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.
Purpose: Lactate is an established prognosticator in critical care. However, there still is insufficient evidence about its role in predicting outcome in COVID-19. This is of particular concern in older patients who have been mostly affected during the initial surge in 2020. Methods: This prospective international observation study (The COVIP study) recruited patients aged 70 years or older (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04321265) admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 disease from March 2020 to February 2021. In addition to serial lactate values (arterial blood gas analysis), we recorded several parameters, including SOFA score, ICU procedures, limitation of care, ICU- and 3-month mortality. A lactate concentration ≥ 2.0 mmol/L on the day of ICU admission (baseline) was defined as abnormal. The primary outcome was ICU-mortality. The secondary outcomes 30-day and 3-month mortality. Results: In total, data from 2860 patients were analyzed. In most patients (68%), serum lactate was lower than 2 mmol/L. Elevated baseline serum lactate was associated with significantly higher ICU- and 3-month mortality (53% vs. 43%, and 71% vs. 57%, respectively, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the maximum lactate concentration on day 1 was independently associated with ICU mortality (aOR 1.06 95% CI 1.02–1.11; p = 0.007), 30-day mortality (aOR 1.07 95% CI 1.02–1.13; p = 0.005) and 3-month mortality (aOR 1.15 95% CI 1.08–1.24; p < 0.001) after adjustment for age, gender, SOFA score, and frailty. In 826 patients with baseline lactate ≥ 2 mmol/L sufficient data to calculate the difference between maximal levels on days 1 and 2 (∆ serum lactate) were available. A decreasing lactate concentration over time was inversely associated with ICU mortality after multivariate adjustment for SOFA score, age, Clinical Frailty Scale, and gender (aOR 0.60 95% CI 0.42–0.85; p = 0.004). Conclusion: In critically ill old intensive care patients suffering from COVID-19, lactate and its kinetics are valuable tools for outcome prediction. Trial registration number: NCT04321265.
