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
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.
Introduction: Throughout life, a patient with severe haemophilia is confronted with many treatment-related challenges. Insight into self-management and non-adherence could improve the quality of care for these patients. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the current evidence on self-management and adherence to prophylaxis in haemophilia. Method: Based on series of studies and published literature, aspects of treatment were explored: learning and performing self-infusion, achieving self-management skills in adolescence, adherence issues and coping with haemophilia. Evidence-based and age-group-specific recommendations for haemophilia professionals were formulated. Results: Nearly, all severe haemophilia patients and parents were able to perform self-infusion and the quality level of infusion skills was acceptable. Learning self-infusion was generally initiated before the onset of puberty and full self-management was obtained 10 years later. Adherence was defined using a Delphi consensus procedure and was determined by skipping, dosing and timing of infusions. Adherence levels varied according to age, with highest levels in children (1–12 years) and the lowest among 25–40 years. Adherence to prophylaxis was acceptable (43%), yet 57% of the population struggled with prophylaxis. Qualitative research showed that the position of prophylaxis in life is the main driver of adherence. This position is influenced by acceptance and self-management skills. Regarding coping with haemophilia, the majority of patients used a problem-focused approach. Conclusion: Self-management and adherence to prophylaxis vary during the life span. Acceptance of the disease and self-management skills were important aspects that may require tailored professional support.
