Search

Objective COVID-19 is associated with an elevated risk of thromboembolism and excess mortality. Difficulties with best anticoagulation practices and their implementation motivated the current analysis of COVID-19 patients who developed Venous Thromboembolism (VTE). Method This is a post-hoc analysis of a COVID-19 cohort, described in an economic study already published. The authors analyzed a subset of patients with confirmed VTE. We described the characteristics of the cohort, such as demographics, clinical status, and laboratory results. We tested differences amid two subgroups of patients, those with VTE or not, with the competitive risk Fine and Gray model. Results Out of 3186 adult patients with COVID-19, 245 (7.7%) were diagnosed with VTE, 174 (5.4%) of them during admission to the hospital. Four (2.3% of these 174) did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation and 19 (11%) discontinued anticoagulation for at least 3 days, resulting in 170 analyzed. During the first week of hospitalization, the laboratory most altered results were C-reactive protein and D-dimer. Patients with VTE were more critical, had a higher mortality rate, worse SOFA score, and, on average, 50% longer hospital stay. Conclusion Proven VTE incidence in this severe COVID-19 cohort was 7.7%, despite 87% of them complying completely with VTE prophylaxis. The clinician must be aware of the diagnosis of VTE in COVID-19, even in patients receiving proper prophylaxis.

Whether fasting early in critical illness course is acceptable is not clear and high-quality data on this topic are lacking. To generate equipoise for future clinical trials and bring additional data to current literature, we compared outcomes of patients fasted during the first 72 h of intensive care unit (ICU) stay to patients receiving any nutrition support during this period.Retrospective cohort study of a medical ICU from a tertiary academic center in Brazil. Adult patients treated between November 2017 and February 2022 with an ICU length of stay of ≥5 days were included. Baseline and daily data were retrieved from the prospectively collected administrative database. We did 1:1 propensity score matching to compare patients fasting for at least 72 h with controls. Primary outcome was hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were other resources' use.During the study period, 1591 patients were cared for in this ICU, of which 998 stayed ≥5 days. After excluding readmissions and propensity score matching, 93 patients in the fasting group were matched to 93 controls. Hospital mortality was similar between fasting and matched control groups (odds ratio = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.56-1.94; P 0.99). Secondary outcomes were not different between groups, including length of stay, days on mechanical ventilation, and incidence of new infections.Withholding nutrition support in the first 72 h of ICU stay was not associated with worse outcomes in this cohort of severe critically ill patients.

Purpose of review The aim of this study was to review the most recent literature on mechanical ventilation strategies in patients with septic shock. Recent findings Indirect clinical trial evidence has refined the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres in septic shock patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Weaning strategies and devices have also been recently evaluated. The role of lung protective ventilation in patients with healthy lungs, while recognized, still needs to be further refined. The possible detrimental effects of spontaneous breathing in patients who develop acute respiratory distress syndrome is increasingly recognized, but clinical trial evidence is still lacking to confirm this hypothesis. A new concept of lung and diaphragm protective is emerging in the critical care literature, but its application will need a complex intervention implementation approach to allow adequate scrutiny of this concept and uptake by clinicians. Summary Many advances in the management of the mechanically ventilated patient with sepsis and septic shock have occurred in recent years, but clinical trial evidence is still necessary to translate new hypotheses to the bedside and find the right balance between benefits and risks of these new strategies.

Background Awake prone positioning has been widely used in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure to avoid intubation despite limited evidence. Our objective was to evaluate if prone positioning is associated with a reduced intubation rate when compared to usual care. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study in the emergency department of a large quaternary hospital in Sao Paulo. We retrieved data from all admitted patients in need of oxygen supplementation (>3 L/min) and tachypnea (>24 ipm) from March 1 to April 30, 2020, excluding those who had any contraindication to the prone position or who had an immediate need for intubation. The primary endpoint was endotracheal intubation up to 15 days. Secondary outcomes included a 6-point clinical outcome ordinal scale, mechanical ventilation-free days, admission to the intensive care unit, and need of hemodialysis and of vasoactive drugs, all assessed at or up to 15 days. We analyzed unadjusted and adjusted effect estimates with Cox proportional hazards models, logistic regression, quantile regression, and sensitivity analyses using propensity score models. Results Of 925 suspected COVID-19 patients admitted off mechanical ventilation, 166 patients fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria: 57 were exposed to prone positioning and 109 to usual care. In the intervention group, 33 (58%) were intubated versus 53 (49%) in the control group. We observed no difference in intubation rates in the univariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 1.88, p = 0.39) nor in the adjusted analysis (hazard ratio = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.55 to 1.49, p = 0.69). Results were robust to the sensitivity analyses. Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups. Conclusions Awake prone positioning was not associated with lower intubation rates. Caution is necessary before widespread adoption of this technique, pending results of clinical trials.

