COVID-19 Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240208en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240208-en
, , , , , , , To evaluate the association between driving pressure and tidal volume based on predicted body weight and mortality in a cohort of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19.
This was a prospective, observational study that included patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 admitted to two intensive care units. We performed multivariable analyses to determine whether driving pressure and tidal volume/kg predicted body weight on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as independent variables, are associated with hospital mortality.
We included 231 patients. The mean age was 64 (53 - 74) years, and the mean Simplified Acute and Physiology Score 3 score was 45 (39 - 54). The hospital mortality rate was 51.9%. Driving pressure was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.21, 95%CI 1.04 - 1.41 for each cm H2O increase in driving pressure, p = 0.01). Based on a double stratification analysis, we found that for the same level of tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, the risk of hospital death increased with increasing driving pressure. However, changes in tidal volume/kg predicted body weight were not associated with mortality when they did not lead to an increase in driving pressure.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19, exposure to higher driving pressure, as opposed to higher tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, is associated with greater mortality. These results suggest that driving pressure might be a primary target for lung-protective mechanical ventilation in these patients.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240208en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240208-en
, , , , , , , To evaluate the association between driving pressure and tidal volume based on predicted body weight and mortality in a cohort of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19.
This was a prospective, observational study that included patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 admitted to two intensive care units. We performed multivariable analyses to determine whether driving pressure and tidal volume/kg predicted body weight on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as independent variables, are associated with hospital mortality.
We included 231 patients. The mean age was 64 (53 - 74) years, and the mean Simplified Acute and Physiology Score 3 score was 45 (39 - 54). The hospital mortality rate was 51.9%. Driving pressure was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.21, 95%CI 1.04 - 1.41 for each cm H2O increase in driving pressure, p = 0.01). Based on a double stratification analysis, we found that for the same level of tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, the risk of hospital death increased with increasing driving pressure. However, changes in tidal volume/kg predicted body weight were not associated with mortality when they did not lead to an increase in driving pressure.
In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19, exposure to higher driving pressure, as opposed to higher tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, is associated with greater mortality. These results suggest that driving pressure might be a primary target for lung-protective mechanical ventilation in these patients.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240284en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240284-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , To examine the physical function and respiratory muscle strength of patients - who recovered from critical COVID-19 – after intensive care unit discharge to the ward on Days one (D1) and seven (D7), and to investigate variables associated with functional impairment.
This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 who needed invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula and were discharged from the intensive care unit to the ward. Participants were submitted to Medical Research Council sum-score, handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and short physical performance battery tests. Participants were grouped into two groups according to their need for invasive ventilation: the Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (IMV Group) and the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (Non-IMV Group).
Patients in the IMV Group (n = 31) were younger and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than those in the Non-IMV Group (n = 33). The short physical performance battery scores (range 0 - 12) on D1 and D7 were 6.1 ± 4.3 and 7.3 ± 3.8, respectively for the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group, and 1.3 ± 2.5 and 2.6 ± 3.7, respectively for the IMV Group. The prevalence of intensive care unit-acquired weakness on D7 was 13% for the Non-IMV Group and 72% for the IMV Group. The maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and handgrip strength increased on D7 in both groups, but the maximal expiratory pressure and handgrip strength were still weak. Only maximal inspiratory pressure was recovered (i.e., > 80% of the predicted value) in the Non-IMV Group. Female sex, and the need and duration of invasive mechanical were independently and negatively associated with the short physical performance battery score and handgrip strength.
Patients who recovered from critical COVID-19 and who received invasive mechanical ventilation presented greater disability than those who were not invasively ventilated. However, they both showed marginal functional improvement during early recovery, regardless of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. This might highlight the severity of disability caused by SARS-CoV-2.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240284en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240284-en
, , , , , , , , , , , , To examine the physical function and respiratory muscle strength of patients - who recovered from critical COVID-19 – after intensive care unit discharge to the ward on Days one (D1) and seven (D7), and to investigate variables associated with functional impairment.
This was a prospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 who needed invasive mechanical ventilation, non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula and were discharged from the intensive care unit to the ward. Participants were submitted to Medical Research Council sum-score, handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and short physical performance battery tests. Participants were grouped into two groups according to their need for invasive ventilation: the Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (IMV Group) and the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group (Non-IMV Group).
Patients in the IMV Group (n = 31) were younger and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than those in the Non-IMV Group (n = 33). The short physical performance battery scores (range 0 - 12) on D1 and D7 were 6.1 ± 4.3 and 7.3 ± 3.8, respectively for the Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation Group, and 1.3 ± 2.5 and 2.6 ± 3.7, respectively for the IMV Group. The prevalence of intensive care unit-acquired weakness on D7 was 13% for the Non-IMV Group and 72% for the IMV Group. The maximal inspiratory pressure, maximal expiratory pressure, and handgrip strength increased on D7 in both groups, but the maximal expiratory pressure and handgrip strength were still weak. Only maximal inspiratory pressure was recovered (i.e., > 80% of the predicted value) in the Non-IMV Group. Female sex, and the need and duration of invasive mechanical were independently and negatively associated with the short physical performance battery score and handgrip strength.
