Dataset Information

In-hospital cardiac arrest in critically ill patients with covid-19: multicenter cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To estimate the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with in-hospital cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation in critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

Design

Multicenter cohort study.

Setting

Intensive care units at 68 geographically diverse hospitals across the United States.

Participants

Critically ill adults (age ≥18 years) with laboratory confirmed covid-19.

Main outcome measures

In-hospital cardiac arrest within 14 days of admission to an intensive care unit and in-hospital mortality.

Results

Among 5019 critically ill patients with covid-19, 14.0% (701/5019) had in-hospital cardiac arrest, 57.1% (400/701) of whom received cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patients who had in-hospital cardiac arrest were older (mean age 63 (standard deviation 14) v 60 (15) years), had more comorbidities, and were more likely to be admitted to a hospital with a smaller number of intensive care unit beds compared with those who did not have in-hospital cardiac arrest. Patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation were younger than those who did not (mean age 61 (standard deviation 14) v 67 (14) years). The most common rhythms at the time of cardiopulmonary resuscitation were pulseless electrical activity (49.8%, 199/400) and asystole (23.8%, 95/400). 48 of the 400 patients (12.0%) who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation survived to hospital discharge, and only 7.0% (28/400) survived to hospital discharge with normal or mildly impaired neurological status. Survival to hospital discharge differed by age, with 21.2% (11/52) of patients younger than 45 years surviving compared with 2.9% (1/34) of those aged 80 or older.

Conclusions

Cardiac arrest is common in critically ill patients with covid-19 and is associated with poor survival, particularly among older patients.

SUBMITTER: Hayek SS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7525342 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew small studies have described hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) occurring in patients with COVID-19.Research questionWhat characteristics in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are associated with HAIs and how are HAIs associated with outcomes in these patients?Study design and methodsMulticenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data including adult patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to eight Italian hub hospitals from February 20, 2020, through May 20, 2020. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate Weibull regression models were used to assess incidence, microbial cause, resistance patterns, risk factors (ie, demographics, comorbidities, exposure to medication), and impact on outcomes (ie, ICU discharge, length of ICU and hospital stays, and duration of mechanical ventilation) of microbiologically confirmed HAIs.ResultsOf the 774 included patients, 359 patients (46%) demonstrated 759 HAIs (44.7 infections/1,000 ICU patient-days; 35% multidrug-resistant [MDR] bacteria). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; n = 389 [50%]), bloodstream infections (BSIs; n = 183 [34%]), and catheter-related BSIs (n = 74 [10%]) were the most frequent HAIs, with 26.0 (95% CI, 23.6-28.8) VAPs per 1,000 intubation-days, 11.7 (95% CI, 10.1-13.5) BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days, and 4.7 (95% CI, 3.8-5.9) catheter-related BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days. Gram-negative bacteria (especially Enterobacterales) and Staphylococcus aureus caused 64% and 28% of cases of VAP, respectively. Variables independently associated with infection were age, positive end expiratory pressure, and treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics at admission. Two hundred thirty-four patients (30%) died in the ICU (15.3 deaths/1,000 ICU patient-days). Patients with HAIs complicated by septic shock showed an almost doubled mortality rate (52% vs 29%), whereas noncomplicated infections did not affect mortality. HAIs prolonged mechanical ventilation (median, 24 days [interquartile range (IQR), 14-39 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 5-13 days]; P < .001), ICU stay (24 days [IQR, 16-41 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 6-14 days]; P = .003), and hospital stay (42 days [IQR, 25-59 days] vs 23 days [IQR, 13-34 days]; P < .001).InterpretationCritically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for HAIs, especially VAPs and BSIs resulting from MDR organisms. HAIs prolong mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, and HAIs complicated by septic shock almost double mortality.Trial registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04388670; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundsKetamine possesses analgesia, anti-inflammation, anticonvulsant, and neuroprotection properties. However, the evidence that supports its use in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 is insufficient. The study's goal was to assess ketamine's effectiveness and safety in critically ill, mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with COVID-19.MethodsAdult critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in a multicenter retrospective-prospective cohort study. Patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021, to five ICUs in Saudi Arabia were included. Eligible patients who required MV within 24 hours of ICU admission were divided into two sub-cohort groups based on their use of ketamine (Control vs. Ketamine). The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. P/F ratio differences, lactic acid normalization, MV duration, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:2 ratio) based on the selected criteria.ResultsIn total, 1,130 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 1036 patients (91.7 %) were in the control group, whereas 94 patients (8.3 %) received ketamine. The total number of patients after PS matching, was 264 patients, including 88 patients (33.3 %) who received ketamine. The ketamine group's LOS was significantly lower (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -0.26 (-0.45, -0.07), P = 0.008). Furthermore, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved 24 hours after the start of ketamine treatment compared to the pre-treatment period (6 hours) (124.9 (92.1, 184.5) vs. 106 (73.1, 129.3; P = 0.002). Additionally, the ketamine group had a substantially shorter mean time for lactic acid normalization (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -1.55 (-2.42, -0.69), P 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of MV or mortality.ConclusionsKetamine-based sedation was associated with lower hospital LOS and faster lactic acid normalization but no mortality benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, larger prospective studies are recommended to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative in critically ill adult patients.