Background: We explored the experience of clinicians from the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology in airway management of COVID-19 patients. Methods: An software-based survey including a 32-item questionnaire was conducted from April 18 to May 17, 2020. Participants who have been involved in tracheal intubations in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were included anonymously after obtaining their informed consent. The primary outcome was the preferred airway device for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included the variations in clinical practice including the preferred video laryngoscope, plans for difficult airway management, and personal protective equipment. Results: 1125 physicians completed the questionnaire with a response rate of 40,9%. Most participants worked in public hospitals and were anesthesiologists. The preferred device for intubation was the video laryngoscope (5.1/6), with the type of device in decreasing order as follows: Glidescope, C-MAC, Airtraq, McGrath and King Vision. The most frequently used device for intubation was the video laryngoscope (70,5%), using them in descending order as follow: the Airtraq, C-MAC, Glidescope, McGrath and King Vision. Discomfort of intubating wearing personal protective equipment and the frequency of breaching a security step was statistically significant, increasing the risk of cross infection between patients and physicians. The opinion of senior doctors differed from younger physicians in the type of video-laryngoscope used, the number of experts involved in tracheal intubation and the reason that caused more stress during the airway management. Conclusions: Most physicians preferred using a video-laryngoscope with remote monitor and disposable Macintosh blade, using the Frova guide. (C) 2021 Sociedad Espanola de Anestesiologia, Reanimacion y Terapeutica del Dolor. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

BackgroundCritically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) have a high fatality rate likely due to a dysregulated immune response. Corticosteroids could attenuate this inappropriate response, although there are still some concerns regarding its use, timing, and dose.MethodsThis is a nationwide, prospective, multicenter, observational, cohort study in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Spain from 12th March to 29th June 2020. Using a multivariable Cox model with inverse probability weighting, we compared relevant outcomes between patients treated with early corticosteroids (before or within the first 48 h of ICU admission) with those who did not receive early corticosteroids (delayed group) or any corticosteroids at all (never group). Primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Secondary endpoints included 7-day mortality, ventilator-free days, and complications.ResultsA total of 691 patients out of 882 (78.3%) received corticosteroid during their hospital stay. Patients treated with early-corticosteroids (n=485) had lower ICU mortality (30.3% vs. never 36.6% and delayed 44.2%) and lower 7-day mortality (7.2% vs. never 15.2%) compared to non-early treated patients. They also had higher number of ventilator-free days, less length of ICU stay, and less secondary infections than delayed treated patients. There were no differences in medical complications between groups. Of note, early use of moderate-to-high doses was associated with better outcomes than low dose regimens.ConclusionEarly use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality than no or delayed use, and fewer complications than delayed use.

Background: The proper dosage of antibiotics is a key element in the effective treatment of infection, especially in critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of optimized meropenem regimens based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic criteria in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods: This observational, naturalistic, retrospective, unicentric cohort study was performed between May 2011 and December 2017. The clinical and bacteriologic responses of 77 control intensive care unit patients receiving meropenem were compared with those of 77 propensity score-balanced patients who received meropenem dose adjusted by therapeutic drug monitoring. The primary end point of clinical response was a reduction at the end of treatment of at least 80% of the maximum procalcitonin (PCT) value recorded during the meropenem treatment. Results: The primary end point was met by 55 patients (71.4%) in the adjusted group compared with 41 (53.3%) patients in the control group (mean difference 18.1%, P = 0.02). Fifty-one patients (66.2%) in the adjusted group required a meropenem dose adjustment, being necessary in 46 of them (90.2%) to decrease the dose. The reduction of PCT was the greatest in the adjusted group compared with the unadjusted group (93% versus 85%, P = 0.004); a greater percentage of patients reached a PCT level < 0.5 ng/mL (63.6% versus 41.6%, P = 0.006), and there was a trend toward an improved bacteriologic response (relative risk = 1.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.92-1.56). There were no differences in early mortality or safety between groups. Conclusions: Adjustment of meropenem therapy by monitoring is a useful strategy for improving meropenem effectiveness in the treatment of infection in critically ill patients, with no impact on safety.

Background: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions increase the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for medical indications. We conducted a cohort study to evaluate the renal safety of modern 6% HES solutions in high-risk patients having cardiac surgery. Method: In this multicentre prospective cohort study, we recruited 261 consecutive patients at high-risk for developing cardiac surgery-associated AKI, based on a Cleveland score >= 4 points, from July to December 2017th in 14 hospitals in Spain and the United Kingdom. Multivariable logistic regression modeling and propensity-score matched-pairs analysis were used to determine the adjusted association between administration of HES and AKI. Results: Of the cohort, 95 patients (36.4%) received 6% HES 130/0.4 either intraoperatively or postoperatively. Postoperative AKI occurred in 145 patients (55.5%). The unadjusted odds of AKI was significantly higher in the HES group, when compared to those not receiving HES (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.30-3.80, p = 0.003). In multivariable logistic regression models, modern HES was not associated with significantly increased risk of AKI (adjusted OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41-1.71, p = 0.63). In propensity score match-pairs analysis of 188 patients, the HES group experienced similar adjusted odds of AKI (OR 1.05, CI 95% 0.87-1.27, p = 0.57) and RRT (OR 1.06, CI 95% 0.92-1.22, p = 0.36). Conclusions: The use of modern hydroxyethyl starch 6% HES 130/0.4 was not associated with an increased risk of AKI nor dialysis in this cohort of patients at elevated risk for developing AKI after cardiac surgery.

