). There was no difference in total complications or length of stay. Conclusion:OFA is feasible, safe, and offers optimal pain control while minimizing the use of opioids in CRS.

No abstract