[Quality of life and persistent symptoms after hospitalization for COVID-19. A prospective observational study comparing ICU with non-ICU Patients]

Antecedentes/contexto

Existe una tendencia en los pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19 a desarrollar síntomas persistentes y a presentar una disminución en su calidad de vida tras el ingreso hospitalario.

Métodos

Estudio de cohorte prospectivo de pacientes con COVID-19 con ingreso hospitalario entre el 1 de marzo al 30 de abril de 2020. El objetivo primario fue comparar la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y la presencia de síntomas persistentes seis meses después del ingreso, comparando los pacientes que requirieron ingreso en UCI con los que no lo precisaron.

Resultados

De los 242 pacientes hospitalizados durante el período de estudio, 44 (18,2%) necesitaron ingreso en UCI. Cuarenta (16,5%) pacientes fallecieron durante el ingreso hospitalario. Doscientos dos (83,5%) pacientes fueron dados de alta del hospital. A los seis meses, 183 (75,6%) pacientes completaron los cuestionarios (32 pacientes UCI y 151 pacientes no UCI). Noventa y seis (52,4%) refirieron disminución de la calidad de vida y 143 (78,1%) describieron síntomas persistentes. Un número mayor de pacientes de UCI mostraron un empeoramiento de su calidad de vida (71,9 vs. 43,7%, p = 0,004). No hubo diferencias en la proporción de pacientes con síntomas persistentes entre los pacientes con UCI y sin UCI (87,5 vs. 76,2%, p = 0,159). Los pacientes de UCI mostraron con mayor frecuencia disnea de esfuerzo (78,1 vs. 47,7%, p = 0,02), disnea de pequeños esfuerzos (37,5 vs. 4,6%, p < 0,001) y astenia (56,3 vs. 29,1%, p = 0,003).

Conclusiones

Los supervivientes de COVID-19 que necesitaron hospitalización presentaron síntomas persistentes y un deterioro de su calidad de vida. Los pacientes de UCI refirieron una mayor disminución de su calidad de vida, en comparación con los pacientes que no precisaron UCI.

Flexible-tip bougie vs. stylet for tracheal intubation with a hyperangulated videolaryngoscope in critical care: a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The optimal introducer for tracheal intubation with a hyperangulated blade videolaryngoscope for patients in the ICU remains uncertain. Both stylets and flexible-tip bougies have been used, yet there is limited evidence on which is more efficacious.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised controlled trial comparing flexible-tip bougie vs. stylet using a hyperangulated blade videolaryngoscope (C-MAC® D-blade). Adults admitted to the ICU who required tracheal intubation were included. Primary outcome was first-attempt tracheal intubation success. Secondary outcomes included the number of tracheal intubation attempts; tracheal intubation difficulty; and incidence of complications.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were allocated randomly (40 female (29%); mean (SD) age 68 (13.0) y). First-attempt tracheal intubation success was higher in patients allocated to flexible-tip bougie (69/70, 99%) compared with stylet (58/70 (83%), p = 0.005). The proportion of patients' tracheas intubated in one, two or three attempts was 69/70 (99%), 1/70 (1%) and 0/70 (0%) in the flexible-tip bougie group, compared with 58/70 (83%), 7/70 (10%), and 5/70 (7%) in the stylet group, respectively. More patients in the stylet group required laryngeal manipulation (22/70 (31.4%)) during tracheal intubation compared with the flexible-tip group (7/70 (10%)). Anaesthetists rated 69/70 (99%) of tracheal intubations with the flexible-tip bougie as not difficult or slightly difficult compared with 63/70 (90%) for the stylet group. No significant difference in the incidence of complications was observed between the two techniques.

DISCUSSION

In the ICU, first-attempt tracheal intubation success with a hyperangulated blade videolaryngoscope was higher using the flexible-tip bougie than the stylet. No differences were observed in operator difficulty or complication rates between the two techniques.

Quality of life and persistent symptoms after hospitalization for COVID-19. A prospective observational study comparing ICU with non-ICU patients

Background

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients are prone to develop persistent symptoms and to show reduced quality of life following hospital admission.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients admitted to a hospital from March 1 to April 30, 2020. The primary outcome was to compare health related quality of life and persistent symptoms six months after hospital admission, of COVID-19 patients who required ICU admission with those who did not.

Results

Among the 242 patients hospitalized during the defined period of time, 44 (18.2%) needed ICU admission. Forty (16.5%) patients died during hospital admission. Two hundred and two (83.5%) patients were discharged alive from the hospital. At six months, 183 (75.6%) patients completed the questionnaires (32 ICU patients and 151 non ICU patients). Ninety-six (52.4%) reported decreased quality of life and 143 (78.1%) described persistent symptoms. More ICU patients showed worsening of their quality of life (71.9% vs 43.7%, P = 0.004). There were no differences in the proportion of patients with persistent symptoms between ICU and non ICU patients (87.5% vs 76.2%, P = 0.159). ICU patients showed more frequently dyspnea on exertion (78.1% vs 47.7%, P = 0.02), dyspnea on light exertion (37.5% vs 4.6%, P < 0.001), and asthenia (56.3 vs 29.1, P = 0.003).

Conclusions

Survivors of COVID-19 needing hospitalization had persistent symptoms and a decline in the quality of life. ICU patients referred a large decrease of their quality of life compared with non ICU patients.

Effect of early vs. delayed extubation on functional outcome among patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy under general anesthesia: the prospective, randomized controlled EDESTROKE trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Recent meta-analyses and randomized studies have shown that among patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular thrombectomy, general anesthesia with mechanical ventilation is associated with better functional status compared to local anesthesia and sedation, and they recommend its use. But once the procedure is completed, when is the optimal moment for extubation? Currently, there are no guidelines recommending the optimal moment for extubation. Prolonged mechanical ventilation time could potentially be linked to increased complications such as pneumonia or disturbances in cerebral blood flow due to the vasodilatation produced by most anesthetic drugs. However, premature extubation in a patient who has suffered a stroke could led to complications such as agitation, disorientation, abolished reflexes, sudden fluctuations in blood pressure, alterations in cerebral blood flow, respiratory distress, bronchial aspiration, and the need for reintubation. We therefore designed a randomized study hypothesizing that early compared with delayed extubation is associated with a better functional outcome 3 months after endovascular thrombectomy treatment under general anesthesia for acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

This investigator-initiated, single-center, prospective, parallel, evaluated blinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial will include 178 patients with a proximal occlusion of the anterior circulation treated with successful endovascular thrombectomy (TICI 2b-3) under general anesthesia. Patients will be randomly allocated to receive early (< 6 h) or delayed (6-12 h) extubation after the procedure. The primary outcome measure is functional independence (mRS of 0-2) at 90 days, measured with the modified Rankin Score (mRS), ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death).

DISCUSSION

This will be the first trial to compare the effect of mechanical ventilation duration (early vs delayed extubation) after satisfactory endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke under general anesthesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was approved April 11, 2023, by the by the Santiago-Lugo Research Ethics Committee (CEI-SL), number 2023/127, and was registered into the clinicaltrials.gov clinical trials registry with No. NCT05847309. Informed consent is required. Participant recruitment begins on April 18, 2023. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.