BACKGROUND: Family members of patients treated with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) during an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay are at risk of developing symptoms of anxiety, depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Coping strategies used by family members may play an important role in the severity of some of these symptoms.OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to describe coping strategies used by family members of ECMO-treated patients during ICU admission and recovery period. The secondary aim was to explore the course of the symptoms anxiety, depression, PTSD, and Health Related Quality Of Life (HRQOL) over time.METHODS: In this single-center prospective longitudinal study, validated questionnaires were used to measure coping strategies, symptoms of anxiety, depression and PTSD, and HRQOL in family members of ECMO-treated patients directly after the start of ECMO and at one and six months after the start of ECMO.RESULTS: Family members (n = 26) mainly used problem-focused coping strategies. Symptoms of anxiety appeared to be most present during treatment but decreased over time, as did symptoms of depression and PTSD. HRQOL was severely affected, especially in the mental domain, and did not improve over time.CONCLUSION: In family members of ECMO-treated patients, problem-focused coping mechanisms were most prominent. Psychological functioning was impaired on admission but improved over time, although a mild reaction to stress remained.
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients.METHODS: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4.RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28-day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4.CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches.
MULTIFILE
ObjectiveMany patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Physical impairments are common after ICU stays and are associated with clinical and patient characteristics. To date, it is unknown if physical functioning and health status are comparable between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. The primary objective of this study was to compare handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. The second objective was to identify factors associated with physical functioning and health status in patients in the ICU with COVID-19. Methods In this observational, retrospective chart review study, handgrip strength (handheld dynamometer), physical functioning (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function), and health status (EuroQol 5 Dimension 5 Level) were compared between patients in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients in the ICU without COVID-19 using linear regression. Multilinear regression analyses were used to investigate whether age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities in medical history (Charlson Comorbidity Index), and premorbid function illness (Identification of Seniors At Risk-Hospitalized Patients) were associated with these parameters in patients in the ICU with COVID-19. Results In total, 183 patients (N = 92 with COVID-19) were included. No significant between-group differences were found in handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status 3 months after ICU discharge. The multilinear regression analyses showed a significant association between sex and physical functioning in the COVID-19 group, with better physical functioning in men compared with women. Conclusion Current findings suggest that handgrip strength, physical functioning, and health status are comparable for patients who were in the ICU with COVID-19 and patients who were in the ICU without COVID-19 3 months after ICU discharge. Impact Aftercare in primary or secondary care in the physical domain of postintensive care syndrome after ICU discharge in patients with COVID-19 and in patients without COVID-19 who had an ICU length of stay >48 hours is recommended. Lay Summary Patients who were in the ICU with and without COVID-19 had a lower physical status and health status than healthy people, thus requiring personalized physical rehabilitation. Outpatient aftercare is recommended for patients with an ICU length of stay >48 hours, and functional assessment is recommended 3 months after hospital discharge.
MULTIFILE
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is rapidly expanding across the world, with more than 100,000 new cases each day as of end-June 2020. Healthcare workers are struggling to provide the best care for COVID-19 patients. Approaches for invasive ventilation vary widely between and within countries and new insights are acquired rapidly. We aim to investigate invasive ventilation practices and outcome in COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands.Methods: PRoVENT-COVID ('study of PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19') is an investigator-initiated national, multicenter observational study to be undertaken in intensive care units (ICUs) in The Netherlands. Consecutive COVID-19 patients aged 18 years or older, who are receiving invasive ventilation in the participating ICUs, are to be enrolled during a 10-week period, with a daily follow-up of 7 days. The primary outcome is ventilatory management (including tidal volume expressed as mL/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure expressed as cmH2O) during the first 3 days of ventilation. Secondary outcomes include other ventilatory variables, use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia such as prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, use of sedatives, vasopressors and inotropes; daily cumulative fluid balances; acute kidney injury; ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), duration of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital and 90-day mortality.Discussion: PRoVENT-COVID will be the largest observational study to date, with high density ventilatory data and major outcomes. There is urgent need for a better understanding of ventilation practices, and the effects of ventilator settings on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The results of PRoVENT-COVID will be rapidly disseminated through electronic presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in international peer-reviewed journals. Access to source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets on request, and after agreement of the PRoVENT-COVID steering committee.Trial Registration: PRoVENT-COVID is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT04346342).
