The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH 2 O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH 2 O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH 2 O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH 2 O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.

Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

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%.

Background: Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone.Methods: Prospective, multicentre, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June, 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP.Results: A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO+awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95%CI: 0.53–1.43), p=0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO+awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0-2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0-3.0] days, (p=0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95%CI: 0.40–2.72), p=0.92].Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

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...