Impact of time to intubation on mortality and pulmonary sequelae in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study

We evaluated whether the time between first respiratory support and intubation of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) due to COVID-19 was associated with mortality or pulmonary sequelae. Materials and methods: Prospective cohort of critical COVID-19 patients on IMV. Patients were classified as early intubation if they were intubated within the first 48 h from the first respiratory support or delayed intubation if they were intubated later. Surviving patients were evaluated after hospital discharge. Results: We included 205 patients (140 with early IMV and 65 with delayed IMV). The median [p25;p75] age was 63 [56.0; 70.0] years, and 74.1% were male. The survival analysis showed a significant increase in the risk of mortality in the delayed group with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 2.45 (95% CI 1.29–4.65). The continuous predictor time to IMV showed a nonlinear association with the risk of in-hospital mortality. A multivariate mortality model showed that delay of IMV was a factor associated with mortality (HR of 2.40; 95% CI 1.42–4.1). During follow-up, patients in the delayed group showed a worse DLCO (mean difference of -¿10.77 (95% CI -¿18.40 to -¿3.15), with a greater number of affected lobes (+¿1.51 [95% CI 0.89–2.13]) and a greater TSS (+¿4.35 [95% CI 2.41–6.27]) in the chest CT scan. Conclusions: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who required IMV, the delay in intubation from the first respiratory support was associated with an increase in hospital mortality and worse pulmonary sequelae during follow-up.Postprint (published version

Pulmonary function and radiologic features in survivors of critical COVID-19: a 3-month prospective cohort

© 2021 Elsevier. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/BACKGROUND: More than 20% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 demonstrate ARDS requiring ICU admission. The long-term respiratory sequelae in such patients remain unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the major long-term pulmonary sequelae in critical patients who survive COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU admission were recruited and evaluated 3 months after hospitalization discharge. The follow-up comprised symptom and quality of life, anxiety and depression questionnaires, pulmonary function tests, exercise test (6-min walking test [6MWT]), and chest CT imaging. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients admitted to the ICU with ARDS secondary to COVID- 19 were recruited between March and June 2020. At the 3-month follow-up, 62 patients were available for pulmonary evaluation. The most frequent symptoms were dyspnea (46.7%) and cough (34.4%). Eighty-two percent of patients showed a lung diffusing capacity of less than 80%. The median distance in the 6MWT was 400 m (interquartile range, 362-440 m). CT scans showed abnormal results in 70.2% of patients, demonstrating reticular lesions in 49.1% and fibrotic patterns in 21.1%. Patients with more severe alterations on chest CT scan showed worse pulmonary function and presented more degrees of desaturation in the 6MWT. Factors associated with the severity of lung damage on chest CT scan were age and length of invasive mechanical ventilation during the ICU stay. INTERPRETATION: Three months after hospital discharge, pulmonary structural abnormalities and functional impairment are highly prevalent in patients with ARDS secondary to COVID- 19 who required an ICU stay. Pulmonary evaluation should be considered for all critical COVID-19 survivors 3 months after discharge.This study was supported in part by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III [Grant CIBERESUCICOVID, COV20/00110] and was cofunded by European Regional Development Funds, “Una manera de hacer Europa.” D. d. G.-C. has received financial support from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III [Grant Miguel Servet 2020: CP20/00041], co-funded by the European Social Fund “Investing in Your Future.” L. P. acknowledges receiving financial support from the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities for the Training of University Lecturers (FPU19 / 03526).Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

One Year Overview and Follow-Up in a Post-COVID Consultation of Critically Ill Patients

The long-term clinical management and evolution of a cohort of critical COVID-19 survivors have not been described in detail. We report a prospective observational study of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March and August 2020. The follow-up in a post-COVID consultation comprised symptoms, pulmonary function tests, the 6-minute walking test (6MWT), and chest computed tomography (CT). Additionally, questionnaires to evaluate the prevalence of post-COVID-19 syndrome were administered at 1 year. A total of 181 patients were admitted to the ICU during the study period. They were middle-aged (median [IQR] of 61 [52;67]) and male (66.9%), with a median ICU stay of 9 (5-24.2) days. 20% died in the hospital, and 39 were not able to be included. A cohort of 105 patients initiated the follow-up. At 1 year, 32.2% persisted with respiratory alterations and needed to continue the follow-up. Ten percent still had moderate/severe lung diffusion (DLCO) involvement (<60%), and 53.7% had a fibrotic pattern on CT. Moreover, patients had a mean (SD) number of symptoms of 5.7 ± 4.6, and 61.3% met the criteria for post-COVID syndrome at 1 year. During the follow-up, 46 patients were discharged, and 16 were transferred to other consultations. Other conditions, such as emphysema (21.6%), COPD (8.2%), severe neurocognitive disorders (4.1%), and lung cancer (1%) were identified. A high use of health care resources is observed in the first year. In conclusion, one-third of critically ill COVID-19 patients need to continue follow-up beyond 1 year, due to abnormalities on DLCO, chest CT, or persistent symptoms.This study was supported in part by ISCIII (CIBERESUCICOVID, COV20/00110), co-funded by ERDF, “Una manera de hacer Europa,” donation program “Estar Preparados,” UNESPA, Madrid, Spain and Fundación Soria Melguizo (Madrid, Spain). DG-C had received financial support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Miguel Servet 2020: CP20/00041), co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF)/“Investing in your future.” JB acknowledged receiving financial support from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII; Miguel Servet 2019: CP19/00108), co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), “Investing in your future.