Time course of risk factors associated with mortality of 1260 critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to 24 Italian intensive care units

Purpose: To evaluate the daily values and trends over time of relevant clinical, ventilatory and laboratory parameters during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay and their association with outcome in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Methods: In this retrospective–prospective multicentric study, we enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted to Italian ICUs from February 22 to May 31, 2020. Clinical data were daily recorded. The time course of 18 clinical parameters was evaluated by a polynomial maximum likelihood multilevel linear regression model, while a full joint modeling was fit to study the association with ICU outcome. Results: 1260 consecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted in 24 ICUs were enrolled. 78% were male with a median age of 63 [55–69] years. At ICU admission, the median ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) was 122 [89–175] mmHg. 79% of patients underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall mortality was 34%. Both the daily values and trends of respiratory system compliance, PaO2/FiO2, driving pressure, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure, creatinine, C-reactive protein, ferritin, neutrophil, neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, and platelets were associated with survival, while for lactate, pH, bilirubin, lymphocyte, and urea only the daily values were associated with survival. The trends of PaO2/FiO2, respiratory system compliance, driving pressure, creatinine, ferritin, and C-reactive protein showed a higher association with survival compared to the daily values. Conclusion: Daily values or trends over time of parameters associated with acute organ dysfunction, acid–base derangement, coagulation impairment, or systemic inflammation were associated with patient survival

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

BACKGROUND: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Societa Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18 -member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when >70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. RESULTS: Two -hundred -forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first -round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available

Dataset related to article "Early Hospital Discharge on Day Two Post Robotic Lobectomy with Telehealth Home Monitoring: A Pilot Study"

<p>This record contains raw data related to article "Early Hospital Discharge on Day Two Post Robotic Lobectomy with Telehealth Home Monitoring: A Pilot Study"</p><p><strong> Abstract</strong></p><p>Despite the adoption of enhanced recovery programs, the reported postoperative length of stay after robotic surgery is 4 days even in highly specialized centers. We report preliminary results of a pilot study for a new protocol of early discharge (on day 2) with telehealth home monitoring after robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. All patients with a caregiver were discharged on postoperative day 2 with a telemonitoring device if they satisfied specific discharge criteria. Teleconsultations were scheduled once in the afternoon of post-operative day 2, twice on postoperative day 3, and then once a day until the chest tube removal. Post-discharge vital signs were recorded by patients at least four times daily through the device and were available for consultation by two surgeons through phone application. In case of sudden variation of vital signs or occurrence of adverse events, a direct telephone line was available for patients as well as a protected re-hospitalization path. Primary outcome was the safety evaluated by the occurrence of post-discharge complications and readmissions. Secondary outcome was the evaluation of resources optimization (hospitalization days) maintaining the standard of care. During the study period, twelve patients satisfied all preoperative clinical criteria to be enrolled in our protocol. Two of twelve enrolled patients were successively excluded because they did not satisfy discharge criteria on postoperative day 2. During telehealth home monitoring a total of 27/427 vital-sign measurements violated the threshold in seven patients. Among the threshold violations, only 1 out of 27 was a critical violation and was managed at home. No postoperative complication occurred neither readmission was needed. A mean number of three hospitalization days was avoided and an estimated economic benefit of about EUR 500 for a single patient was obtained if compared with patients submitted to VATS lobectomy in the same period. These preliminary results confirm that adoption of telemonitoring allows, in selected patients, a safe discharge on postoperative day 2 after robotic surgery for early-stage NSCLC. A potential economic benefit could derive from this protocol if this data will be confirmed in larger sample.</p><p> </p&gt

Early Hospital Discharge on Day Two Post Robotic Lobectomy with Telehealth Home Monitoring: A Pilot Study