To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome.A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46).This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19.Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo.Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46).Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.

Rationale: Compliance with sepsis bundles is associated with better outcomes, but information to support structural actions that might improve compliance is scarce. Few studies have evaluated bundle compliance in different time periods, with conflicting results. Objectives: To evaluate the association of sepsis identification during the daytime versus during the nighttime and on weekdays versus weekends with 3-hour sepsis treatment bundle compliance. Methods: This was an observational, multicenter study including patients with sepsis admitted between 2010 and 2017 to 10 hospitals in Brazil. Our exposures of interest were daytime (7:00 a.m.-6:59 p.m.) versus nighttime (7:00 p.m.-6:59 a.m.) and weekdays (Monday 7:00 a.m.-Friday 6:59 p.m.) versus weekends (Friday 7:00 p.m.-Monday 6:59 a.m.). Our primary outcome was full compliance with the 3-hour sepsis treatment bundles. We adjusted by potential confounding factors with multivariable logistic regression models. Results: Of 11,737 patients (8,733 sepsis and 3,004 septic shock), 3-hour bundle compliance was 79.1% and hospital mortality was 24.7%. The adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) for 3-hour full bundle compliance for patients diagnosed during the daytime versus during the nighttime was 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-1.49; P < 0.001) and was more pronounced in the emergency department (adjOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.35-1.77; P < 0.001) than in nonemergency areas (adjOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37; P = 0.014). Overall, there was no association between diagnosis on the weekends versus on weekdays and 3-hour full bundle compliance (adjOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.19; P = 0.115), although there was an association among those diagnosed in nonemergency areas (adjOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00-1.32; P = 0.047). The lower compliance observed for sepsis diagnosed during the nighttime was more evident 2 years after implementation of the quality improvement initiative. Conclusions: Compliance with sepsis bundles was associated with the moment of sepsis diagnosis. The place of diagnosis and the time from campaign implementation were factors modifying this association. Our results support areas for better design of quality improvement initiatives to mitigate the influence of the period of sepsis diagnosis on treatment compliance. Dr. Azevedo is supported by a grant from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)

