We describe the incidence, practice and associations with outcomes of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national multicenter observational cohort study performed in 16 intensive care units in the Netherlands (PRoAcT−COVID-study). Patients were categorized in two groups, based on received treatment of awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint was practice of prone positioning. Secondary endpoint was ‘treatment failure’, a composite of intubation for invasive ventilation and death before day 28. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors. In 546 patients, awake prone positioning was used in 88 (16.1%) patients. Prone positioning started within median 1 (0 to 2) days after ICU admission, sessions summed up to median 12.0 (8.4−14.5) hours for median 1.0 day. In the unmatched analysis (HR, 1.80 (1.41−2.31); p < 0.001), but not in the matched analysis (HR, 1.17 (0.87−1.59); p = 0.30), treatment failure occurred more often in patients that received prone positioning. The findings of this study are that awake prone positioning was used in one in six COVID-19 patients. Prone positioning started early, and sessions lasted long but were often discontinued because of need for intubation.
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
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.OBJECTIVES: This study: (1) investigated the accuracy of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold thickness relative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the assessment of body composition in people with spinal cord injury (SCI), and whether sex and lesion characteristics affect the accuracy, (2) developed new prediction equations to estimate fat free mass (FFM) and percentage fat mass (FM%) in a general SCI population using BIA and skinfolds outcomes.SETTING: University, the Netherlands.METHODS: Fifty participants with SCI (19 females; median time since injury: 15 years) were tested by DXA, single-frequency BIA (SF-BIA), segmental multi-frequency BIA (segmental MF-BIA), and anthropometry (height, body mass, calf circumference, and skinfold thickness) during a visit. Personal and lesion characteristics were registered.RESULTS: Compared to DXA, SF-BIA showed the smallest mean difference in estimating FM%, but with large limits of agreement (mean difference = -2.2%; limits of agreement: -12.8 to 8.3%). BIA and skinfold thickness tended to show a better estimation of FM% in females, participants with tetraplegia, or with motor incomplete injury. New equations for predicting FFM and FM% were developed with good explained variances (FFM: R2 = 0.94; FM%: R2 = 0.66).CONCLUSIONS: None of the measurement techniques accurately estimated FM% because of the wide individual variation and, therefore, should be used with caution. The accuracy of the techniques differed in different subgroups. The newly developed equations for predicting FFM and FM% should be cross-validated in future studies.