Objetivos: La enfermedad por COVID-19 produce graves complicaciones que pueden derivar en parada cardiorrespiratoria (PCR). Una resucitación cardiopulmonar (RCP) de calidad puede mejorar el pronóstico de los pacientes. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el desempeño de la especialidad de Anestesiología y Reanimación en el manejo de la RCP durante la pandemia en España. Métodos: Se realizó una encuesta con Google Forms que constaba de 19 preguntas. El link de acceso al cuestionario fue enviado vía correo electrónico por la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor (SEDAR) a todos sus miembros. Resultados: Se obtuvieron 225 respuestas. Las provincias con mayor participación fueron: Madrid, Cataluña, Valencia y Andalucía. ...

Background: Identification of effective treatments in severe cases of COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation represents an unmet medical need. Our aim was to determine whether the administration of adipose-tissue derived mesenchymal stromal cells (AT-MSC) is safe and potentially useful in these patients. Methods: Thirteen COVID-19 adult patients under invasive mechanical ventilation who had received previous antiviral and/or anti-inflammatory treatments (including steroids, lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine and/or tocilizumab, among others) were treated with allogeneic AT-MSC. Ten patients received two doses, with the second dose administered a median of 3 days (interquartile range-IQR- 1 day) after the first one. Two patients received a single dose and another patient received 3 doses. Median number of cells per dose was 0.98 × 106 (IQR 0.50 × 106) AT-MSC/kg of recipient's body weight. Potential adverse effects related to cell infusion and clinical outcome were assessed. Additional parameters analyzed included changes in imaging, analytical and inflammatory parameters. Findings: First dose of AT-MSC was administered at a median of 7 days (IQR 12 days) after mechanical ventilation. No adverse events were related to cell therapy. With a median follow-up of 16 days (IQR 9 days) after the first dose, clinical improvement was observed in nine patients (70%). Seven patients were extubated and discharged from ICU while four patients remained intubated (two with an improvement in their ventilatory and radiological parameters and two in stable condition). Two patients died (one due to massive gastrointestinal bleeding unrelated to MSC therapy). Treatment with AT-MSC was followed by a decrease in inflammatory parameters (reduction in C-reactive protein, IL-6, ferritin, LDH and d-dimer) as well as an increase in lymphocytes, particularly in those patients with clinical improvement. Interpretation: Treatment with intravenous administration of AT-MSC in 13 severe COVID-19 pneumonia under mechanical ventilation in a small case series did not induce significant adverse events and was followed by clinical and biological improvement in most subjects.

BackgroundAwake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone.MethodsProspective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP.ResultsA total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53-1.43), p=0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0-2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0-3.0] days (p=0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40-2.72), p=0.92].ConclusionIn patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

Background: The clinical course of COVID-19 critically ill patients, during their admission in the intensive care unit (UCI), including medical and infectious complications and support therapies, as well as their association with in-ICU mortality has not been fully reported. Objective: This study aimed to describe clinical characteristics and clinical course of ICU COVID-19 patients, and to determine risk factors for ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. Methods Prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted into 30 ICUs from Spain and Andorra. Consecutive patients from March 12th to May 26th, 2020 were enrolled if they had died or were discharged from ICU during the study period. Demographics, symptoms, vital signs, laboratory markers, supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments, medical and infectious complications were reported and compared between deceased and discharged patients. Results: A total of 663 patients were included. Overall ICU mortality was 31% (203 patients). At ICU admission non-survivors were more hypoxemic [SpO2 with non-rebreather mask, 90 (IQR 83 to 93) vs. 91 (IQR 87 to 94); P<.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5 to 9) vs. 4 (IQR 3 to 7); P<.001]. Complications were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs. 89%; P=.009), acute kidney injury (AKI) (58% vs. 24%; P<10-16), shock (42% vs. 14%; P<10-13), and arrhythmias (24% vs. 11%; P<10-4). Respiratory super-infection, bloodstream infection and septic shock were higher in non-survivors (33% vs. 25%; P=.03, 33% vs. 23%; P=.01 and 15% vs. 3%, P=10-7), respectively. The multivariable regression model showed that age was associated with mortality, with every year increasing risk-of-death by 1% (95%CI: 1 to 10, P=.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), P=.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), P<10-4)], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), P=.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), P=.002] had an increased risk-of-death. Conclusions: Older COVID-19 patients with higher APACHE II scores on admission, those who developed AKI grades ii or iii and/or septic shock during ICU stay had an increased risk-of-death. ICU mortality was 31%.