Despite the adoption of enhanced recovery programs, the reported postoperative length of stay after robotic surgery is 4 days even in highly specialized centers. We report preliminary results of a pilot study for a new protocol of early discharge (on day 2) with telehealth home monitoring after robotic lobectomy for lung cancer. All patients with a caregiver were discharged on postoperative day 2 with a telemonitoring device if they satisfied specific discharge criteria. Teleconsultations were scheduled once in the afternoon of post-operative day 2, twice on postoperative day 3, and then once a day until the chest tube removal. Post-discharge vital signs were recorded by patients at least four times daily through the device and were available for consultation by two surgeons through phone application. In case of sudden variation of vital signs or occurrence of adverse events, a direct telephone line was available for patients as well as a protected re-hospitalization path. Primary outcome was the safety evaluated by the occurrence of post-discharge complications and readmissions. Secondary outcome was the evaluation of resources optimization (hospitalization days) maintaining the standard of care. During the study period, twelve patients satisfied all preoperative clinical criteria to be enrolled in our protocol. Two of twelve enrolled patients were successively excluded because they did not satisfy discharge criteria on postoperative day 2. During telehealth home monitoring a total of 27/427 vital-sign measurements violated the threshold in seven patients. Among the threshold violations, only 1 out of 27 was a critical violation and was managed at home. No postoperative complication occurred neither readmission was needed. A mean number of three hospitalization days was avoided and an estimated economic benefit of about EUR 500 for a single patient was obtained if compared with patients submitted to VATS lobectomy in the same period. These preliminary results confirm that adoption of telemonitoring allows, in selected patients, a safe discharge on postoperative day 2 after robotic surgery for early-stage NSCLC. A potential economic benefit could derive from this protocol if this data will be confirmed in larger sample

Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients

Background: Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. Methods: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased 65 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position. Results: Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching

Survival and Recurrence of Endocarditis following Mechanical vs. Biological Aortic Valve Replacement for Endocarditis in Patients Aged 40 to 65 Years: Data from the INFECT-Registry

Background: Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease, and in many cases, surgery is necessary. Whether the type of prosthesis implanted for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for IE impacts patient survival is a matter of debate. The aim of the present study is to quantify differences in long-term survival and recurrence of endocarditis AVR for IE according to prosthesis type among patients aged 40 to 65 years. Methods: This was an analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY. Trends in proportion to the use of mechanical prostheses versus biological ones over time were tested by applying the sieve bootstrapped t-test. Confounders were adjusted using the optimal full-matching propensity score. The difference in overall survival was compared using the Cox model, whereas the differences in recurrence of endocarditis were evaluated using the Gray test. Results: Overall, 4365 patients were diagnosed and operated on for IE from 2000 to 2021. Of these, 549, aged between 40 and 65 years, underwent AVR. A total of 268 (48.8%) received mechanical prostheses, and 281 (51.2%) received biological ones. A significant trend in the reduction of implantation of mechanical vs. biological prostheses was observed during the study period (p < 0.0001). Long-term survival was significantly higher among patients receiving a mechanical prosthesis than those receiving a biological prosthesis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.546, 95% CI: 0.322-0.926, p = 0.025). Mechanical prostheses were associated with significantly less recurrent endocarditis after AVR than biological prostheses (HR 0.268, 95%CI: 0.077-0.933, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The present analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY shows increased survival and reduced recurrence of endocarditis after a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis implant for IE in middle-aged patients

Insight from an Italian Delphi Consensus on EVAR feasibility outside the instruction for use: the SAFE EVAR Study

Background: The SAfety and FEasibility of standard EVAR outside the instruction for use (SAFE-EVAR) Study was designed to define the attitude of Italian vascular surgeons towards the use of standard endovascular repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) outside the instruction for use (IFU) through a Delphi consensus endorsed by the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Vascolare ed Endovascolare - SICVE). Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 26 statements was developed, validated by an 18-member Advisory Board, and then sent to 600 Italian vascular surgeons. The Delphi process was structured in three subsequent rounds which took place between April and June 2023. In the first two rounds, respondents could indicate one of the following five degrees of agreement: 1) strongly agree; 2) partially agree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) partially disagree; 5) strongly disagree; while in the third round only three different choices were proposed: 1) agree; 2) neither agree nor disagree; 3) disagree. We considered the consensus reached when ≥70% of respondents agreed on one of the options. After the conclusion of each round, a report describing the percentage distribution of the answers was sent to all the participants. Results: Two-hundred-forty-four (40.6%) Italian Vascular Surgeons agreed to participate the first round of the Delphi Consensus; the second and the third rounds of the Delphi collected 230 responders (94.3% of the first-round responders). Four statements (15.4%) reached a consensus in the first rounds. Among the 22 remaining statements, one more consensus (3.8%) was achieved in the second round. Finally, seven more statements (26.9%) reached a consensus in the simplified last round. Globally, a consensus was reached for almost half of the proposed statements (46.1%). Conclusions: The relatively low consensus rate obtained in this Delphi seems to confirm the discrepancy between Guideline recommendations and daily clinical practice. The data collected could represent the source for a possible guidelines' revision and the proposal of specific Good Practice Points in all those aspects with only little evidence available