Pacientes muito idosos, definidos por terem 80 anos ou mais de idade, tem sido admitidos com frequência cada vez maior em unidades de terapia intensiva (UTI). Uma das causas mais comuns de admissão é a pneumonia adquirida na comunidade (PAC), para qual a estratégia de ventilação a ser utilizada em pacientes que evoluem com insuficiência respiratória não é completamente definida. Nesta tese, avaliamos, nessa população, se a ventilação não-invasiva (VNI) como estratégia inicial de tratamento seria benéfica quanto à mortalidade hospitalar se comparada a uma estratégia inicial de ventilação mecânica invasiva (VMI). Foi feita análise secundária de uma coorte prospectiva de um banco de dados administrativo de 11 UTIs de uma rede privada de serviços de saúde (2009 a 2012). Extraímos para análise os pacientes muito idosos e identificamos aqueles que foram admitidos por PAC. Para análise estatística, utilizamos modelos de regressão logística para avaliar a associação entre a estratégia inicial de ventilação mecânica (VNI vs. VMI) e mortalidade hospitalar, ajustando para variáveis de confusão. Também avaliamos modificação de efeito com termos de interação em subgrupos pré-especificados de interesse clínico. De 678 pacientes muito idosos admitidos com PAC, 369 necessitaram de VNI ou VMI: 232 (63%) receberam inicialmente VNI e 137 (37%) foram submetidos à VMI como estratégia ventilatória inicial. Os pacientes submetidos à VMI eram mais graves à admissão (SOFA mediano 8 vs. 4). A mortalidade hospitalar foi de 49% (114) para o grupo VNI e de 66% (90) para o grupo VMI. Na comparação VNI vs. VMI (referência), a razão das chances (RC) não ajustada foi de 0,50 (IC 95%: 0,330,78; p=0,002). Esta associação foi sujeita a viés de confusão por características antecedentes e pelo SOFA não-respiratório (RCaj = 0,70; IC 95% = 0,411,20; p=0,196). O modelo completamente ajustado, incluindo adicionalmente relação Pao2/Fio2, pH and Paco2, resultou em uma RCaj de 0,81 (IC 95% = 0,461,41; p=0,45). Não houve evidência de modificação de efeito entre subgrupos de interesse clínico, como relação Pao2/Fio2 = 4 (pint = 0,53). Com base nesses resultados, conclui-se que, em uma população brasileira, o uso da VNI não foi associado a uma menor mortalidade hospitalar quando comparada à VMI como estratégia inicial de ventilação mecânica em pacientes muito idosos, críticos, admitidos por pneumonia em insuficiência respiratória, porém o estudo também não demonstrou maior risco de morte com o uso da VNI. Por fim, os principais fatores de confusão nessa associação foram a gravidade da disfunção respiratória e das disfunções orgânicas extrapulmonares Very old patients ( 80 years-old, VOP) are increasingly admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common reason for admission and the best strategy of support for respiratory failure in this scenario is not fully known. We evaluated whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial compared to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) regarding hospital mortality. We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter database of critically ill patients from 11 Brazilian ICUs of a private healthcare network from 2009 through 2012. Our cohort comprised VOPs admitted with CAP. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the association between the initial ventilatory strategy (NIV vs. IMV) and hospital mortality adjusting for confounding factors. We evaluated effect modification with interaction terms in pre-specified sub-groups. Out of 678 VOPs admitted for CAP, 369 presented with respiratory failure and used NIV or IMV: 232 (63%) received NIV and 137 (37%) received IMV as initial ventilatory strategy. IMV patients were sicker at baseline (median SOFA 8 vs. 4). Hospital mortality was 49% (114) for NIV and 66% (90) for IMV. For the comparison NIV vs. IMV (reference), the crude odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95%CI, 0.330.78, p=0.002). This association was largely confounded by antecedent characteristics and non-respiratory SOFA (adjOR = 0.70, 95%CI, 0.411.20, p=0.196). The fully adjusted model, additionally including Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH and Paco2, yielded an adjOR of 0.81 (95%CI, 0.46 1.41, p=0.45). There was no strong evidence of effect modification among relevant subgroups, such as Pao2/Fio2 ratio = 4 (pint = 0.53). From these, we conclude that NIV was not associated with lower hospital mortality when compared to IMV in critically ill VOP admitted with CAP, but there was no strong signal of harm from its use. Furthermore, the main confounders of this association were both the severity of respiratory dysfunction and of extra-respiratory organ failures

We report the case of a patient in whom brain death was suspected and associated with atelectasis and moderate to severe hypoxemia even though the patient was subjected to protective ventilation, a closed tracheal suction system, positive end-expiratory pressure, and recruitment maneuvers. Faced with the failure to obtain an adequate partial pressure of oxygen for the apnea test, we elected to place the patient in a prone position, use higher positive end-expiratory pressure, perform a new recruitment maneuver, and ventilate with a higher tidal volume (8mL/kg) without exceeding the plateau pressure of 30cmH2O. The apnea test was performed with the patient in a prone position, with continuous positive airway pressure coupled with a T-piece. The delay in diagnosis was 10 hours, and organ donation was not possible due to circulatory arrest. This report demonstrates the difficulties in obtaining higher levels of the partial pressure of oxygen for the apnea test. The delays in the diagnosis of brain death and in the organ donation process are discussed, as well as potential strategies to optimize the partial pressure of oxygen to perform the apnea test according to the current recommendations.

