Background The mortality of critically ill patients with COVID-19 is high, particularly among those receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). Despite the high number of patients treated worldwide, data on respiratory mechanics are currently scarce and the optimal setting of MV remains to be defined. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of available data about respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and MV settings in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure, and to identify knowledge gaps. Main text PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to October 30, 2020 for studies providing at least one ventilatory parameter collected within 24 h from the ICU admission. The quality of the studies was independently assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. A total of 26 studies were included for a total of 14,075 patients. At ICU admission, positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) values ranged from 9 to 16.5 cm of water (cmH2O), suggesting that high levels of PEEP were commonly used for setting MV for these patients. Patients with COVID-19 are severely hypoxemic at ICU admission and show a median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ranging from 102 to 198 mmHg. Static respiratory system compliance (Crs) values at ICU admission were highly heterogenous, ranging between 24 and 49 ml/cmH2O. Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents were widely used, ranging from 17 to 81 and 22 to 88%, respectively; both rates were higher than previously reported in patients with “classical” acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Conclusions Available data show that, in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, respiratory mechanics and MV settings within 24 h from ICU admission are heterogeneous but similar to those reported for “classical” ARDS. However, to date, complete data regarding mechanical properties of respiratory system, optimal setting of MV and the role of rescue treatments for refractory hypoxemia are still lacking in the medical literature.
Background Recent studies showed that plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA seems to be associated with worse COVID-19 outcome. However, whether specific population can be at higher risk of viremia are to date unexplored. Methods This cross-sectional proof-of-concept study included 41 SARS-CoV-2-positive adult individuals (six affected by haematological malignancies) hospitalized at two major hospital in Milan, for those demographic, clinical and laboratory data were available. SARS-CoV-2 load was quantified by ddPCR in paired plasma and respiratory samples. To assess significant differences between patients with and patients without viremia, Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Results Plasma SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in 8 patients (19.5%), with a median (IQR) value of 694 (209–1023) copies/mL. Viremic patients were characterized by an higher mortality rate (50.0% vs 9.1%; p = 0.018) respect to patients without viremia. Viremic patients were more frequently affected by haematological malignancies (62.5% vs. 3.0%; p < 0.001), and had higher viral load in respiratory samples (9,404,000 [586,060-10,000,000] vs 1560 [312–25,160] copies/mL; p = 0.002). Conclusions Even if based on a small sample population, this proof-of-concept study poses the basis for an early identification of patients at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 viremia, and therefore likely to develop severe COVID-19, and supports the need of a quantitative viral load determination in blood and respiratory samples of haematologic patients with COVID-19 in order to predict prognosis and consequently to help their further management.
This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2021. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2021 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .
Purpose of review To summarize the current knowledge of pathophysiology and ventilatory management of acute respiratory failure in COVID-19. Recent findings Early reports suggested that COVID-19 is an ‘atypical ARDS’ with profound hypoxemia with normal respiratory system compliance (Crs). Contrarily, several more populated analyses showed that COVID-19 ARDS has pathophysiological features similar to non-COVID-19 ARDS, with reduced Crs, and high heterogeneity of respiratory mechanics, hypoxemia severity, and lung recruitability. There is no evidence supporting COVID-19-specific ventilatory settings, and the vast amount of available literature suggests that evidence-based, lung-protective ventilation (i.e. tidal volume ≤6 ml/kg, plateau pressure ≤30 cmH2O) should be enforced in all mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Mild and moderate COVID-19 can be managed outside of ICUs by noninvasive ventilation in dedicated respiratory units, and no evidence support an early vs. late intubation strategy. Despite widely employed, there is no evidence supporting the efficacy of rescue therapies, such as pronation, inhaled vasodilators, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Summary Given the lack of evidence-based specific ventilatory strategies and a large amount of literature showing pathophysiological features similar to non-COVID-19 ARDS, evidence-based lung-protective ventilatory strategies should be pursued in all patients with COVID-19 ARDS.
Background Fragmented data exist on the emotional and psychological distress generated by hospital admission during the pandemic in specific populations of patients, and no data exists on patients scheduled for surgery. The aim of this multicentre nationwide prospective cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the impact of pandemic on emotional status and fear of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in a cohort of elective surgical patients in Italy, scheduled for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Twenty-nine Italian centres were involved in the study, for a total of 2376 patients surveyed (mean age of 58 years ± 16.61; 49.6% males). The survey consisted of 28 total closed questions, including four study outcome questions. More than half of patients had at least one chronic disease (54%), among which cardiovascular diseases were the commonest (58%). The most frequent type of surgery was abdominal (20%), under general anaesthesia (64%). Almost half of the patients (46%) declared to be frightened of going to the hospital for routine checkups; 55% to be afraid of getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and 62% were feared of being hospitalised without seeing family members. Having an oncological disease and other patient-related, centre-related or perioperative factors were independently associated with an increased risk of fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and of being hospitalised without seeing family members. A previous infection due to SARS-COV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of worse emotional outcomes and fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Patients who showed the most emotionally vulnerable profile (e.g. use of sleep-inducing drugs, higher fear of surgery or anaesthesia) were at higher risk of worse emotional status towards the hospitalization during COVID-19 pandemic. Being operated in hospitals with lower surgical volume and with COVID-19 wards was associated with worse emotional status and fear of contagion. Conclusions Additional fear and worse emotional status may be frequent in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. More than half of the participants to the survey were worried about not being able to receive family visits. Psychological support may be considered for patients at higher risk of psychological distress to improve perioperative wellbeing during the pandemic.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.