BackgroundThere is uncertainty about the associations of angiotensive enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) drugs with COVID-19 disease. We studied whether patients prescribed these drugs had altered risks of contracting severe COVID-19 disease and receiving associated intensive care unit (ICU) admission.MethodsThis was a prospective cohort study using routinely collected data from 1205 general practices in England with 8.28 million participants aged 20–99 years. We used Cox proportional hazards models to derive adjusted HRs for exposure to ACE inhibitor and ARB drugs adjusted for sociodemographic factors, concurrent medications and geographical region. The primary outcomes were: (a) COVID-19 RT-PCR diagnosed disease and (b) COVID-19 disease resulting in ICU care.FindingsOf 19 486 patients who had COVID-19 disease, 1286 received ICU care. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of COVID-19 disease (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.74) but no increased risk of ICU care (adjusted HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.06) after adjusting for a wide range of confounders. Adjusted HRs for ARBs were 0.63 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.67) for COVID-19 disease and 1.02 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.25) for ICU care.There were significant interactions between ethnicity and ACE inhibitors and ARBs for COVID-19 disease. The risk of COVID-19 disease associated with ACE inhibitors was higher in Caribbean (adjusted HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28) and Black African (adjusted HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.59) groups than the white group (adjusted HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.70). A higher risk of COVID-19 with ARBs was seen for Black African (adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58) than the white (adjusted HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.62) group.InterpretationACE inhibitors and ARBs are associated with reduced risks of COVID-19 disease after adjusting for a wide range of variables. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs are associated with significantly increased risks of receiving ICU care. Variations between different ethnic groups raise the possibility of ethnic-specific effects of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 disease susceptibility and severity which deserves further study.

BackgroundSurvivors of intensive care are known to be at increased risk of developing longer-term psychopathology issues. We present a large UK multicentre study assessing the anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caseness in the first year following discharge from an intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsDesign: prospective multicentre follow-up study of survivors of ICU in the UK.Setting: patients from 26 ICUs in the UK.Inclusion criteria: patients who had received at least 24 h of level 3 ICU care and were 16 years of age or older.Interventions: postal follow up: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS) and the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Check List-Civilian (PCL-C) at 3 and 12 months following discharge from ICU.Main outcome measure: caseness of anxiety, depression and PTSD, 2-year survival.ResultsIn total, 21,633 patients admitted to ICU were included in the study. Postal questionnaires were sent to 13,155 survivors; of these 38% (4943/13155) responded and 55% (2731/4943) of respondents passed thresholds for one or more condition at 3 or 12 months following discharge. Caseness prevalence was 46%, 40% and 22% for anxiety, depression and PTSD respectively; 18% (870/4943 patients) met the caseness threshold for all three psychological conditions. Patients with symptoms of depression were 47% more likely to die during the first 2 years after discharge from ICU than those without (HR 1.47, CI 1.19–1.80).ConclusionsOver half of those who respond to postal questionnaire following treatment on ICU in the UK reported significant symptoms of anxiety, depression or PTSD. When symptoms of one psychological disorder are present, there is a 65% chance they will co-occur with symptoms of one of the other two disorders. Depression following critical illness is associated with an increased mortality risk in the first 2 years following discharge from ICU.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN69112866. Registered on 2 May 2006.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2223-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Previous studies suggested that the prevalence of chronic respiratory disease in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 was lower than its prevalence in the general population. The aim of this study was to assess whether chronic lung disease or use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) affects the risk of contracting severe COVID-19. MethodsIn this population cohort study, records from 1205 general practices in England that contribute to the QResearch database were linked to Public Health England's database of SARS-CoV-2 testing and English hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths for COVID-19. All patients aged 20 years and older who were registered with one of the 1205 general practices on Jan 24, 2020, were included in this study. With Cox regression, we examined the risks of COVID-19-related hospitalisation, admission to ICU, and death in relation to respiratory disease and use of ICS, adjusting for demographic and socioeconomic status and comorbidities associated with severe COVID-19. Findings Between Jan 24 and April 30, 2020, 8 256 161 people were included in the cohort and observed, of whom 14 479 (0•2%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19, 1542 (<0•1%) were admitted to ICU, and 5956 (0•1%) died. People with some respiratory diseases were at an increased risk of hospitalisation (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] hazard ratio [HR] 1•54 [95% CI 1•45-1•63], asthma 1•18 [1•13-1•24], severe asthma 1•29 [1•22-1•37; people on three or more current asthma medications], bronchiectasis 1•34 [1•20-1•50], sarcoidosis 1•36 [1•10-1•68], extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1•35 [0•82-2•21], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1•59 [1•30-1•95], other interstitial lung disease 1•66 [1•30-2•12], and lung cancer 2•24 [1•89-2•65]) and death (COPD 1•54 [1•42-1•67], asthma 0•99 [0•91-1•07], severe asthma 1•08 [0•98-1•19], bronchiectasis 1•12 [0•94-1•33], sarcoidosis 1•41 [0•99-1•99), extrinsic allergic alveolitis 1•56 [0•78-3•13], idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 1•47 [1•12-1•92], other interstitial lung disease 2•05 [1•49-2•81], and lung cancer 1•77 [1•37-2•29]) due to COVID-19 compared with those without these diseases. Admission to ICU was rare, but the HR for people with asthma was 1•08 (0•93-1•25) and severe asthma was 1•30 (1•08-1•58). In a post-hoc analysis, relative risks of severe COVID-19 in people with respiratory disease were similar before and after shielding was introduced on March 23, 2020. In another post-hoc analysis, people with two or more prescriptions for ICS in the 150 days before study start were at a slightly higher risk of severe COVID-19 compared with all other individuals (ie, no or one ICS prescription): HR 1•13 (1•03-1•23) for hospitalisation, 1•63 (1•18-2•24) for ICU admission, and 1•15 (1•01-1•31) for death.Interpretation The risk of severe COVID-19 in people with asthma is relatively small. People with COPD and interstitial lung disease appear to have a modestly increased risk of severe disease, but their risk of death from COVID-19 at the height of the epidemic w...