To identify more severe COVID-19 presentations.Consecutive intensive care unit-admitted patients were subjected to a stepwise clustering method.Data from 147 patients who were on average 56 ± 16 years old with a Simplified Acute Physiological Score 3 of 72 ± 18, of which 103 (70%) needed mechanical ventilation and 46 (31%) died in the intensive care unit, were analyzed. From the clustering algorithm, two well-defined groups were found based on maximal heart rate [Cluster A: 104 (95%CI 99 - 109) beats per minute versus Cluster B: 159 (95%CI 155 - 163) beats per minute], maximal respiratory rate [Cluster A: 33 (95%CI 31 - 35) breaths per minute versus Cluster B: 50 (95%CI 47 - 53) breaths per minute], and maximal body temperature [Cluster A: 37.4 (95%CI 37.1 - 37.7)°C versus Cluster B: 39.3 (95%CI 39.1 - 39.5)°C] during the intensive care unit stay, as well as the oxygen partial pressure in the blood over the oxygen inspiratory fraction at intensive care unit admission [Cluster A: 116 (95%CI 99 - 133) mmHg versus Cluster B: 78 (95%CI 63 - 93) mmHg]. Subphenotypes were distinct in inflammation profiles, organ dysfunction, organ support, intensive care unit length of stay, and intensive care unit mortality (with a ratio of 4.2 between the groups).Our findings, based on common clinical data, revealed two distinct subphenotypes with different disease courses. These results could help health professionals allocate resources and select patients for testing novel therapies.Identificar apresentações mais graves de COVID-19.Pacientes consecutivamente admitidos à unidade de terapia intensiva foram submetidos à análise de clusters por meio de método de explorações sequenciais.Analisamos os dados de 147 pacientes, com média de idade de 56 ± 16 anos e Simplified Acute Physiological Score 3 de 72 ± 18, dos quais 103 (70%) demandaram ventilação mecânica e 46 (31%) morreram na unidade de terapia intensiva. A partir do algoritmo de análise de clusters, identificaram-se dois grupos bem definidos, com base na frequência cardíaca máxima [Grupo A: 104 (IC95% 99 - 109) batimentos por minuto versus Grupo B: 159 (IC95% 155 - 163) batimentos por minuto], frequência respiratória máxima [Grupo A: 33 (IC95% 31 - 35) respirações por minuto versus Grupo B: 50 (IC95% 47 - 53) respirações por minuto] e na temperatura corpórea máxima [Grupo A: 37,4 (IC95% 37,1 - 37,7)ºC versus Grupo B: 39,3 (IC95% 39,1 - 39,5)ºC] durante o tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva, assim como a proporção entre a pressão parcial de oxigênio no sangue e a fração inspirada de oxigênio quando da admissão à unidade de terapia intensiva [Grupo A: 116 (IC95% 99 - 133) mmHg versus Grupo B: 78 (IC95% 63 - 93) mmHg]. Os subfenótipos foram distintos em termos de perfis inflamatórios, disfunções orgânicas, terapias de suporte, tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva e mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva (com proporção de 4,2 entre os grupos).Nossos achados, baseados em dados clínicos universalmente disponíveis, revelaram dois subfenótipos distintos, com diferentes evoluções de doença. Estes resultados podem ajudar os profissionais de saúde na alocação de recursos e seleção de pacientes para teste de novas terapias.

Background Very old patients (≥ 80 years-old, VOP) are increasingly admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common reason for admission and the best strategy of support for respiratory failure in this scenario is not fully known. We evaluated whether noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would be beneficial compared to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) regarding hospital mortality. Methods Multicenter cohort study of VOPs admitted with CAP in need of IMV or NIV to 11 Brazilian ICUs from 2009 through 2012. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the association between the initial ventilatory strategy (NIV vs. IMV) and hospital mortality adjusting for confounding factors. We evaluated effect modification with interaction terms in pre-specified sub-groups. Results Of 369 VOPs admitted for CAP with respiratory failure, 232 (63%) received NIV and 137 (37%) received IMV as initial ventilatory strategy. IMV patients were sicker at baseline (median SOFA 8 vs. 4). Hospital mortality was 114/232 (49%) for NIV and 90/137 (66%) for IMV. For the comparison NIV vs. IMV (reference), the crude odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.33–0.78, p = 0.002). This association was largely confounded by antecedent characteristics and non-respiratory SOFA (adjOR = 0.70, 95% CI, 0.41–1.20, p = 0.196). The fully adjusted model, additionally including Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH and Paco2, yielded an adjOR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.46–1.41, p = 0.452). There was no strong evidence of effect modification among relevant subgroups, such as Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≤ 150 (p = 0.30), acute respiratory acidosis (p = 0.42) and non-respiratory SOFA ≥ 4 (p = 0.53). Conclusions NIV was not associated with lower hospital mortality when compared to IMV in critically ill VOP admitted with CAP, but there was no strong signal of harm from its use. The main confounders of this association were both the severity of respiratory dysfunction and of extra-respiratory organ failures.

