Background It is unclear whether the suggested link between COVID-19 during pregnancy and preeclampsia is an independent association or if these are caused by common risk factors. Objective This study aimed to quantify any independent association between COVID-19 during pregnancy and preeclampsia and to determine the effect of these variables on maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Study Design This was a large, longitudinal, prospective, unmatched diagnosed and not-diagnosed observational study assessing the effect of COVID-19 during pregnancy on mothers and neonates. Two consecutive not-diagnosed women were concomitantly enrolled immediately after each diagnosed woman was identified, at any stage during pregnancy or delivery, and at the same level of care to minimize bias. Women and neonates were followed until hospital discharge using the standardized INTERGROWTH-21 st protocols and electronic data management system. A total of 43 institutions in 18 countries contributed to the study sample. The independent association between the 2 entities was quantified with the risk factors known to be associated with preeclampsia analyzed in each group. The outcomes were compared among women with COVID-19 alone, preeclampsia alone, both conditions, and those without either of the 2 conditions. Results We enrolled 2184 pregnant women; of these, 725 (33.2%) were enrolled in the COVID-19 diagnosed and 1459 (66.8%) in the COVID-19 not-diagnosed groups. Of these women, 123 had preeclampsia of which 59 of 725 (8.1%) were in the COVID-19 diagnosed group and 64 of 1459 (4.4%) were in the not-diagnosed group (risk ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.32–2.61). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors and conditions associated with both COVID-19 and preeclampsia, the risk ratio for preeclampsia remained significant among all women (risk ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–2.52) and nulliparous women specifically (risk ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.17–3.05). There was a trend but no statistical significance among parous women (risk ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.99–2.73). The risk ratio for preterm birth for all women diagnosed with COVID-19 and preeclampsia was 4.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.99–5.49) and 6.26 (95% confidence interval, 4.35–9.00) for nulliparous women. Compared with women with neither condition diagnosed, the composite adverse perinatal outcome showed a stepwise increase in the risk ratio for COVID-19 without preeclampsia, preeclampsia without COVID-19, and COVID-19 with preeclampsia (risk ratio, 2.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.63–2.86; risk ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.44–4.45; and risk ratio, 2.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.67–4.82, respectively). Similar findings were found for the composite adverse maternal outcome with risk ratios of 1.76 (95% confidence interval, 1.32–2.35), 2.07 (95% confidence interval, 1.20–3.57), and 2...

No abstract

Sedation-Agitation Scale and BIS are valid measures of wakefulness after cardiac surgery, but EMG interference may affect the accuracy of BIS for a small percentage of patients not receiving neuromuscular blockade.

SAS and BIS work well to describe the depth of sedation for ventilated ICU patients. Deeper sedation and intermittent neuromuscular blockade were used for patients with greater ventilatory requirements and more severe lung disease. The correlation between subjective and objective scales varied in medical, surgical, and trauma patients. Further research with SAS and BIS may facilitate the development of quantitative sedation guidelines for the ICU.