Antibióticos empíricos para la neumonía adquirida en la comunidad en pacientes adultos: Una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis en red

Objetivo: El objetivo principal de este metaanálisis en red es identificar el antibiótico empírico (Em-ATB) con mayor probabilidad de ser el mejor (HPBB) en términos de (1) tasa de curación y (2) tasa de mortalidad en pacientes hospitalizados con neumonía adquirida en la comunidad (NAC) . Método: Criterios de inclusión: (1) pacientes adultos (>16 años) diagnosticados de NAC que requirieron hospitalización; (2) aleatorizados a al menos dos Em-ATB diferentes, (3) que informen de la tasa de curación y (4) que estén escritos en inglés o español. Criterios de exclusión: (1) protocolo de antibióticos ambiguo y (2) publicados exclusivamente en formato resumen o carta. Fuentes de datos: Medline, Embase, Cochrane y revisiones de citas desde el 1 de enero de 2000 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2018. Riesgo de sesgo: Herramienta de Cochrane. Calidad de la revisión sistemática (RS): A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2. Certeza de la evidencia: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Análisis estadísticos: método frecuentista realizado con la biblioteca 'netmeta', paquete R. Resultados: se incluyeron 27 ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) de las 41.307 citas seleccionadas inicialmente. En cuanto al riesgo de sesgo, más de una cuarta parte de los estudios presentaron riesgo bajo y ningún estudio presentó riesgo alto en todos los dominios. La calidad de la RS es moderada. Para la curación, se construyeron dos redes. Así, dos Em-ATB tienen la HPBB: cetarolina 600 mg (dos veces al día) y piperacilina 2000 mg (dos veces al día). Para la mortalidad, se construyeron tres redes. Así, tres Em-ATB tienen la HPBB: ceftriaxona 2000 mg (una vez al día) más levofloxacino 500 (dos veces al día), ertapenem 1000 mg (dos veces al día) y amikacina 250 mg (dos veces al día) más claritromicina 500 mg (dos veces al día). La certeza de la evidencia para cada resultado es moderada. Conclusiones: Para la tasa de curación, ceftarolina y piperacilina son las opciones con la HPBB. Sin embargo, para la tasa de mortalidad, las opciones son ceftriaxona más levofloxacino, ertapenem y amikacina más claritromicina. Parece necesario realizar un ECA que compare los tratamientos con el HPBB para cada evento (curación o mortalidad) (CRD42017060692).Objective: The main aim of this network meta-analysis is to identify the empiric antibiotic (Em-ATB) with the highest probability of being the best (HPBB) in terms of (1) cure rate and (2) mortality rate in hospitalised patients with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) . Method: Inclusion criteria: (1) adult patients (>16 years old) diagnosed with CAP that required hospitalisation; (2) randomised to at least two different Em-ATBs, (3) that report cure rate and (4) are written in English or Spanish. Exclusion criteria: (1) ambiguous antibiotics protocol and (2) published exclusively in abstract or letter format. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane and citation reviews from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2018. Risk of bias: Cochrane's tool. Quality of the systematic review (SR): A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2. Certainity of the evidence: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Statistical analyses: frequentist method performed with the 'netmeta' library, R package. Results: 27 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the initial 41 307 screened citations were included. Regarding the risk of bias, more than one quarter of the studies presented low risk and no study presented high risk in all domains. The SR quality is moderate. For cure, two networks were constructed. Thus, two Em-ATBs have the HPBB: cetaroline 600 mg (two times a day) and piperacillin 2000 mg (two times a day). For mortality, three networks were constructed. Thus, three Em-ATBs have the HPBB: ceftriaxone 2000 mg (once a day) plus levofloxacin 500 (two times a day), ertapenem 1000 mg (two times a day) and amikacin 250 mg (two times a day) plus clarithromycin 500 mg (two times a day). The certainity of evidence for each results is moderate. Conclusion: For cure rate, ceftaroline and piperaciline are the options with the HPBB. However, for mortality rate, the options are ceftriaxone plus levofloxacin, ertapenem and amikacin plus clarithromycin. It seems necessary to conduct an RCT that compares treatments with the HPBB for each event (cure or mortality) (CRD42017060692)

