External validation of unsupervised COVID-19 clinical phenotypes and their prognostic impact

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features. We aimed to validate in an external cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients the prognostic value of a previously described phenotyping system (FEN-COVID-19) and to assess the reproducibility of phenotypes development as a secondary analysis. Patients were classified in phenotypes A, B or C according to the severity of oxygenation impairment, inflammatory response, hemodynamic and laboratory tests according to the FEN-COVID-19 method. Overall, 992 patients were included in the study, and 181 (18%), 757 (76%) and 54 (6%) of them were assigned to the FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes A, B, and C, respectively. An association with mortality was observed for phenotype C vs. A (hazard ratio [HR] 3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.81–5.30, p p p = 0.115). By means of cluster analysis, three different phenotypes were also identified in our cohort, with an overall similar gradient in terms of prognostic impact to that observed when patients were assigned to FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes. The prognostic impact of FEN-COVID-19 phenotypes was confirmed in our external cohort, although with less difference in mortality between phenotypes A and B than in the original study. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory featuresIn this study, we externally confirmed the prognostic impact of clinical phenotypes previously identified by Gutierrez-Gutierrez and colleagues in a Spanish cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the usefulness of their simplified probabilistic model for phenotypes assignmentThis could indirectly support the validity of both phenotype’s development and their extrapolation to other hospitals and countries for management decisions during other possible future viral pandemics Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 can be classified into different clinical phenotypes based on their demographic, clinical, radiology, and laboratory features In this study, we externally confirmed the prognostic impact of clinical phenotypes previously identified by Gutierrez-Gutierrez and colleagues in a Spanish cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the usefulness of their simplified probabilistic model for phenotypes assignment This could indirectly support the validity of both phenotype’s development and their extrapolation to other hospitals and countries for management decisions during other possible future viral pandemics</p

A Comprehensive Perspective on Intracranial Pressure Monitoring and Individualized Management in Neurocritical Care: Results of a Survey with Global Experts

Background Numerous trials have addressed intracranial pressure (ICP) management in neurocritical care. However, identifying its harmful thresholds and controlling ICP remain challenging in terms of improving outcomes. Evidence suggests that an individualized approach is necessary for establishing tolerance limits for ICP, incorporating factors such as ICP waveform (ICPW) or pulse morphology along with additional data provided by other invasive (e.g., brain oximetry) and noninvasive monitoring (NIM) methods (e.g., transcranial Doppler, optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasound, and pupillometry). This study aims to assess current ICP monitoring practices among experienced clinicians and explore whether guidelines should incorporate ancillary parameters from NIM and ICPW in future updates. Methods We conducted a survey among experienced professionals involved in researching and managing patients with severe injury across low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). We sought their insights on ICP monitoring, particularly focusing on the impact of NIM and ICPW in various clinical scenarios. Results From October to December 2023, 109 professionals from the Americas and Europe participated in the survey, evenly distributed between LMIC and HIC. When ICP ranged from 22 to 25 mm Hg, 62.3% of respondents were open to considering additional information, such as ICPW and other monitoring techniques, before adjusting therapy intensity levels. Moreover, 77% of respondents were inclined to reassess patients with ICP in the 18–22 mm Hg range, potentially escalating therapy intensity levels with the support of ICPW and NIM. Differences emerged between LMIC and HIC participants, with more LMIC respondents preferring arterial blood pressure transducer leveling at the heart and endorsing the use of NIM techniques and ICPW as ancillary information. Conclusions Experienced clinicians tend to personalize ICP management, emphasizing the importance of considering various monitoring techniques. ICPW and noninvasive techniques, particularly in LMIC settings, warrant further exploration and could potentially enhance individualized patient care. The study suggests updating guidelines to include these additional components for a more personalized approach to ICP management.</p