Background Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. Methods Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups. Results Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p = 0.016). Conclusion In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk.

Introduction Current knowledge on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID‐19 remains limited to small series and registry data. In the present retrospective monocentric study, we report on our experience, our basic principles, and our results in establishing and managing ECMO in critically ill COVID‐19 patients. Methods A cohort study was conducted in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID‐19 pneumonia admitted to the ICU of the Geneva University Hospitals and supported by VV‐ECMO from March 14 to May 31. The VV‐ECMO implementation criteria were defined according to an institutional algorithm validated by the local crisis unit and the Swiss Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Results Out of 137 ARDS patients admitted to our ICU, 10 patients (age 57 ± 4 years, BMI 31.5 ± 5 kg/m2, and SAPS II score 56 ± 3) were put on VV‐ECMO. The mean duration of mechanical ventilation before ECMO and mean time under ECMO were 7 ± 3 days and 19 ± 11 days, respectively. The ICU and hospital length of stay were 26 ± 11 and 35 ± 10 days, respectively. The survival rate for patients on ECMO was 40%. The comparative analysis between survivors and non‐survivors highlighted that survivors had a significantly shorter mechanical ventilation duration before ECMO (4 ± 2 days vs. 9 ± 2 days, p = 0.01). All the patients who had more than 150 h of mechanical ventilation before the application of ECMO ultimately died. Conclusion The present results suggest that VV‐ECMO can be safely utilized in appropriately selected COVID‐19 patients with refractory hypoxemia. The main information for clinicians is that late VV‐ECMO therapy (i.e., beyond the seventh day of mechanical ventilation) seems futile.

No abstract

No abstract

AIMS OF THE STUDY: During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the launch of a large-scale vaccination campaign and virus mutations have hinted at possible changes in transmissibility and the virulence affecting disease progression up to critical illness, and carry potential for future vaccination failure. To monitor disease development over time with respect to critically ill COVID-19 patients, we report near real-time prospective observational data from the RISC-19-ICU registry that indicate changed characteristics of critically ill patients admitted to Swiss intensive care units (ICUs) at the onset of a third pandemic wave. METHODS: 1829 of 3344 critically ill COVID-19 patients enrolled in the international RISC-19-ICU registry as of 31 May 2021 were treated in Switzerland and were included in the present study. Of these, 1690 patients were admitted to the ICU before 1 February 2021 and were compared with 139 patients admitted during the emerging third pandemic wave RESULTS: Third wave patients were a mean of 5.2 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2-7.1) younger (median 66.0 years, interquartile range [IQR] 57.0-73.0 vs 62.0 years, IQR 54.5-68.0; p <0.0001) and had a higher body mass index than patients admitted in the previous pandemic period. They presented with lower SAPS II and APACHE II scores, less need for circulatory support and lower white blood cell counts at ICU admission. P/F ratio was similar, but a 14% increase in ventilatory ratio was observed over time (p = 0.03) CONCLUSION: Near real-time registry data show that the latest COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs in Switzerland at the onset of the third wave were on average 5 years younger, had a higher body mass index, and presented with lower physiological risk scores but a trend towards more severe lung failure. These differences may primarily be related to the ongoing nationwide vaccination campaign, but the possibility that changes in virus-host interactions may be a co-factor in the age shift and change in disease characteristics is cause for concern, and should be taken into account in the public health and vaccination strategy during the ongoing pandemic. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04357275)

