Preterm infant development, maternal distress and sensitivity: The influence of severity of birth weight

Objective To evaluate the influence of the severity of prematurity based on birth weight on maternal distress and sensitivity and on infant development. Methods Sixty-eight mothers and their preterm babies (30 babies classified into Extremely-Low-Birth Weight-ELBW and 38 into Very-Low-Birth Weight-VLBW) were assessed at 9\ua0months of infant corrected age, using: Griffiths Scales for infant development, CARE-Index for maternal sensitivity during 5-minute of mother-infant interaction, and Parenting Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF) for maternal distress. Sixty-six healthy full-term infants (FT) and their mothers were assessed with the same procedure. Results ELBW, VLBW and FT groups showed similar levels at CARE-Index and PSI-SF. Nevertheless, considering infant development as outcome, a significant interaction between birth weight and maternal distress emerged, with higher Hearing & Language mean quotients in association with Non-Distressed mothers, but only in VLBW infants, compared to FT ones. Also the interaction between birth weight and maternal sensitivity influenced infant development: higher quotients (Eye-hand coordination, Hearing & Language, Locomotor) were significantly associated with sensitive mothers but only in ELBW infants. Conclusion The severity of prematurity, in interaction with the degree of maternal distress and sensitivity, influenced the level of infant development. Practical implications Taken together, these results suggest the relevance of considering severity of prematurity and maternal variables in order to implement appropriate interventions for supporting parenting role after a preterm birth and promoting an adequate infant development

Sixty-Day Mortality Among 520 Italian Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients According to the Adopted Ventilatory Strategy in the Context of an Integrated Multidisciplinary Clinical Organization: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Purpose: Although the decision of which ventilation strategy to adopt in COVID-19 patients is crucial, yet the most appropriate means of carrying out this undertaking is not supported by strong evidence. We therefore described the organization of a province-level healthcare system during the occurrence of the COVID-19 epidemic and the 60-day outcomes of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients according to the respiratory strategy adopted given the limited available resources. Patients and Methods: All COVID-19 patients (26/02/2020\u201318/04/2020) in the Rimini Province of Italy were included in this population-based cohort study. The hospitalized patients were classified according to the maximum level of respiratory support: oxygen supplementation (Oxygen group), non-invasive ventilation (NIV-only group), invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV-only group), and IMV after an NIV trial (IMV-after-NIV group). Sixty-day mortality risk was estimated with a Cox proportional hazard analysis adjusted by age, sex, and administration of steroids, canakinumab, and tocilizumab. Results: We identified a total of 1,424 symptomatic patients: 520 (36.5%) were hospitalized, while 904 (63.5%) were treated at home with no 60-day deaths. Based on the respiratory support, 408 (78.5%) were assigned to the Oxygen group, 46 (8.8%) to the NIV-only group, 25 (4.8%) to the IMV-after-NIV group, and 41 (7.9%) to the IMV-only group. There was no significant difference in the PaO2/FiO2 at IMV inception in the IMV-after-NIV and IMV-only groups (p=0.9). Overall 60-day mortality was 24.2% (Oxygen: 23.0%; NIV-only: 19.6%; IMV-after-NIV: 32.0%; IMV-only: 36.6%; p=0.165). Compared with the Oxygen group, the adjusted 60-day mortality risk significantly increased in the IMV-after-NIV (HR 2.776; p=0.024) and IMV-only groups (HR 2.966; p=0.001). Conclusion: This study provided a population-based estimate of the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak in a severely affected Italian province. A similar 60-day mortality risk was found for patients undergoing immediate IMV and those intubated after an NIV trial with favorable outcomes after prolonged IMV

Blockage of interleukin-1β with canakinumab in patients with Covid-19

There is the urgent need to study the effects of immunomodulating agents as therapy for Covid-19. An observational, cohort, prospective study with 30 days of observation was carried out to assess clinical outcomes in 88 patients hospitalized for Covid-19 pneumonia and treated with canakinumab (300 mg sc). Median time from diagnosis of Covid-19 by viral swab to administration of canakinumab was 7.5 days (range 0–30, IQR 4–11). Median PaO2/FiO2 increased from 160 (range 53–409, IQR 122–210) at baseline to 237 (range 72–533, IQR 158–331) at day 7 after treatment with canakinumab (p < 0.0001). Improvement of oxygen support category was observed in 61.4% of cases. Median duration of hospitalization following administration of canakinumab was 6 days (range 0–30, IQR 4–11). At 7 days, 58% of patients had been discharged and 12 (13.6%) had died. Significant differences between baseline and 7 days were observed for absolute lymphocyte counts (mean 0.60 vs 1.11 × 109/L, respectively, p < 0.0001) and C-reactive protein (mean 31.5 vs 5.8 mg/L, respectively, p < 0.0001).Overall survival at 1 month was 79.5% (95% CI 68.7–90.3). Oxygen-support requirements improved and overall mortality was 13.6%. Confirmation of the efficacy of canakinumab for Covid-19 warrants further study in randomized controlled trials