Patients who recovered from critical COVID-19 and who received invasive mechanical ventilation presented greater disability than those who were not invasively ventilated. However, they both showed marginal functional improvement during early recovery, regardless of the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. This might highlight the severity of disability caused by SARS-CoV-2.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240176en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240176-en
, , , , , To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.
We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.
The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240176en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240176-en
, , , , , To systematically review the effect of the prone position on endotracheal intubation and mortality in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
We registered the protocol (CRD42021286711) and searched for four databases and gray literature from inception to December 31, 2022. We included observational studies and clinical trials. There was no limit by date or the language of publication. We excluded case reports, case series, studies not available in full text, and those studies that included children < 18-years-old.
We included ten observational studies, eight clinical trials, 3,969 patients, 1,120 endotracheal intubation events, and 843 deaths. All of the studies had a low risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools). We found that the conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation by 44% (OR 0.56; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.78) and mortality by 43% (OR 0.57; 95%CI 0.39 - 0.84) in nonintubated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. This protective effect on endotracheal intubation and mortality was more robust in those who spent > 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position (OR 0.43; 95%CI 0.26 - 0.72 and OR 0.38; 95%CI 0.24 - 0.60, respectively). The certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE criteria was moderate.
The conscious prone position decreased the odds of endotracheal intubation and mortality, especially when patients spent over 8 hours/day in the conscious prone position and treatment in the intensive care unit. However, our results should be cautiously interpreted due to limitations in evaluating randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials and observational studies. However, despite systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, we must keep in mind that these studies remain heterogeneous from a clinical and methodological point of view.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240158en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240158-en
To evaluate the association of biomarkers with successful ventilatory weaning in COVID-19 patients.
An observational, retrospective, and single-center study was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021. C-reactive protein, total lymphocytes, and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were evaluated during attrition and extubation, and the variation in these biomarker values was measured. The primary outcome was successful extubation. ROC curves were drawn to find the best cutoff points for the biomarkers based on sensitivity and specificity. Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression.
Of the 2,377 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, 458 were included in the analysis, 356 in the Successful Weaning Group and 102 in the Failure Group. The cutoff points found from the ROC curves were −62.4% for C-reactive protein, +45.7% for total lymphocytes, and −32.9% for neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio. These points were significantly associated with greater extubation success. In the multivariate analysis, only C-reactive protein variation remained statistically significant (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.51 – 4.5; p < 0.001).
In this study, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels was associated with successful extubation in COVID-19 patients. Total lymphocytes and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio did not maintain the association after multivariate analysis. However, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels should not be used as a sole variable to identify COVID-19 patients suitable for weaning; as in our study, the area under the ROC curve demonstrated poor accuracy in discriminating extubation outcomes, with low sensitivity and specificity.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2024;36:e20240158en
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20240158-en
To evaluate the association of biomarkers with successful ventilatory weaning in COVID-19 patients.
An observational, retrospective, and single-center study was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021. C-reactive protein, total lymphocytes, and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were evaluated during attrition and extubation, and the variation in these biomarker values was measured. The primary outcome was successful extubation. ROC curves were drawn to find the best cutoff points for the biomarkers based on sensitivity and specificity. Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression.
Of the 2,377 patients admitted to the intensive care unit, 458 were included in the analysis, 356 in the Successful Weaning Group and 102 in the Failure Group. The cutoff points found from the ROC curves were −62.4% for C-reactive protein, +45.7% for total lymphocytes, and −32.9% for neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio. These points were significantly associated with greater extubation success. In the multivariate analysis, only C-reactive protein variation remained statistically significant (OR 2.6; 95%CI 1.51 – 4.5; p < 0.001).
In this study, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels was associated with successful extubation in COVID-19 patients. Total lymphocytes and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio did not maintain the association after multivariate analysis. However, a decrease in C-reactive protein levels should not be used as a sole variable to identify COVID-19 patients suitable for weaning; as in our study, the area under the ROC curve demonstrated poor accuracy in discriminating extubation outcomes, with low sensitivity and specificity.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(4):355-366
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230015-pt
, , , , , , , , , To compare, within a cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure, the phenotypes of patients with and without COVID-19 in the context of the pandemic and evaluate whether COVID-19 is an independent predictor of intensive care unit mortality.
This historical cohort study evaluated 1001 acute respiratory failure patients with suspected COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit of 8 hospitals. Patients were classified as COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 cases according to real-time polymerase chain reaction results. Data on clinical and demographic characteristics were collected on intensive care unit admission, as well as daily clinical and laboratory data and intensive care unit outcomes.
Although the groups did not differ in terms of APACHE II or SOFA scores at admission, the COVID-19 group had more initial symptoms of fever, myalgia and diarrhea, had a longer duration of symptoms, and had a higher prevalence of obesity. They also had a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower platelet levels than non-COVID-19 patients, and more metabolic changes, such as higher levels of blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and lactic dehydrogenase. Patients with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory failure had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma and cardiopathy. Patients with COVID-19 stayed in the hospital longer and had more complications, such as acute kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe infection. The all-cause mortality rate was also higher in this group (43.7% in the COVID-19 group versus 27.4% in the non-COVID-19 group). The diagnosis of COVID-19 was a predictor of intensive care unit mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; 95%CI, 1.89 - 4.07; p < 0.001), regardless of age or Charlson Comorbidity Index score.