Background It remains elusive how the characteristics, the course of disease, the clinical management and the outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) worldwide have changed over the course of the pandemic. Methods Prospective, observational registry constituted by 90 ICUs across 22 countries worldwide including patients with a laboratory-confirmed, critical presentation of COVID-19 requiring advanced organ support. Hierarchical, generalized linear mixed-effect models accounting for hospital and country variability were employed to analyse the continuous evolution of the studied variables over the pandemic. Results Four thousand forty-one patients were included from March 2020 to September 2021. Over this period, the age of the admitted patients (62 [95% CI 60–63] years vs 64 [62–66] years, p < 0.001) and the severity of organ dysfunction at ICU admission decreased (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment 8.2 [7.6–9.0] vs 5.8 [5.3–6.4], p < 0.001) and increased, while more female patients (26 [23–29]% vs 41 [35–48]%, p < 0.001) were admitted. The time span between symptom onset and hospitalization as well as ICU admission became longer later in the pandemic (6.7 [6.2–7.2| days vs 9.7 [8.9–10.5] days, p < 0.001). The PaO2/FiO2 at admission was lower (132 [123–141] mmHg vs 101 [91–113] mmHg, p < 0.001) but showed faster improvements over the initial 5 days of ICU stay in late 2021 compared to early 2020 (34 [20–48] mmHg vs 70 [41–100] mmHg, p = 0.05). The number of patients treated with steroids and tocilizumab increased, while the use of therapeutic anticoagulation presented an inverse U-shaped behaviour over the course of the pandemic. The proportion of patients treated with high-flow oxygen (5 [4–7]% vs 20 [14–29], p < 0.001) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (14 [11–18]% vs 24 [17–33]%, p < 0.001) throughout the pandemic increased concomitant to a decrease in invasive mechanical ventilation (82 [76–86]% vs 74 [64–82]%, p < 0.001). The ICU mortality (23 [19–26]% vs 17 [12–25]%, p < 0.001) and length of stay (14 [13–16] days vs 11 [10–13] days, p < 0.001) decreased over 19 months of the pandemic. Conclusion Characteristics and disease course of critically ill COVID-19 patients have continuously evolved, concomitant to the clinical management, throughout the pandemic leading to a younger, less severely ill ICU population with distinctly different clinical, pulmonary and inflammatory presentations than at the onset of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of developing physical, functional, cognitive, and mental impairments. Early mobilisation aims to improve patient outcomes and is increasingly considered the standard of care. This survey aimed to investigate the characteristics, current use and variations of early mobilisation and rehabilitation in Swiss ICUs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among all ICU lead physicians, who provided data on their institutional characteristics, early mobilisation and rehabilitation practices, and their perceptions of the use and variation of early rehabilitation practices in Switzerland. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 44% (37/84). Among ICUs caring for adults (34/37), 26 were in the German-speaking region, five in the French-speaking region, and three in the Italian-speaking region. All ICUs regularly involved physiotherapy in the rehabilitation process and 50% reported having a specialised physiotherapy team. All ICUs reported performing early mobilisation, starting within the first 7 days after ICU admission. About half reported the use of a rehabilitation (45%) or early mobilisation protocol (50%). Regular, structured, interdisciplinary rounds or meetings of the ICU care team to discuss rehabilitation measures and goals for patients were stated to be held by 53%. The respondents stated that 82% of their patients received early mobilisation measures during their ICU stay. Most frequently provided mobilisation measures included passive range of motion (97%), passive chair position in bed (97%), active range of motion muscle activation and training (88%), active side to side turning (91%), sitting on the edge of the bed (94%), transfer from bed to a chair (97%), and ambulation (94%). The proportion of ICUs providing a specific early mobilisation measure, the proportion of patients receiving it, and the time dedicated to it varied across language regions, hospital types, ICU types, and ICU sizes. Almost one third of the ICU lead physicians considered early rehabilitation to be underused in their own ICU and about half considered it to be underused in Switzerland more generally. ICU lead physicians stressed lack of personnel, financial resources, and time as key causes for underuse. Moreover, they highlighted the importance of early and systematic or protocol-based rehabilitation and interprofessional approaches that are adaptive to the patients' rehabilitation needs and potential. CONCLUSION: This survey suggests that almost all ICUs in Switzerland practice some form of early mobilisation with the aim of early rehabilitation. However, the described approaches, as well as the reported use of early mobilisation measures were heterogenous across Swiss ICUs.

No abstract