ECMO for COVID-19 patients in Europe and Israel

Since March 15th, 2020, 177 centres from Europe and Israel have joined the study, routinely reporting on the ECMO support they provide to COVID-19 patients. The mean annual number of cases treated with ECMO in the participating centres before the pandemic (2019) was 55. The number of COVID-19 patients has increased rapidly each week reaching 1531 treated patients as of September 14th. The greatest number of cases has been reported from France (n = 385), UK (n = 193), Germany (n = 176), Spain (n = 166), and Italy (n = 136) .The mean age of treated patients was 52.6 years (range 16–80), 79% were male. The ECMO configuration used was VV in 91% of cases, VA in 5% and other in 4%. The mean PaO2 before ECMO implantation was 65 mmHg. The mean duration of ECMO support thus far has been 18 days and the mean ICU length of stay of these patients was 33 days. As of the 14th September, overall 841 patients have been weaned from ECMO support, 601 died during ECMO support, 71 died after withdrawal of ECMO, 79 are still receiving ECMO support and for 10 patients status n.a. . Our preliminary data suggest that patients placed on ECMO with severe refractory respiratory or cardiac failure secondary to COVID-19 have a reasonable (55%) chance of survival. Further extensive data analysis is expected to provide invaluable information on the demographics, severity of illness, indications and different ECMO management strategies in these patients

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Nurses' perceptions of aids and obstacles to the provision of optimal end of life care in ICU

Contains fulltext : 172380.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Comparative outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 delivered in experienced European centres during successive SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaksan international multicentre retrospective cohort study

International audienc

Comparative outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 delivered in experienced European centres during successive SARS-CoV-2 variant outbreaksan international multicentre retrospective cohort study

International audienc

Risk factors for mortality in patients with COVID-19 needing extracorporeal respiratory support.

When indicating ECMO in patients with COVID-19, centre case volume, age, driving pressure and the duration of symptoms (not the length of MV) should be taken into account. Large drainage cannula and high PEEP levels during the first days are recommended. https://bit.ly/3DGjGk

In-hospital and 6-month outcomes in patients with COVID-19 supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (EuroECMO-COVID): a multicentre, prospective observational study

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been widely used in patients with COVID-19, but uncertainty remains about the determinants of in-hospital mortality and data on post-discharge outcomes are scarce. The aims of this study were to investigate the variables associated with in-hospital outcomes in patients who received ECMO during the first wave of COVID-19 and to describe the status of patients 6 months after ECMO initiation. Methods: EuroECMO-COVID is a prospective, multicentre, observational study developed by the European Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. This study was based on data from patients aged 16 years or older who received ECMO support for refractory COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic—from March 1 to Sept 13, 2020—at 133 centres in 21 countries. In-hospital mortality and mortality 6 months after ECMO initiation were the primary outcomes. Mixed-Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate associations between patient and management-related variables (eg, patient demographics, comorbidities, pre-ECMO status, and ECMO characteristics and complications) and in-hospital deaths. Survival status at 6 months was established through patient contact or institutional charts review. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04366921, and is ongoing. Findings: Between March 1 and Sept 13, 2020, 1215 patients (942 [78%] men and 267 [22%] women; median age 53 years [IQR 46–60]) were included in the study. Median ECMO duration was 15 days (IQR 8–27). 602 (50%) of 1215 patients died in hospital, and 852 (74%) patients had at least one complication. Multiorgan failure was the leading cause of death (192 [36%] of 528 patients who died with available data). In mixed-Cox analyses, age of 60 years or older, use of inotropes and vasopressors before ECMO initiation, chronic renal failure, and time from intubation to ECMO initiation of 4 days or more were associated with higher in-hospital mortality. 613 patients did not die in hospital, and 547 (95%) of 577 patients for whom data were available were alive at 6 months. 102 (24%) of 431 patients had returned to full-time work at 6 months, and 57 (13%) of 428 patients had returned to part-time work. At 6 months, respiratory rehabilitation was required in 88 (17%) of 522 patients with available data, and the most common residual symptoms included dyspnoea (185 [35%] of 523 patients) and cardiac (52 [10%] of 514 patients) or neurocognitive (66 [13%] of 512 patients) symptoms. Interpretation: Patient's age, timing of cannulation (<4 days vs ≥4 days from intubation), and use of inotropes and vasopressors are essential factors to consider when analysing the outcomes of patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19. Despite post-discharge survival being favourable, persisting long-term symptoms suggest that dedicated post-ECMO follow-up programmes are required. Funding: None

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable