Treatment of acute respiratory failure in the course of COVID-19. Practical hints from the expert panel of the Assembly of Intensive Care and Rehabilitation of the Polish Respiratory Society

In 2019, a pandemic began due to infection with a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. In many cases, this coronavirus leads to the development of the COVID-19 disease. Lung damage in the course of this disease often leads to acute hypoxic respiratory failure and may eventually lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Respiratory failure as a result of COVID-19 can develop very quickly and a small percent of those infected will die because of it. There is currently no treatment for COVID-19, therefore the key therapeutic intervention centers around the symptomatic treatment of respiratory failure. The main therapeutic goal is to main-tain gas exchange, mainly oxygenation, at an appropriate level and prevent the intensification of changes in the lung parenchyma. Depending on the severity of hypoxemia different techniques can be used to improve oxygenation. Medical staff dealing with COVID-19 patients should be familiar with both, methods used to treat respiratory failure and the epidemiological risks arising from their use. In some patients, conventional (passive) oxygen therapy alone is sufficient. In patients with worsening respiratory failure high flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) may be effective. The continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) methods can be used to a limited extent. With further disease progression, invasive ventilation must be used and in special situations, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can also be administered.The authors of this article set themselves the goal of presenting the most current knowledge about the epidemiology and patho-physiology of respiratory failure in COVID-19, as well as the methods of its treatment. Given the dynamics of the developing pandemic, this is not an easy task as new scientific data is presented almost every day. However, we believe the knowledge contained in this study will help doctors care for patients with COVID-19. The main target audience of this study is not so much pneumonologists or intensivists who have extensive experience in the application of the techniques discussed here, but rather doctors of other specializations who must master new skills in order to help patients during the time of a pandemic

Leczenie niewydolności oddychania w przebiegu COVID-19. Część I. Tlenoterapia bierna

Choroba COVID-19 w 80% przypadków przebiega łagodnie, jednak pozostali chorzy wymagają hospitalizacji i u dużej części z nich rozwija się wirusowe zapalenie płuc. Jego konsekwencją jest ostra, hipoksemiczna niewydolność oddychania. W dobie pandemii wirusa SARS-CoV-2 istotne jest posiadanie wiedzy dotyczącej metod leczenia niewydolności oddychania. Wiedzę tę powinni posiadać wszyscy lekarze, gdyż konieczność leczenia chorych z COVID-19 może spocząć na lekarzach w trakcie specjalizacji lub na specjalistach, którzy w swojej codziennej praktyce nie zajmują się leczeniem niewydolności oddychania. Wobec braku przyczynowego leczenia COVID-19 podstawowym zadaniem terapeutycznym jest postępowanie objawowe, które polega na zapewnieniu odpowiedniego utlenowania krwi. Uznaje się, że optymalną wartością wysycenia hemoglobiny tlenem (SpO2), która powinna być utrzymywana, jest 92–96%. Pierwszym krokiem w leczeniu hipoksemicznej niewydolności oddychania jest tlenoterapia bierna. Może ona być prowadzona za pomocą następujących metod: cewnik donosowy, prosta maska tlenowa, maska Venturiego i maska bezzwrotna. Dobranie odpowiednej techniki zależy przede wszystkim od skuteczności uzyskania odpo-wiedniego utlenowania krwi, a w drugiej kolejności — od tolerancji leczenia przez chorego. Chorzy z łagodną postacią niewydolności oddychania mogą być hospitalizowani w sali bez ciągłego monitorowania. Do oceny ich stanu poleca się skalę NEWS2. W przypadku ciężkiej hipoksemii konieczne jest stałe monitorowanie parametrów życiowych, w tym przede wszystkim SpO2 i częstości oddechów. Chorzy ci powinni być umieszczeni w salach o podwyższonym poziomie nadzoru medycznego. Głównym celem monitorowania jest kontrolowanie skuteczności leczenia w celu utrzymania odpowiedniej SpO2, zmniejszenia uczucia duszności i wysiłku oddechowego. W przypadku braku poprawy w ciągu pierwszych 2 godzin leczenia należy rozważyć przeniesienie chorego na oddział intensywnej terapii (OIT) ze względu na wysokie ryzyko konieczności intubacji i inwazyjnej wentylacji mechanicznej. Opóźnianie tej formy leczenia może wiązać się z większą śmiertelnością. Autorzy niniejszego artykułu postawili sobie za cel przedstawienie jak najbardziej aktualnej wiedzy na temat epidemiologii, patofi-zjologii niewydolności oddychania w przebiegu COVID-19 oraz leczenia z wykorzystaniem metod tlenoterapii biernej. Wierzymy, że informacje zawarte w tym opracowaniu pomogą usystematyzować polskim lekarzom wiedzę w zakresie leczenia chorych  z niewydolnością oddychania w przebiegu COVID-19