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever as características e os desfechos de pacientes submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica e comparar a pacientes com ventilação mecânica e limitações de terapias de suporte à vida (limitar ou retirar), porém sem remoção da ventilação mecânica. Métodos: Este foi um estudo de coorte retrospectiva realizado entre janeiro de 2014 e dezembro de 2018 com pacientes em ventilação mecânica com alguma limitação de suporte artificial de vida admitidos a uma única unidade de terapia intensiva. Foram comparados os pacientes submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica e os que não passaram por esse procedimento com relação à mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva e ao tempo de permanência no hospital, em uma análise não ajustada e em uma amostra pareada por escore de propensão. Analisou-se também o tempo desde a retirada da ventilação mecânica até o óbito. Resultados: Dentre 282 pacientes com limitações a terapias de suporte à vida, 31 (11%) foram submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica. Não houve diferenças iniciais entre os grupos. As taxas de mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva e no hospital foram, respectivamente, de 71% versus 57% e 93% versus 80%, entre os pacientes submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica e os que não o foram. O tempo mediano de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva foi de 7 versus 8 dias (p = 0,6), e o tempo de permanência no hospital foi de 9 versus 15 dias (p = 0,015). A mortalidade hospitalar não foi significantemente diferente (25/31; 81% versus 29/31; 93%; p = 0,26) após o pareamento. O tempo mediano desde a retirada da ventilação mecânica até o óbito foi de 2 dias [0 - 5] e 10/31 (32%) dos pacientes morreram dentro de 24 horas após a retirada dessa ventilação. Conclusão: Neste relato brasileiro, a retirada da ventilação mecânica representou 11% de todos os pacientes com limitação do tratamento e não se associou com aumento da mortalidade hospitalar após pareamento por escore de propensão das covariáveis relevantes. Abstract Objective: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation withdrawal and to compare them to mechanically ventilated patients with limitations (withhold or withdrawal) of life-sustaining therapies but who did not undergo mechanical ventilation withdrawal. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study from January 2014 to December 2018 of mechanically ventilated patients with any organ support limitation admitted to a single intensive care unit. We compared patients who underwent mechanical ventilation withdrawal and those who did not regarding intensive care unit and hospital mortality and length of stay in both an unadjusted analysis and a propensity score matched subsample. We also analyzed the time from mechanical ventilation withdrawal to death. Results: Out of 282 patients with life-sustaining therapy limitations, 31 (11%) underwent mechanical ventilation withdrawal. There was no baseline difference between groups. Intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates were 71% versus 57% and 93% versus 80%, respectively, among patients who underwent mechanical ventilation withdrawal and those who did not. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 7 versus 8 days (p = 0.6), and the hospital length of stay was 9 versus 15 days (p = 0.015). Hospital mortality was not significantly different (25/31; 81% versus 29/31; 93%; p = 0.26) after matching. The median time from mechanical ventilation withdrawal until death was 2 days [0 - 5], and 10/31 (32%) patients died within 24 hours after mechanical ventilation withdrawal. Conclusion: In this Brazilian report, mechanical ventilation withdrawal represented 11% of all patients with treatment limitations and was not associated with increased hospital mortality after propensity score matching on relevant covariates.

Background The very old patients (≥ 80 years-old, VOP) comprise a subpopulation increasingly admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common reason for admission and the best strategy of mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure in this scenario is not fully known. Methods Multicenter cohort study of VOPs admitted with CAP in need of invasive (IMV) or noninvasive (NIV) mechanical ventilation to 11 Brazilian ICUs from 2009 through 2012. We used logistic regression models to evaluate the association between ventilator strategy (NIV vs. IMV) and hospital mortality adjusting for confounding factors. We evaluated effect modification with interaction terms in pre-specified sub-groups. Results Of 369 VOPs admitted for CAP with respiratory failure, 232 (63%) received NIV and 137 (37%) received IMV as initial ventilatory strategy. IMV patients were sicker at ICU admission (median SOFA 8 vs. 4, p < 0.001). Hospital mortality was 114/232 (49%) for NIV and 90/137 (66%) for IMV. For the comparison NIV vs. IMV (reference), the crude odds ratio (OR) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.33–0.78, p=0.002). This association was largely confounded by antecedent characteristics and non-respiratory SOFA (adjOR = 0.70, 95% CI, 0.41–1.20, p=0.196). The fully adjusted model, including Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH and Paco2, yielded an adjOR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.46–1.41, p=0.452). There was no strong evidence of effect modification among relevant subgroups, such as Pao2/Fio2 ratio ≤ 150 (p = 0.30), acute respiratory acidosis (p = 0.42) and non-respiratory SOFA ≥ 4 (p = 0.53). Conclusions NIV was not associated with lower hospital mortality when compared to IMV in critically ill VOP admitted with CAP, but there was no strong signal of harm from its use. The main confounders of this association were both the severity of respiratory dysfunction and of extra-respiratory organ failures.

