Survival implications vs. complications: unraveling the impact of vitamin D adjunctive use in critically ill patients with COVID-19—A multicenter cohort study

BackgroundDespite insufficient evidence, vitamin D has been used as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.MethodsA multicenter retrospective cohort study that included all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their vitamin D use throughout their ICU stay (control vs. vitamin D). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, and ICU-acquired complications. Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analyses were employed as appropriate.ResultsA total of 1,435 patients were included in the study. Vitamin D was initiated in 177 patients (12.3%), whereas 1,258 patients did not receive it. A total of 288 patients were matched (1:1) using PS. The in-hospital mortality showed no difference between patients who received vitamin D and the control group (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87–1.71; p = 0.26). However, MV duration and ICU LOS were longer in the vitamin D group (beta coefficient 0.24 (95% CI 0.00–0.47), p = 0.05 and beta coefficient 0.16 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.33), p = 0.07, respectively). As an exploratory outcome, patients who received vitamin D were more likely to develop major bleeding than those who did not [OR 3.48 (95% CI 1.10, 10.94), p = 0.03].ConclusionThe use of vitamin D as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients was not associated with survival benefits but was linked with longer MV duration, ICU LOS, and higher odds of major bleeding

Evaluation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) treatment for moderate-to-severe ARDS in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study

Background: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as rescue therapy in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) despite the recommendation against the use of this treatment. To date, the effect of iNO on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS remains arguable. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of iNO in critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated from March 01, 2020, until July 31, 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the improvement in oxygenation parameters 24 h after iNO use. Other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used based on the predefined criteria. Results: A total of 1598 patients were screened, and 815 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Among them, 210 patients were matched based on predefined criteria. Oxygenation parameters (PaO2, FiO2 requirement, P/F ratio, oxygenation index) were significantly improved 24 h after iNO administration within a median of six days of ICU admission. However, the risk of 30-day and in-hospital mortality were found to be similar between the two groups (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.82; p = 0.45 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94, 2.11; p= 0.10, respectively). On the other hand, ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly fewer, and ICU and hospital LOS were significantly longer in the iNO group. In addition, patients who received iNO had higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR (95% CI): 2.35 (1.30, 4.26), p value = 0.005) and hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.76, 5.83), p value = 0.001). Conclusion: In critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, iNO rescue therapy is associated with improved oxygenation parameters but no mortality benefits. Moreover, iNO use is associated with higher odds of AKI, pneumonia, longer LOS, and fewer VFDs

Renal failure as a risk factor for venous thromboembolism in critically Ill patients: A cohort study

AbstractRationaleThe relationship between kidney function and venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill patients is not well studied. The main objective of this study was to evaluate this relationship in patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThis was a retrospective study of 798 patients admitted to a tertiary-care ICU and prospectively followed for the development of clinically suspected and radiologically diagnosed deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Patients were divided based on admission creatinine and dialysis history into five groups: normal kidney function, RIFLE classes R, I and F (combined=acute kidney injury [AKI]) and endstage renal disease (ESRD). We compared VTE prophylaxis practices and VTE incidence in these groups and evaluated renal failure as a VTE risk factor using multivariate Cox regression analysis.ResultsOf the 798 patients, 27.2% had AKI and 10.1% had ESRD. Unfractionated heparin use was similar in the five groups but enoxaparin use was less frequent in AKI (13.4%) and ESRD (3.8%) patients compared with patients with normal kidney function (39.0%). VTE occurred in 7.6% of patients with normal renal function, 7.8% AKI patients and 2.5% ESRD patients (p=0.22). The adjusted hazard ratios for VTE compared to patients with normal kidney function were 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-1.47) for RIFLE class R, 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.70) for RIFLE class I, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.59-1.14) for RIFLE class F and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49-1.02, p=0.06) for ESRD.ConclusionsNeither AKI nor ESRD was an independent risk factors for critically ill patients

Critically ill healthcare workers with the middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS): A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND:Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) leads to healthcare-associated transmission to patients and healthcare workers with potentially fatal outcomes. AIM:We aimed to describe the clinical course and functional outcomes of critically ill healthcare workers (HCWs) with MERS. METHODS:Data on HCWs was extracted from a multi-center retrospective cohort study on 330 critically ill patients with MERS admitted between (9/2012-9/2015). Baseline demographics, interventions and outcomes were recorded and compared between survivors and non-survivors. Survivors were approached with questionnaires to elucidate their functional outcomes using Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. FINDINGS:Thirty-Two HCWs met the inclusion criteria. Comorbidities were recorded in 34% (11/32) HCW. Death resulted in 8/32 (25%) HCWs including all 5 HCWs with chronic renal impairment at baseline. Non-surviving HCW had lower PaO2/FiO2 ratios 63.5 (57, 116.2) vs 148 (84, 194.3), p = 0.043, and received more ECMO therapy compared to survivors, 9/32 (28%) vs 4/24 (16.7%) respectively (p = 0.02).Thirteen of the surviving (13/24) HCWs responded to the questionnaire. Two HCWs confirmed functional limitations. Median number of days from hospital discharge until the questionnaires were filled was 580 (95% CI 568, 723.5) days. CONCLUSION:Approximately 10% of critically ill patients with MERS were HCWs. Hospital mortality rate was substantial (25%). Patients with chronic renal impairment represented a particularly high-risk group that should receive extra caution during suspected or confirmed MERS cases clinical care assignment and during outbreaks. Long-term repercussions of critical illness due to MERS on HCWs in particular, and patients in general, remain unknown and should be investigated in larger studies