Dataset Information

High sedation needs of critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients-A monocentric observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Therapy of severely affected coronavirus patient, requiring intubation and sedation is still challenging. Recently, difficulties in sedating these patients have been discussed. This study aims to describe sedation practices in patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of sedation regimens in critically ill intubated patients with respiratory failure who required sedation in our mixed 32-bed university intensive care unit. All mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring continuously infused sedative therapy admitted between April 4, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were included. We recorded demographic data, sedative dosages, prone positioning, sedation levels and duration. Descriptive data analysis was performed; for additional analysis, a logistic regression with mixed effect was used.

Results

In total, 56 patients (mean age 67 (±14) years) were included. The mean observed sedation period was 224 (±139) hours. To achieve the prescribed sedation level, we observed the need for two or three sedatives in 48.7% and 12.8% of the cases, respectively. In cases with a triple sedation regimen, the combination of clonidine, esketamine and midazolam was observed in most cases (75.7%). Analgesia was achieved using sufentanil in 98.6% of the cases. The analysis showed that the majority of COVID-19 patients required an unusually high sedation dose compared to those available in the literature.

Conclusion

The global pandemic continues to affect patients severely requiring ventilation and sedation, but optimal sedation strategies are still lacking. The findings of our observation suggest unusual high dosages of sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Prescribed sedation levels appear to be achievable only with several combinations of sedatives in most critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19-induced ARDS and a potential association to the often required sophisticated critical care including prone positioning and ECMO treatment seems conceivable.

SUBMITTER: Flinspach AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315516 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsVitamin D's pleiotropic effects include immune modulation, and its supplementation has been shown to prevent respiratory tract infections. The effectivity of vitamin D as a therapeutic intervention in critical illness remains less defined. The current study analyzed clinical and immunologic effects of vitamin D levels in patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsThis was a single-center retrospective study in patients receiving intensive care with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 ARDS. 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D serum levels, pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and immune cell subsets were measured on admission as well as after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters were extracted from the patient data management system. Standard operating procedures included the daily administration of vitamin D3 via enteral feeding.ResultsA total of 39 patients with COVID-19 ARDS were eligible, of which 26 were included in this study as data on vitamin D status was available. 96% suffered from severe COVID-19 ARDS. All patients without prior vitamin D supplementation (n = 22) had deficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Vitamin D supplementation resulted in higher serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D but not did not increase 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters did not differ between patients with sufficient or deficient levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Only circulating plasmablasts were higher in patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥30 ng/ml (p = 0.029). Patients with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels below 20 pg/ml required longer mechanical ventilation (p = 0.045) and had a worse acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score (p = 0.048).ConclusionThe vast majority of COVID-19 ARDS patients had vitamin D deficiency. 25-hydroxyvitamin D status was not related to changes in clinical course, whereas low levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and a worse APACHE II score.

Project description:Background: Liver injury commonly occurs in patients with COVID-19. There is limited data describing the course of liver injury occurrence in patients with different disease severity, and the causes and risk factors are unknown. We aim to investigate the incidence, characteristics, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of liver injury in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals (Zhejiang, China). From January 19, 2020 to February 20, 2020, patients confirmed with COVID-19 (≥18 years) and without liver injury were enrolled and divided into non-critically ill and critically ill groups. The incidence and characteristics of liver injury were compared between the two groups. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatments, and treatment outcomes between patients with or without liver injury were compared within each group. The multivariable logistic regression model was used to explore the risk factors for liver injury. Results: The mean age of 131 enrolled patients was 51.2 years (standard deviation [SD]: 16.1 years), and 70 (53.4%) patients were male. A total of 76 patients developed liver injury (mild, 40.5%; moderate, 15.3%; severe, 2.3%) with a median occurrence time of 10.0 days. Critically ill patients had higher and earlier occurrence (81.5 vs. 51.9%, 12.0 vs. 5.0 days; p < 0.001), greater injury severity (p < 0.001), and slower recovery (50.0 vs. 61.1%) of liver function than non-critically ill patients. Multivariable regression showed that the number of concomitant medications (odds ratio [OR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.21) and the combination treatment of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol (OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.44-9.52) were risk factors for liver injury in non-critically ill patients. The metabolism of arbidol can be significantly inhibited by lopinavir/ritonavir in vitro (p < 0.005), which may be the underlying cause of drug-related liver injury. Liver injury was related to increased length of hospital stay (mean difference [MD]: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.3-5.2) and viral shedding duration (MD: 3.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.9). Conclusions: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 suffered earlier occurrence, greater injury severity, and slower recovery from liver injury than non-critically ill patients. Drug factors were related to liver injury in non-critically ill patients. Liver injury was related to prolonged hospital stay and viral shedding duration in patients with COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ChiCTR2000030593. Registered March 8, 2020.