To describe the use of neuromuscular blockade as well as other practices among Brazilian physicians in adult intensive care units.An online national survey was designed and administered to Brazilian intensivists. Questions were selected using the Delphi method and assessed physicians' demographic data, intensive care unit characteristics, practices regarding airway management, use of neuromuscular blockade and sedation during endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. As a secondary outcome, we applied a multivariate analysis to evaluate factors associated with the use of neuromuscular blockade.Five hundred sixty-five intensivists from all Brazilian regions responded to the questionnaire. The majority of respondents were male (65%), with a mean age of 38 ( 8.4 years, and 58.5% had a board certification in critical care. Only 40.7% of the intensivists reported the use of neuromuscular blockade during all or in more than 75% of endotracheal intubations. In the multivariate analysis, the number of intubations performed monthly and physician specialization in anesthesiology were directly associated with frequent use of neuromuscular blockade. Etomidate and ketamine were more commonly used in the clinical situation of hypotension and shock, while propofol and midazolam were more commonly prescribed in the situation of clinical stability.The reported use of neuromuscular blockade was low among intensivists, and sedative drugs were chosen in accordance with patient hemodynamic stability. These results may help the design of future studies regarding airway management in Brazil.Descrever o uso do bloqueio neuromuscular e de outras práticas entre os médicos brasileiros atuantes em unidades de terapia intensiva para pacientes adultos.Um levantamento nacional on-line foi aplicado a intensivistas brasileiros. As questões foram selecionadas utilizando o método Delphi e avaliavam os dados demográficos dos médicos, as características da unidade de terapia intensiva, as práticas relativas ao manuseio das vias aéreas e o uso de bloqueio neuromuscular e sedação durante a intubação endotraqueal na unidade de terapia intensiva. Como desfecho secundário, aplicamos uma análise multivariada para avaliar fatores associados com o uso do bloqueio neuromuscular.Responderam ao questionário 565 intensivistas de todas as regiões do país. A maioria dos que responderam era homens (65%), com média de idade de 38 ± 8,4 anos, e 58,5% dos participantes tinham título de especialista em terapia intensiva. Apenas 40,7% dos intensivistas relataram o uso de bloqueio neuromuscular durante todas ou em mais de 75% das intubações endotraqueais. Na análise multivariada, o número de intubações realizadas por mês e a especialização do médico em anestesiologia se associaram diretamente com o uso frequente de bloqueio neuromuscular. Etomidato e cetamina foram utilizados mais comumente na situação clínica de hipotensão e choque, enquanto propofol e midazolam foram mais comumente prescritos em situações de estabilidade hemodinâmica.O relato de uso de bloqueio neuromuscular foi baixo entre intensivistas, e os fármacos sedativos foram escolhidos segundo a estabilidade hemodinâmica do paciente. Estes resultados podem ajudar no delineamento de futuros estudos relativos ao manuseio das vias aéreas no Brasil.

Rationale: Although proposed as a clinical prompt to sepsis based on predictive validity for mortality, the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is often used as a screening tool, which requires high sensitivity.Objectives: To assess the predictive accuracy of qSOFA for mortality in Brazil, focusing on sensitivity.Methods: We prospectively collected data from two cohorts of emergency department and ward patients. Cohort 1 included patients with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction or sepsis (22 hospitals: 3 public and 19 private). Cohort 2 included patients with sepsis (54 hospitals: 24 public and 28 private). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The predictive accuracy of qSOFA was examined considering only the worst values before the suspicion of infection or sepsis.Measurements and Main Results: Cohort 1 contained 5,460 patients (mortality rate, 14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1-15.0), among whom 78.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.5-9.1). The sensitivity of a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 for predicting mortality was 53.9% and the 95% CI was 50.3 to 57.5. The sensitivity was higher for a qSOFA greater than or equal to 1 (84.9%; 95% CI, 82.1-87.3), a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or lactate greater than 2 mmol/L (91.3%; 95% CI, 89.0-93.2), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus organ dysfunction (68.7%; 95% CI, 65.2-71.9). Cohort 2 contained 4,711 patients, among whom 62.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 17.3%; 95% CI, 15.9-18.7), whereas in public hospitals the mortality rate was 39.3% (95% CI, 35.5-43.3).Conclusions: A qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 has low sensitivity for predicting death in patients with suspected infection in a developing country. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 as a screening tool for sepsis may miss patients who ultimately die. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or adding lactate to a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 may improve sensitivity.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03158493).