Treatment of Acute Respiratory Failure in the Course of COVID-19. Practical Hints from the Expert Panel of the Assembly of Intensive Care and Rehabilitation of the Polish Respiratory Society

In 2019, a pandemic began due to infection with a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2. In many cases, this coronavirus leads to the development of the COVID-19 disease. Lung damage in the course of this disease often leads to acute hypoxic respiratory failure and may eventually lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Respiratory failure as a result of COVID-19 can develop very quickly and a small percent of those infected will die because of it. There is currently no treatment for COVID-19, therefore the key therapeutic intervention centers around the symptomatic treatment of respiratory failure. The main therapeutic goal is to main-tain gas exchange, mainly oxygenation, at an appropriate level and prevent the intensification of changes in the lung parenchyma. Depending on the severity of hypoxemia different techniques can be used to improve oxygenation. Medical staff dealing with COVID-19 patients should be familiar with both, methods used to treat respiratory failure and the epidemiological risks arising from their use. In some patients, conventional (passive) oxygen therapy alone is sufficient. In patients with worsening respiratory failure high flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) may be effective. The continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) methods can be used to a limited extent. With further disease progression, invasive ventilation must be used and in special situations, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can also be administered. The authors of this article set themselves the goal of presenting the most current knowledge about the epidemiology and patho-physiology of respiratory failure in COVID-19, as well as the methods of its treatment. Given the dynamics of the developing pandemic, this is not an easy task as new scientific data is presented almost every day. However, we believe the knowledge contained in this study will help doctors care for patients with COVID-19. The main target audience of this study is not so much pneumonologists or intensivists who have extensive experience in the application of the techniques discussed here, but rather doctors of other specializations who must master new skills in order to help patients during the time of a pandemic

Frailty increases mortality among patients ≥ 80 years old treated in Polish ICUs

Background: The increasing population of very old intensive care patients (VIPs) is a major challenge currently faced by clinicians and policymakers. Reliable indicators of VIPs’ prognosis and purposefulness of their admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) are urgently needed. Methods: This is a report from the Polish sample of the VIP1 multicentre cohort study (NCT03134807). Patients ≥ 80 years of age admitted to the ICU were included in the study. Information on the type and reason for admission, demographics, utilisation of ICU procedures, ICU length of stay, organ dysfunction and the decision to apply end-of-life care was collected. The primary objective was to investigate the impact of frailty syndrome on ICU and 30-day survival of VIPs. Frailty was assessed with the Clinical Frailty Scale (≥ 5 points on a scale of 1–9). Results: We enrolled 272 participants with a median age of 84 (81–87) years. Frailty was diagnosed in 170 (62.5%) patients. The ICU and 30-day survival rates were equal to 54.6% and 47.3% respectively. Three variables were found to significantly increase the odds of death in the ICU in a multiple logistic regression model: SOFA score (OR = 1.16; 95%CI 1.16–1.24), acute mode of admission (OR = 5.1; 95%CI 1.67–15.57) and frailty (OR = 2.25; 95%CI 1.26–4.01). Conclusion: Measuring frailty in critically ill older adults can facilitate making more informed clinical decisions and help avoid futile interventions.Background: The increasing population of very old intensive care patients (VIPs) is a major challenge currently facedby clinicians and policymakers. Reliable indicators of VIPs’ prognosis and appropriateness of their admission to theintensive care unit (ICU) are urgently needed. Methods: This is a report from the Polish sample of the VIP1 multicentre cohort study (NCT03134807). Patients≥ 80 years of age admitted to the ICU were included in the study. Information on the type and reason for admission,demographics, utilisation of ICU procedures, ICU length of stay, organ dysfunction and the decision to apply end-of--life care was collected. The primary objective was to investigate the impact of frailty syndrome on ICU and 30-daysurvival of VIPs. Frailty was assessed with the Clinical Frailty Scale (≥ 5 points on a scale of 1–9). Results: We enrolled 272 participants with a median age of 84 (81–87) years. Frailty was diagnosed in 170 (62.5%)patients. The ICU and 30-day survival rates were equal to 54.6% and 47.3% respectively. Three variables were found tosignificantly increase the odds of death in the ICU in a multiple logistic regression model, namely: SOFA score (OR = 1.16;95% CI: 1.16–1.24); acute mode of admission (OR = 5.1; 95% CI: 1.67–15.57); and frailty (OR = 2.25; 95% CI: 1.26–4.01). Conclusion: Measuring frailty in critically ill older adults can facilitate making more informed clinical decisions andhelp avoid futile interventions

Management and outcomes in critically ill nonagenarian versus octogenarian patients

