Skeletal muscle-related symptoms are common in both acute coronavirus disease (Covid)-19 and post-acute sequelae of Covid-19 (PASC). In this narrative review, we discuss cellular and molecular pathways that are affected and consider these in regard to skeletal muscle involvement in other conditions, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, critical illness myopathy, and post-viral fatigue syndrome. Patients with severe Covid-19 and PASC suffer from skeletal muscle weakness and exercise intolerance. Histological sections present muscle fibre atrophy, metabolic alterations, and immune cell infiltration. Contributing factors to weakness and fatigue in patients with severe Covid-19 include systemic inflammation, disuse, hypoxaemia, and malnutrition. These factors also contribute to post-intensive care unit (ICU) syndrome and ICU-acquired weakness and likely explain a substantial part of Covid-19-acquired weakness. The skeletal muscle weakness and exercise intolerance associated with PASC are more obscure. Direct severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2 viral infiltration into skeletal muscle or an aberrant immune system likely contribute. Similarities between skeletal muscle alterations in PASC and chronic fatigue syndrome deserve further study. Both SARS-CoV-2-specific factors and generic consequences of acute disease likely underlie the observed skeletal muscle alterations in both acute Covid-19 and PASC.
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.
We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%—the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5–21.0) hours per full calendar day—the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0–23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0–19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76–1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62–1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80–1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73–1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.