Machine learning using the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) algorithm predicts 5-day delta of SOFA score at ICU admission in COVID-19 patients

Background: Accurate risk stratification of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for optimizing resource allocation, delivering targeted interventions, and maximizing patient survival probability. Machine learning (ML) techniques are attracting increased interest for the development of prediction models as they excel in the analysis of complex signals in data-rich environments such as critical care. Methods: We retrieved data on patients with COVID-19 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) between March and October 2020 from the RIsk Stratification in COVID-19 patients in the Intensive Care Unit (RISC-19-ICU) registry. We applied the Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm to the data to predict as a binary out- come the increase or decrease in patients’ Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 5 after ICU admission. The model was iteratively cross-validated in different subsets of the study cohort. Results: The final study population consisted of 675 patients. The XGBoost model correctly predicted a decrease in SOFA score in 320/385 (83%) critically ill COVID-19 patients, and an increase in the score in 210/290 (72%) patients. The area under the mean receiver operating characteristic curve for XGBoost was significantly higher than that for the logistic regression model (0.86 vs . 0.69, P < 0.01 [paired t -test with 95% confidence interval]). Conclusions: The XGBoost model predicted the change in SOFA score in critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU and can guide clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) aimed at optimizing available resources

Implications of early respiratory support strategies on disease progression in critical COVID-19: a matched subanalysis of the prospective RISC-19-ICU cohort

Background: Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is wide‑ spread. While the risks and benefts of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefts of diferent respiratory sup‑ port strategies, employed in intensive care units during the frst months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. Methods: Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclas‑ sifed into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-fow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressureBackground: Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. Methods: Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups. Results: Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p = 0.016). Conclusion: In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk

Prosafe: a european endeavor to improve quality of critical care medicine in seven countries

BACKGROUND: long-lasting shared research databases are an important source of epidemiological information and can promote comparison between different healthcare services. Here we present ProsaFe, an advanced international research network in intensive care medicine, with the focus on assessing and improving the quality of care. the project involved 343 icUs in seven countries. all patients admitted to the icU were eligible for data collection. MetHoDs: the ProsaFe network collected data using the same electronic case report form translated into the corresponding languages. a complex, multidimensional validation system was implemented to ensure maximum data quality. individual and aggregate reports by country, region, and icU type were prepared annually. a web-based data-sharing system allowed participants to autonomously perform different analyses on both own data and the entire database. RESULTS: The final analysis was restricted to 262 general ICUs and 432,223 adult patients, mostly admitted to Italian units, where a research network had been active since 1991. organization of critical care medicine in the seven countries was relatively similar, in terms of staffing, case mix and procedures, suggesting a common understanding of the role of critical care medicine. conversely, icU equipment differed, and patient outcomes showed wide variations among countries. coNclUsioNs: ProsaFe is a permanent, stable, open access, multilingual database for clinical benchmarking, icU self-evaluation and research within and across countries, which offers a unique opportunity to improve the quality of critical care. its entry into routine clinical practice on a voluntary basis is testimony to the success and viability of the endeavor

The impact of frailty on ICU and 30-day mortality and the level of care in very elderly patients (≥ 80 years)

Purpose: Very old critical ill patients are a rapid expanding group in the ICU. Indications for admission, triage criteria and level of care are frequently discussed for such patients. However, most relevant outcome studies in this group frequently find an increased mortality and a reduced quality of life in survivors. The main objective was to study the impact of frailty compared with other variables with regards to short-term outcome in the very old ICU population. Methods: A transnational prospective cohort study from October 2016 to May 2017 with 30 days follow-up was set up by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. In total 311 ICUs from 21 European countries participated. The ICUs included the first consecutive 20 very old (≥ 80 years) patients admitted to the ICU within a 3-month inclusion period. Frailty, SOFA score and therapeutic procedures were registered, in addition to limitations of care. For measurement of frailty the Clinical Frailty Scale was used at ICU admission. The main outcomes were ICU and 30-day mortality and survival at 30 days. Results: A total of 5021 patients with a median age of 84 years (IQR 81–86 years) were included in the final analysis, 2404 (47.9%) were women. Admission was classified as acute in 4215 (83.9%) of the patients. Overall ICU and 30-day mortality rates were 22.1% and 32.6%. During ICU stay 23.8% of the patients did not receive specific ICU procedures: ventilation, vasoactive drugs or renal replacement therapy. Frailty (values ≥ 5) was found in 43.1% and was independently related to 30-day survival (HR 1.54; 95% CI 1.38–1.73) for frail versus non-frail. Conclusions: Among very old patients (≥ 80 years) admitted to the ICU, the consecutive classes in Clinical Frailty Scale were inversely associated with short-term survival. The scale had a very low number of missing data. These findings provide support to add frailty to the clinical assessment in this patient group. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03134807)