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients age 90 years or older represent a growing subgroup and place a huge financial burden on health care resources despite the benefit being unclear. This leads to ethical problems. The present investigation assessed the differences in outcome between nonagenarian and octogenarian ICU patients. Methods: We included 7900 acutely admitted older critically ill patients from two large, multinational studies. The primary outcome was 30-day-mortality, and the secondary outcome was ICU-mortality. Baseline characteristics consisted of frailty assessed by the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), ICU-management, and outcomes were compared between octogenarian (80-89.9 years) and nonagenarian (>= 90 years) patients. We used multilevel logistic regression to evaluate differences between octogenarians and nonagenarians. Results: The nonagenarians were 10% of the entire cohort. They experienced a higher percentage of frailty (58% vs 42%; p < 0.001), but lower SOFA scores at admission (6 +/- 5 vs. 7 +/- 6; p < 0.001). ICU-management strategies were different. Octogenarians required higher rates of organ support and nonagenarians received higher rates of life-sustaining treatment limitations (40% vs. 33%; p < 0.001). ICU mortality was comparable (27% vs. 27%; p = 0.973) but a higher 30-day-mortality (45% vs. 40%; p = 0.029) was seen in the nonagenarians. After multivariable adjustment nonagenarians had no significantly increased risk for 30-day-mortality (aOR 1.25 (95% CI 0.90-1.74; p = 0.19)). Conclusion: After adjustment for confounders, nonagenarians demonstrated no higher 30-day mortality than octogenarian patients. In this study, being age 90 years or more is no particular risk factor for an adverse outcome. This should be considered- together with illness severity and pre-existing functional capacity - to effectively guide triage decisions

Sepsis at ICU admission does not decrease 30-day survival in very old patients: a post-hoc analysis of the VIP1 multinational cohort study

Background: The number of intensive care patients aged ≥ 80 years (Very old Intensive Care Patients; VIPs) is growing. VIPs have high mortality and morbidity and the benefits of ICU admission are frequently questioned. Sepsis incidence has risen in recent years and identification of outcomes is of considerable public importance. We aimed to determine whether VIPs admitted for sepsis had different outcomes than those admitted for other acute reasons and identify potential prognostic factors for 30-day survival. Results: This prospective study included VIPs with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores ≥ 2 acutely admitted to 307 ICUs in 21 European countries. Of 3869 acutely admitted VIPs, 493 (12.7%) [53.8% male, median age 83 (81-86) years] were admitted for sepsis. Sepsis was defined according to clinical criteria; suspected or demonstrated focus of infection and SOFA score ≥ 2 points. Compared to VIPs admitted for other acute reasons, VIPs admitted for sepsis were younger, had a higher SOFA score (9 vs. 7, p &lt; 0.0001), required more vasoactive drugs [82.2% vs. 55.1%, p &lt; 0.0001] and renal replacement therapies [17.4% vs. 9.9%; p &lt; 0.0001], and had more life-sustaining treatment limitations [37.3% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.02]. Frailty was similar in both groups. Unadjusted 30-day survival was not significantly different between the two groups. After adjustment for age, gender, frailty, and SOFA score, sepsis had no impact on 30-day survival [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.86-1.15), p = 0.917]. Inverse-probability weight (IPW)-adjusted survival curves for the first 30 days after ICU admission were similar for acute septic and non-septic patients [HR: 1.00 (95% CI 0.87-1.17), p = 0.95]. A matched-pair analysis in which patients with sepsis were matched with two control patients of the same gender with the same age, SOFA score, and level of frailty was also performed. A Cox proportional hazard regression model stratified on the matched pairs showed that 30-day survival was similar in both groups [57.2% (95% CI 52.7-60.7) vs. 57.1% (95% CI 53.7-60.1), p = 0.85]. Conclusions: After adjusting for organ dysfunction, sepsis at admission was not independently associated with decreased 30-day survival in this multinational study of 3869 VIPs. Age, frailty, and SOFA score were independently associated with survival

Withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining therapy in older adults (≥ 80 years) admitted to the intensive care unit

PURPOSE: To document and analyse the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST) in a population of very old patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: This prospective study included intensive care patients aged ≥ 80 years in 309 ICUs from 21 European countries with 30-day mortality follow-up. RESULTS: LST limitation was identified in 1356/5021 (27.2%) of patients: 15% had a withholding decision and 12.2% a withdrawal decision (including those with a previous withholding decision). Patients with LST limitation were older, more frail, more severely ill and less frequently electively admitted. Patients with withdrawal of LST were more frequently male and had a longer ICU length of stay. The ICU and 30-day mortality were, respectively, 29.1 and 53.1% in the withholding group and 82.2% and 93.1% in the withdrawal group. LST was less frequently limited in eastern and southern European countries than in northern Europe. The patient-independent factors associated with LST limitation were: acute ICU admission (OR 5.77, 95% CI 4.32-7.7), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.78-2.42), increased age (each 5 years of increase in age had a OR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.12-1.34) and SOFA score [OR of 1.07 (95% CI 1.05-1.09 per point)]. The frequency of LST limitation was higher in countries with high GDP and was lower in religious countries. CONCLUSIONS: The most important patient variables associated with the instigation of LST limitation were acute admission, frailty, age, admission SOFA score and country. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NTC03134807)