DOCUMENT
The aim of this analysis was to compare ventilation management and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between the first and second wave in the Netherlands. This is a post hoc analysis of two nationwide observational COVID-19 studies conducted in quick succession. The primary endpoint was ventilation management. Secondary endpoints were tracheostomy use, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality. We used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors. This analysis included 1122 patients from the first and 568 patients from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were sicker, had more comorbidities, and had worse oxygenation parameters. They were ventilated with lower positive end-expiratory pressure and higher fraction inspired oxygen, had a lower oxygen saturation, received neuromuscular blockade more often, and were less often tracheostomized. Duration of ventilation was shorter, but mortality rates were similar. After matching, the fraction of inspired oxygen was lower in the second wave. In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, aspects of respiratory care and outcomes rapidly changed over the successive waves.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Estimates for dead space ventilation have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19-related ARDS.METHODS: Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicenter, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of wasted ventilation in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.RESULTS: A total of 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in this study. Estimations of wasted ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris-Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p < 0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris-Benedict and by direct estimation, and with an increase in the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the dead space estimates measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality.CONCLUSIONS: There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19-related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk model.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04346342. Registered 15 April 2020. Retrospectively registered.
MULTIFILE
Objective: We determined the prevalences of hyperoxemia and excessive oxygen use, and the epidemiology, ventilation characteristics and outcomes associated with hyperoxemia in invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19). Methods: Post hoc analysis of a national, multicentre, observational study in 22 ICUs. Patients were classified in the first two days of invasive ventilation as ‘hyperoxemic’ or ‘normoxemic’. The co–primary endpoints were prevalence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 90 mmHg) and prevalence of excessive oxygen use (FiO2 ≥ 60% while PaO2 > 90 mmHg or SpO2 > 92%). Secondary endpoints included ventilator settings and ventilation parameters, duration of ventilation, length of stay (LOS) in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU, hospital, and at day 28 and 90. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors that may influence endpoints. Results: Of 851 COVID–19 patients, 225 (26.4%) were classified as hyperoxemic. Excessive oxygen use occurred in 385 (45.2%) patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity was lowest in hyperoxemic patients. Hyperoxemic patients were ventilated with higher positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP), while rescue therapies for hypoxemia were applied more often in normoxemic patients. Neither in the unmatched nor in the matched analysis were there differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients with regard to any of the clinical outcomes. Conclusion: In this cohort of invasively ventilated COVID–19 patients, hyperoxemia occurred often and so did excessive oxygen use. The main differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients were ARDS severity and use of PEEP. Clinical outcomes were not different between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful oxygenation parameter with prognostic capacity in patients with ARDS. We investigated the prognostic capacity of SpO2/FiO2 for mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19.METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a national multicenter cohort study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality.RESULTS: In 869 invasively ventilated patients, 28-day mortality was 30.1%. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 1 had no prognostic value. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 had prognostic capacity for death, with the best cut-offs being 179 and 199, respectively. Both SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 (OR, 0.66 [95%-CI 0.46-0.96]) and on day 3 (OR, 0.70 [95%-CI 0.51-0.96]) were associated with 28-day mortality in a model corrected for age, pH, lactate levels and kidney dysfunction (AUROC 0.78 [0.76-0.79]). The measured PaO2/FiO2 and the PaO2/FiO2 calculated from SpO2/FiO2 were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.79).CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, the SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 are independently associated with and have prognostic capacity for 28-day mortality. The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful metric for risk stratification in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.
MULTIFILE
Background: Mechanically ventilated patients are at risk of developing inspiratory muscle weakness (IMW), which is associated with failure to wean and poor outcomes. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) is a recommended intervention during and after extubation but has not been widely adopted in Dutch intensive care units (ICUs). Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the potential, barriers, and facilitators for implementing IMT as treatment modality for mechanically ventilated patients. Methods: This mixed-method, proof-of-concept study was conducted in a large academic hospital in the Netherlands. An evidence-based protocol for assessing IMW and training was applied to patients ventilated for ≥24 h in the ICU during an 8-month period in 2021. Quantitative data on completed measurements and interventions during and after ICU-stay were collected retrospectively and were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were collected through semistructured interviews with physiotherapists executing the new protocol. Interview data were transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings: Of the 301 screened patients, 11.6% (n = 35) met the inclusion criteria. Measurements were possible in 94.3% of the participants, and IMW was found in 78.8% of the participants. Ninety-six percent started training in the ICU, and 88.5% continued training after transfer to the ward. Follow-up measurements were achieved in 73.1% of the patients with respiratory muscle weakness. Twelve therapists were interviewed, of whom 41.7% regularly worked in the ICU. When exploring reasons for protocol deviation, three themes emerged: “professional barriers”, “external factors”, and “patient barriers”. Conclusions: Implementation of measurements of and interventions for IMW showed to be challenging in this single centre study. Clinicians' willingness to change their handling was related to beliefs regarding usefulness, effectiveness, and availability of time and material. We recommend that hospitals aiming to implement IMT during or after ventilator weaning consider these professional and organisational barriers for implementation of novel, evidence-based interventions into daily clinical practice.
MULTIFILE
