Clustering COVID-19 ARDS patients through the first days of ICU admission. An analysis of the CIBERESUCICOVID Cohort

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can be classified into sub-phenotypes according to different inflammatory/clinical status. Prognostic enrichment was achieved by grouping patients into hypoinflammatory or hyperinflammatory sub-phenotypes, even though the time of analysis may change the classification according to treatment response or disease evolution. We aimed to evaluate when patients can be clustered in more than 1 group, and how they may change the clustering of patients using data of baseline or day 3, and the prognosis of patients according to their evolution by changing or not the cluster.Methods Multicenter, observational prospective, and retrospective study of patients admitted due to ARDS related to COVID-19 infection in Spain. Patients were grouped according to a clustering mixed-type data algorithm (k-prototypes) using continuous and categorical readily available variables at baseline and day 3.Results Of 6205 patients, 3743 (60%) were included in the study. According to silhouette analysis, patients were grouped in two clusters. At baseline, 1402 (37%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2341(63%) in cluster 2. On day 3, 1557(42%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2086 (57%) in cluster 2. The patients included in cluster 2 were older and more frequently hypertensive and had a higher prevalence of shock, organ dysfunction, inflammatory biomarkers, and worst respiratory indexes at both time points. The 90-day mortality was higher in cluster 2 at both clustering processes (43.8% [n = 1025] versus 27.3% [n = 383] at baseline, and 49% [n = 1023] versus 20.6% [n = 321] on day 3). Four hundred and fifty-eight (33%) patients clustered in the first group were clustered in the second group on day 3. In contrast, 638 (27%) patients clustered in the second group were clustered in the first group on day 3.Conclusions During the first days, patients can be clustered into two groups and the process of clustering patients may change as they continue to evolve. This means that despite a vast majority of patients remaining in the same cluster, a minority reaching 33% of patients analyzed may be re-categorized into different clusters based on their progress. Such changes can significantly impact their prognosis

Tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic: comparison of international perioperative care protocols and practices in 26 countries

Objective: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a global surge in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, some of whom may benefit from tracheostomy. Decisions on if, when, and how to perform tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 have major implications for patients, clinicians, and hospitals. We investigated the tracheostomy protocols and practices that institutions around the world have put into place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data Sources: Protocols for tracheostomy in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from individual institutions (n = 59) were obtained from the United States and 25 other countries, including data from several low- and middle-income countries, 23 published or society-endorsed protocols, and 36 institutional protocols. Review Methods: The comparative document analysis involved cross-sectional review of institutional protocols and practices. Data sources were analyzed for timing of tracheostomy, contraindications, preoperative testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), surgical technique, and postoperative management. Conclusions: Timing of tracheostomy varied from 3 to >21 days, with over 90% of protocols recommending 14 days of intubation prior to tracheostomy. Most protocols advocate delaying tracheostomy until COVID-19 testing was negative. All protocols involved use of N95 or higher PPE. Both open and percutaneous techniques were reported. Timing of tracheostomy changes ranged from 5 to >30 days postoperatively, sometimes contingent on negative COVID-19 test results. Implications for Practice: Wide variation exists in tracheostomy protocols, reflecting geographical variation, different resource constraints, and limited data to drive evidence-based care standards. Findings presented herein may provide reference points and a framework for evolving care standards

70º Aniversario de la declaración universal de derechos humanos. La protección internacional de los Derechos Humanos en cuestión

Segundo volúmen de la Colección Perspectivas Iberoamericanas sobre la justicia. La Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas cumple, el 10 de diciembre de 2018, setenta años. La simbólica fecha obliga a los investigadores en derechos humanos a reflexionar críticamente sobre los avances y límites de un complejo sistema de normas y, sobre todo, de valores culturales sustentados en la matriz liberal occidental. Desde entonces, ha habido indiscutibles avances institucionales y normativos, como la creación del Consejo de Derechos Humanos, varios pactos y declaraciones complementarias, órganos específicos, tribunales internacionales, jurisprudencia, constituciones estatales, una infinidad de instituciones basadas en esta “ética mínima universal” que, contradictoriamente, no logró evitar un conjunto de catástrofes humanitarias y de vulneración de derechos. La primera década del siglo XX trae un reflejo limitante al consenso de la posguerra, pues la agresividad de los Estados hegemónicos, en alianza con intereses privados transnacionales, pone en jaque la capacidad del sistema protector frente a guerras humanitarias e internacionales. tratados económicos de nueva generación aquellos que excluyen por completo a la democracia del proceso de negociación.A Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas completa, em 10 de diciembre de 2018, setenta años. A data simbólica exige dos pesquisadores em direitos humanos uma reflexão crítica a respeito dos avanços y dos limites de um sistema complexo de normas e, principalmente, de valores culturales apoiados na matriz liberal ocidental. De lá para cá, houve indiscutível avanço institucional e normativo, do qual é exemplo a criação do Conselho de Direitos Humanos, diversos pactos e declarações complementarios, órgão específicos, tribunais internacionais, jurisprudência, constituições dos States, uma infinidade de instituições pautadas nesse “mínimo ético universal” que, contraditoriamente, não conseguiu evitar um conjunto de catástrofes humanitárias e de violação de direitos. A primeira década do século XX traz uma reflexão limite para o consenso do pós-guerra, pois a agressividade dos States hegemônicos, em aliança com interesses private transnacionais, põe em check a capacidade do sistema protectivo diante das guerras humanitárias e dos tratados internacionais econômicos de nueva generación aqueles que excluem completamente a democracia do processo negociador