IMPORTANCEIn patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. RESULTS Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, −7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, −2.1 [95% CI, −3.8 to −0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference.

In adults in whom weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation is difficult, noninvasive ventilation may facilitate early liberation, but there is uncertainty about its effectiveness in a general intensive care patient population. OBJECTIVE To investigate among patients with difficulty weaning the effects of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation on time to liberation from ventilation compared with protocolized invasive weaning. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter clinical trial enrolling patients between March 2013 and October 2016 from 41 intensive care units in the UK National Health Service. Follow-up continued until April 2017. Adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and in whom a spontaneous breathing trial failed were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either protocolized weaning via early extubation to noninvasive ventilation (n = 182) or protocolized standard weaning (continued invasive ventilation until successful spontaneous breathing trial, followed by extubation) (n = 182). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was time from randomization to successful liberation from all forms of mechanical ventilation among survivors, measured in days, with the minimal clinically important difference defined as 1 day. Secondary outcomes were duration of invasive and total ventilation (days), reintubation or tracheostomy rates, and survival. RESULTS Among 364 randomized patients (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 14.8] years; 50.5% male), 319 were evaluable for the primary effectiveness outcome (41 died before liberation, 2 withdrew, and 2 were discharged with ongoing ventilation). The median time to liberation was 4.3 days in the noninvasive group vs 4.5 days in the invasive group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40). Competing risk analysis accounting for deaths had a similar result (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34). The noninvasive group received less invasive ventilation (median, 1 day vs 4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) and fewer total ventilator days (median, 3 days vs 4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.62-1.0). There was no significant difference in reintubation, tracheostomy rates, or survival. Adverse events occurred in 45 patients (24.7%) in the noninvasive group compared with 47 (25.8%) in the invasive group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients requiring mechanical ventilation in whom a spontaneous breathing trial had failed, early extubation to noninvasive ventilation did not shorten time to liberation from any ventilation.

with HFOV at the 3 analysis points (94, 300, and 500 patients), increased need for vasoactive drugs suggesting a mechanism of harm not offset by better oxygenation and lung recruitment, and the likelihood that HFOV would not decrease death rates. Continued enrollment would have put patients at risk with little posibility of benefit.

Various models have been proposed for the estimation of blood pressure (BP) from pulse transit time (PTT). PTT is defined as the time delay of the pressure wave, produced by left ventricular contraction, measured between a proximal and a distal site along the arterial tree. Most researchers, when they measure the time difference between the peak of the R-wave in the electrocardiogram signal (corresponding to left ventricular depolarisation) and a fiducial point in the photoplethysmogram waveform (as measured by a pulse oximeter attached to the fingertip), describe this erroneously as the PTT. In fact, this is the pulse arrival time (PAT), which includes not only PTT, but also the time delay between the electrical depolarisation of the heart’s left ventricle and the opening of the aortic valve, known as pre-ejection period (PEP). PEP has been suggested to present a significant limitation to BP estimation using PAT. This work investigates the impact of PEP on PAT, leading to a discussion on the best models for BP estimation using PAT or PTT. We conducted a clinical study involving 30 healthy volunteers (53.3% female, 30.9 ± 9.35 years old, with a body mass index of 22.7 ± 3.2 kg/m$$^{2}$$ 2 ). Each session lasted on average 27.9 ± 0.6 min and BP was varied by an infusion of phenylephrine (a medication that causes venous and arterial vasoconstriction). We introduced new processing steps for the analysis of PAT and PEP signals. Various population-based models (Poon, Gesche and Fung) and a posteriori models (inverse linear, inverse squared and logarithm) for estimation of BP from PTT or PAT were evaluated. Across the cohort, PEP was found to increase by 5.5 ms ± 4.5 ms from its baseline value. Variations in PTT were significantly larger in amplitude, − 16.8 ms ± 7.5 ms. We suggest, therefore, that for infusions of phenylephrine, the contribution of PEP on PAT can be neglected. All population-based models produced large BP estimation errors, suggesting that they are insufficient for modelling the complex pathways relating changes in PTT or PAT to changes in BP. Although PAT is inversely correlated with systolic blood pressure (SBP), the gradient of this relationship varies significantly from individual to individual, from − 2946 to − 470.64 mmHg/s in our dataset. For the a posteriori inverse squared model, the root mean squared errors (RMSE) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) estimation from PAT were 5.49 mmHg and 3.82 mmHg, respectively. The RMSEs for SBP and DBP estimation by PTT were 4.51 mmHg and 3.53 mmHg, respectively. These models take into account individual calibration curves required for accurate blood pressure estimation. The best performing population-based model (Poon) reported error values around double that of the a posteriori inverse squared model, and so the use of population-based models is not justified.

No abstract