To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation withdrawal and to compare them to mechanically ventilated patients with limitations (withhold or withdrawal) of life-sustaining therapies but who did not undergo mechanical ventilation withdrawal.This was a retrospective cohort study from January 2014 to December 2018 of mechanically ventilated patients with any organ support limitation admitted to a single intensive care unit. We compared patients who underwent mechanical ventilation withdrawal and those who did not regarding intensive care unit and hospital mortality and length of stay in both an unadjusted analysis and a propensity score matched subsample. We also analyzed the time from mechanical ventilation withdrawal to death.Out of 282 patients with life-sustaining therapy limitations, 31 (11%) underwent mechanical ventilation withdrawal. There was no baseline difference between groups. Intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates were 71% versus 57% and 93% versus 80%, respectively, among patients who underwent mechanical ventilation withdrawal and those who did not. The median intensive care unit length of stay was 7 versus 8 days (p = 0.6), and the hospital length of stay was 9 versus 15 days (p = 0.015). Hospital mortality was not significantly different (25/31; 81% versus 29/31; 93%; p = 0.26) after matching. The median time from mechanical ventilation withdrawal until death was 2 days [0 - 5], and 10/31 (32%) patients died within 24 hours after mechanical ventilation withdrawal.In this Brazilian report, mechanical ventilation withdrawal represented 11% of all patients with treatment limitations and was not associated with increased hospital mortality after propensity score matching on relevant covariates.Descrever as características e os desfechos de pacientes submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica e comparar a pacientes com ventilação mecânica e limitações de terapias de suporte à vida (limitar ou retirar), porém sem remoção da ventilação mecânica.Este foi um estudo de coorte retrospectiva realizado entre janeiro de 2014 e dezembro de 2018 com pacientes em ventilação mecânica com alguma limitação de suporte artificial de vida admitidos a uma única unidade de terapia intensiva. Foram comparados os pacientes submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica e os que não passaram por esse procedimento com relação à mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva e ao tempo de permanência no hospital, em uma análise não ajustada e em uma amostra pareada por escore de propensão. Analisou-se também o tempo desde a retirada da ventilação mecânica até o óbito.Dentre 282 pacientes com limitações a terapias de suporte à vida, 31 (11%) foram submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica. Não houve diferenças iniciais entre os grupos. As taxas de mortalidade na unidade de terapia intensiva e no hospital foram, respectivamente, de 71% versus 57% e 93% versus 80%, entre os pacientes submetidos à retirada da ventilação mecânica e os que não o foram. O tempo mediano de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva foi de 7 versus 8 dias (p = 0,6), e o tempo de permanência no hospital foi de 9 versus 15 dias (p = 0,015). A mortalidade hospitalar não foi significantemente diferente (25/31; 81% versus 29/31; 93%; p = 0,26) após o pareamento. O tempo mediano desde a retirada da ventilação mecânica até o óbito foi de 2 dias [0 - 5] e 10/31 (32%) dos pacientes morreram dentro de 24 horas após a retirada dessa ventilação.Neste relato brasileiro, a retirada da ventilação mecânica representou 11% de todos os pacientes com limitação do tratamento e não se associou com aumento da mortalidade hospitalar após pareamento por escore de propensão das covariáveis relevantes.

