BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, shortages of ventilators and ICU beds overwhelmed health-care systems. Whether early tracheostomy reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay is controversial.RESEARCH QUESTION: Can failure-free day outcomes focused on ICU resources help to decide the optimal timing of tracheostomy in overburdened health-care systems during viral epidemics? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had undergone tracheostomy in 15 Spanish ICUs during the surge, when ICU occupancy modified clinician criteria to perform tracheostomy in Patients with COVID-19. We compared ventilator-free days at 28 and 60 days and ICU-and hospital bed-free days at 28 and 60 days in propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent tracheostomy at different timings (# 7 days, 8-10 days, and 11-14 days after intubation).RESULTS: Of 1,939 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia, 682 (35.2%) underwent tracheostomy, 382 (56%) within 14 days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with more ventilator-free days at 28 days (# 7 days vs > 7 days [116 patients included in the analysis]: median, 9 days [interquartile range (IQR), 0-15 days] vs 3 days [IQR,[0][1][2][3][4][5][6][7]; difference between groups, 4.5 days; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7 days; 8-10 days vs > 10 days [222 patients analyzed]: 6 days [IQR, 0-10 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-6 days]; difference, 3.1 days; 95% CI, 1.7-4.5 days; 11-14 days vs > 14 days [318 patients analyzed]: 4 days [IQR, 0-9 days] vs 0 days [IQR, 0-2 days]; difference, 3 days; 95% CI, 2.1-3.9 days). Except hospital bed-free days at 28 days, all other end points were better with early tracheostomy.INTERPRETATION: Optimal timing of tracheostomy may improve patient outcomes and may alleviate ICU capacity strain during the COVID-19 pandemic without increasing mortality. Tracheostomy within the first work on a ventilator in particular may improve ICU availability.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare how treatment with convalescent plasma (CP) monotherapy, remdesivir (RDV) monotherapy, and combination therapy (CP + RDV) in patients with COVID-19 affected clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 infection who were admitted to the hospital received CP, RDV, or combination of both. Mortality, discharge disposition, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and total ventilation days were compared between each treatment group and stratified by ABO blood group. An exploratory analysis identified risk factors for mortality. Adverse effects were also evaluated. Results: RDV monotherapy showed an increased chance of survival compared to combination therapy or CP monotherapy (p = 0.052). There were 15, 3, and 6 deaths in the CP, RDV, and combination therapy groups, respectively. The combination therapy group had the longest median ICU LOS (8, IQR 4.5-15.5, p = 0.220) and hospital LOS (11, IQR 7-15.5, p = 0.175). Age (p = 0.036), initial SOFA score (p = 0.013), and intubation (p = 0.005) were statistically significant predictors of mortality. Patients with type O blood had decreased ventilation days, ICU LOS, and total LOS. Thirteen treatment-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion: No significant differences in clinical outcomes were observed between patients treated with RDV, CP, or combination therapy. Elderly patients, those with a high initial SOFA score, and those who require intubation are at increased risk of mortality associated with COVID-19. Blood type did not affect clinical outcomes.

No abstract

The optimal treatment regimen for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection remains to be determined. The purpose of this study was to compare how treatment with convalescent plasma (CP) monotherapy, remdesivir (RDV) monotherapy, and combination therapy (CP + RDV) in patients with COVID-19 affected clinical outcomes. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted between May-August 2020 at a 150-bed academic community hospital in San Joaquin County, California. Patients with COVID-19 infection who were hospitalized during the study period received CP, RDV, or a combination of both. Clinical outcomes including mortality, discharge disposition, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and total ventilation days were compared between each treatment group and stratified by ABO blood group. An exploratory analysis identified risk factors for mortality. Adverse effects were also evaluated. Results: A total of 213 patients with COVID-19 were admitted and 106 patients received one of the three prespecified treatments during the study period. 53 received CP alone, 11 received RDV alone, and 42 received combination therapy. RDV monotherapy showed an increased chance of survival compared to combination therapy or CP monotherapy (p = 0.052) (Figure 1). There were 15, 3, and 6 deaths in the CP, RDV, and CP + RDV groups, respectively. The median number of ventilation days was the longest in the CP + RDV group (8, IQR 4.5-14, p = 0.091). The median ICU length of stay was also longest in the CP + RDV group (8, IQR 4.5-15.5, p = 0.220). The median hospital length of stay was longest in the CP group (11, IQR 7-15.5, p = 0.175). Age (p = 0.036), initial SOFA score (p = 0.013), and intubation (p = 0.005) were statistically significant predictors of mortality. Patients with type O blood had less ventilation days, ICU LOS, and total LOS but the difference was not statistically significant. Thirteen treatment-related adverse events occurred. Conclusion: No significant differences in clinical outcomes including mortality, length of stay, or total ventilator days were observed between hospitalized patients with COVID 19 treated with RDV, CP, or CP + RDV. Elderly patients, those with a high initial SOFA score, and those who require intubation are at increased risk of mortality associated with COVID-19. Blood type did not demonstrate significant differences in clinical outcomes.