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
What is known in scientific literature at this point in time about the effects of the measures against the transmission of the coronavirus and what is the meaning of this for the organisers of events?
DOCUMENT
Wat is er op dit moment (medio augustus 2020) in de wetenschappelijke literatuur bekend over (de effecten van maatregelen tegen) de verspreiding van het coronavirus en wat is de betekenis daarvan voor organisatoren van evenementen?
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: There is uncertainty about how much positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a higher PEEP strategy is superior to a lower PEEP strategy regarding the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs).DESIGN: Multicentre observational study conducted from 1 March to 1 June 2020.SETTING AND PATIENTS: Twenty-two ICUs in The Netherlands and 933 invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorised retrospectively as having received invasive ventilation with higher (n=259) or lower PEEP (n=674), based on the high and low PEEP/FIO2 tables of the ARDS Network, and using ventilator settings and parameters in the first hour of invasive ventilation, and every 8 h thereafter at fixed time points during the first four calendar days. We also used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors that might influence outcomes.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of VFDs. Secondary outcomes included distant organ failures including acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality.RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, the higher PEEP strategy had no association with the median [IQR] number of VFDs (2.0 [0.0 to 15.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0 to 16.0] days). The median (95% confidence interval) difference was 0.21 (-3.34 to 3.78) days, P = 0.905. In the matched cohort, the higher PEEP group had an association with a lower median number of VFDs (0.0 [0.0 to 14.0] vs. 6.0 [0.0 to 17.0] days) a median difference of -4.65 (-8.92 to -0.39) days, P = 0.032. The higher PEEP strategy had associations with higher incidence of AKI (in the matched cohort) and more use of RRT (in the unmatched and matched cohorts). The higher PEEP strategy had no association with mortality.CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 ARDS, use of higher PEEP may be associated with a lower number of VFDs, and may increase the incidence of AKI and need for RRT.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.
DOCUMENT
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
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.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has challenged healthcare globally. An acute increase in the number of hospitalized patients has neces‑ sitated a rigorous reorganization of hospital care, thereby creating circumstances that previously have been identifed as facilitating prescribing errors (PEs), e.g. a demanding work environment, a high turnover of doctors, and prescrib‑ ing beyond expertise. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may be at risk of PEs, potentially resulting in patient harm. We determined the prevalence, severity, and risk factors for PEs in post–COVID-19 patients, hospitalized during the frst wave of COVID-19 in the Netherlands, 3months after discharge. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study recruited patients who visited a post-COVID-19 outpatient clinic of an academic hospital in the Netherlands, 3months after COVID-19 hospitalization, between June 1 and October 1 2020. All patients with appointments were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence and severity of PEs were assessed in a multidisciplinary consensus meeting. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for PEs. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included, of whom 92% had ≥1 PE and 8% experienced medication-related harm requiring an immediate change in medication therapy to prevent detoriation. Overall, 68% of all identifed PEs were made during or after the COVID-19 related hospitalization. Multivariate analyses identifed ICU admission (OR 6.08, 95% CI 2.16–17.09) and a medical history of COPD / asthma (OR 5.36, 95% CI 1.34–21.5) as independent risk fac‑ tors for PEs. Conclusions: PEs occurred frequently during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Patients admitted to an ICU during COVID19 hospitalization or who had a medical history of COPD / asthma were at risk of PEs. These risk factors can be used to identify high-risk patients and to implement targeted interventions. Awareness of prescribing safely is crucial to prevent harm in this new patient population.
MULTIFILE
Background: During COVID-19 measures face-to-face contact is limited and professional carers have to find other ways to support people with intellectual disabilities. COVID-19 measures can increase stress in people with intellectual disabilities, although some people may adapt to or grow from these uncertain situations. Resilience is the process of effectively negotiating, adapting to, or managing significant sources of stress and trauma. The current study aims to provide professional carers with new insights into how they can support people with intellectual disabilities. Method: An online survey was shared through the social media and organizational newsletters of MEE ZHN (a non-governmental organization for people with disabilities). The resilience framework by Ungar (2019) was adapted to fit to people with intellectual disabilities during COVID-19 measures. Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS statistics version 26. Results: Results show that professional carers applied diverse and distal methods to maintain contact with people with intellectual disabilities during the COVID-19 measures. Professional carers reported a significant decrease in the quality of contact with clients with intellectual disabilities, but overall high levels of resilience in the same clients. Implications: Online methods of communication are possibly insufficient for professionals to cover all needs of people with intellectual disabilities. During this pandemic professionals should be aware of stress but also of resilience in people with intellectual disabilities.
DOCUMENT
A key policy measure introduced by governments worldwide at the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was to restrict travel, highlighting the importance of people's mobility as one of the key contributors to spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there was little consistency regarding the geographical scale or the severity of these measures. Little use was made of commuting and travel data to inform decisions on when, where and at what level restrictions should be applied. We aim to contribute to regional policy by providing evidence that could be used to inform future policy debates on the most effective travel restrictions to impose during a pandemic. We present an analysis of the impact of mobility between municipalities on COVID-19 incidence in the Netherlands. We used multiple linear regression models and geographical information systems to gain insight into the association between mobility-related factors and demographic, socio-economic and geographical factors with COVID-19 incidence in municipalities. Our results indicate that spatial mobility patterns, when combined with COVID-19 incidence in municipalities of origin, were associated with increased COVID-19 incidence in municipalities of destination. In addition, various regional characteristics were associated with municipal incidence. By conducting our analyses over three different periods, we highlight the importance of time for COVID-19 incidence. In the light of ongoing mitigation measures (and possible future events), spatial mobility patterns should be a key factor in exploring regional mobility restrictions as an alternative for national lockdowns.
DOCUMENT