RESUMO Objetivo: A evidência de melhora da sobrevivência com uso de oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea na síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo ainda permanece incerta. Métodos: Esta revisão sistemática e metanálise foi registrada na base de dados PROSPERO com o número CRD-42018098618. Conduzimos uma busca estruturada nas bases Medline, LILACS e ScienceDirect visando a ensaios randomizados e controlados que tivessem avaliado o uso de oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea associada com ventilação mecânica (ultra)protetora em pacientes adultos com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo grave. Utilizamos a ferramenta de riscos de viés da Cochrane para avaliar a qualidade da evidência. O desfecho primário consistiu em avaliar o efeito do uso oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea no último relato de mortalidade. Os desfechos secundários foram: falha terapêutica, tempo de permanência no hospital e necessidade de terapia de substituição renal em ambos os grupos. Resultados: Incluíram-se na metanálise dois ensaios randomizados e controlados, compreendendo 429 pacientes, dos quais 214 receberam suporte respiratório extracorpóreo. A razão mais comum para a insuficiência respiratória foi pneumonia (60% - 65%). O suporte respiratório com oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea foi associado a uma redução na mortalidade e redução em falha terapêutica com taxas de risco (RR: 0,76; IC95% 0,61 - 0,95; RR: 0,68; IC95% 0,55 - 0,85, respectivamente). O uso de oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea reduziu a necessidade de terapia de substituição renal com uma RR de 0,88 (IC95% 0,77 - 0,99). O tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva e no hospital foram maiores no grupo de pacientes que recebeu suporte com oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea, com acréscimo de 14,84 (P25°-P75°: 12,49 - 17,18) e 29,80 (P25°- P75°: 26,04 - 33,56) dias, respectivamente. Conclusão: O suporte com oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea na síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo grave está associado a uma redução da taxa de mortalidade e da necessidade de terapia de substituição renal, porém apresenta aumento substancial no tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva e no hospital. Nossos resultados podem ajudar no processo decisório junto ao leito quanto ao início do suporte com oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea na síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo grave. ABSTRACT Objective: The evidence of improved survival with the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in acute respiratory distress syndrome is still uncertain. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in the PROSPERO database with the number CRD-42018098618. We performed a structured search of Medline, Lilacs, and ScienceDirect for randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of ECMO associated with (ultra)protective mechanical ventilation for severe acute respiratory failure in adult patients. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Our primary objective was to evaluate the effect of ECMO on the last reported mortality. Secondary outcomes were treatment failure, hospital length of stay and the need for renal replacement therapy in both groups. Results: Two randomized controlled studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 429 patients, of whom 214 were supported with ECMO. The most common reason for acute respiratory failure was pneumonia (60% - 65%). Respiratory ECMO support was associated with a reduction in last reported mortality and treatment failure with risk ratios (RR: 0.76; 95%CI 0.61 - 0.95 and RR: 0.68; 95%CI 0.55 - 0.85, respectively). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation reduced the need for renal replacement therapy, with a RR of 0.88 (95%CI 0.77 - 0.99). Intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay were longer in ECMO-supported patients, with an additional P50th 14.84 (P25th - P75th: 12.49 - 17.18) and P50th 29.80 (P25th - P75th: 26.04 - 33.56] days, respectively. Conclusion: Respiratory ECMO support in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome patients is associated with a reduced mortality rate and a reduced need for renal replacement therapy but a substantial increase in the lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Our results may help bedside decision-making regarding ECMO initiation in patients with severe respiratory distress syndrome.

To synthesize data on outcomes related to patients, family members, and ICU professionals by comparing flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in ICUs.Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science.Observational and randomized studies comparing flexible versus restrictive visiting policies in the ICU and evaluating at least one patient-, family member-, or ICU staff-related outcome.Duplicate independent review and data abstraction.Of 16 studies identified for inclusion, seven were meta-analyzed. Most studies were rated as having a moderate risk of bias. Among patients, flexible visiting policies were associated with reduced frequency of delirium (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.69; I = 0%) and lower severity of anxiety symptoms (mean difference, -2.20; 95% CI, -3.80 to -0.61; I = 71%). Flexible visiting policies were not associated with increased risk of ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.38-1.36; I = 86%), ICU-acquired infections (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.42; I = 11%), or longer ICU stay (mean difference, -0.26 d; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.05; I = 54%). Among family members, flexible visiting policies were associated with greater satisfaction. Among ICU professionals, flexible visiting policies were associated with higher burnout levels.Flexible ICU visiting hours have the potential to reduce delirium and anxiety symptoms among patients and to improve family members' satisfaction. However, they may be associated with an increased risk of burnout among ICU professionals. These conclusions are based on few studies, with small samples and moderate risk of bias.