In a prospective cohort of patients admitted with acute respiratory failure, patients with COVID-19 had a clearly different phenotype and a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. This may help to outline more accurate screening and appropriate and timely treatment for these patients.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(4):355-366
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230015-pt
, , , , , , , , , To compare, within a cohort of patients with acute respiratory failure, the phenotypes of patients with and without COVID-19 in the context of the pandemic and evaluate whether COVID-19 is an independent predictor of intensive care unit mortality.
This historical cohort study evaluated 1001 acute respiratory failure patients with suspected COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit of 8 hospitals. Patients were classified as COVID-19 cases and non-COVID-19 cases according to real-time polymerase chain reaction results. Data on clinical and demographic characteristics were collected on intensive care unit admission, as well as daily clinical and laboratory data and intensive care unit outcomes.
Although the groups did not differ in terms of APACHE II or SOFA scores at admission, the COVID-19 group had more initial symptoms of fever, myalgia and diarrhea, had a longer duration of symptoms, and had a higher prevalence of obesity. They also had a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower platelet levels than non-COVID-19 patients, and more metabolic changes, such as higher levels of blood glucose, C-reactive protein, and lactic dehydrogenase. Patients with non-COVID-19 acute respiratory failure had a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease/asthma and cardiopathy. Patients with COVID-19 stayed in the hospital longer and had more complications, such as acute kidney failure, severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe infection. The all-cause mortality rate was also higher in this group (43.7% in the COVID-19 group versus 27.4% in the non-COVID-19 group). The diagnosis of COVID-19 was a predictor of intensive care unit mortality (odds ratio, 2.77; 95%CI, 1.89 - 4.07; p < 0.001), regardless of age or Charlson Comorbidity Index score.
In a prospective cohort of patients admitted with acute respiratory failure, patients with COVID-19 had a clearly different phenotype and a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. This may help to outline more accurate screening and appropriate and timely treatment for these patients.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(4):394-401
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230170-pt
, , , , , To investigate the impact of delirium severity in critically ill COVID-19 patients and its association with outcomes.
This prospective cohort study was performed in two tertiary intensive care units in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. COVID-19 patients were evaluated daily during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Confusion Method Assessment for Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7). Delirium severity was correlated with outcomes and one-year mortality.
Among the 277 COVID-19 patients included, delirium occurred in 101 (36.5%) during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay, and it was associated with a higher length of intensive care unit stay in days (IQR 13 [7 - 25] versus 6 [4 - 12]; p < 0.001), higher hospital mortality (25.74% versus 5.11%; p < 0.001) and additional higher one-year mortality (5.3% versus 0.6%, p < 0.001). Delirium was classified by CAM-ICU-7 in terms of severity, and higher scores were associated with higher in-hospital mortality (17.86% versus 34.38% versus 38.46%, 95%CI, p value < 0.001). Severe delirium was associated with a higher risk of progression to coma (OR 7.1; 95%CI 1.9 - 31.0; p = 0.005) and to mechanical ventilation (OR 11.09; 95%CI 2.8 - 58.5; p = 0.002) in the multivariate analysis, adjusted by severity and frailty.
In patients admitted with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, delirium was an independent risk factor for the worst prognosis, including mortality. The delirium severity assessed by the CAM-ICU-7 during the first week in the intensive care unit was associated with poor outcomes, including progression to coma and to mechanical ventilation.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(4):394-401
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230170-pt
, , , , , To investigate the impact of delirium severity in critically ill COVID-19 patients and its association with outcomes.
This prospective cohort study was performed in two tertiary intensive care units in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. COVID-19 patients were evaluated daily during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Confusion Method Assessment for Intensive Care Unit-7 (CAM-ICU-7). Delirium severity was correlated with outcomes and one-year mortality.
Among the 277 COVID-19 patients included, delirium occurred in 101 (36.5%) during the first 7 days of intensive care unit stay, and it was associated with a higher length of intensive care unit stay in days (IQR 13 [7 - 25] versus 6 [4 - 12]; p < 0.001), higher hospital mortality (25.74% versus 5.11%; p < 0.001) and additional higher one-year mortality (5.3% versus 0.6%, p < 0.001). Delirium was classified by CAM-ICU-7 in terms of severity, and higher scores were associated with higher in-hospital mortality (17.86% versus 34.38% versus 38.46%, 95%CI, p value < 0.001). Severe delirium was associated with a higher risk of progression to coma (OR 7.1; 95%CI 1.9 - 31.0; p = 0.005) and to mechanical ventilation (OR 11.09; 95%CI 2.8 - 58.5; p = 0.002) in the multivariate analysis, adjusted by severity and frailty.
In patients admitted with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, delirium was an independent risk factor for the worst prognosis, including mortality. The delirium severity assessed by the CAM-ICU-7 during the first week in the intensive care unit was associated with poor outcomes, including progression to coma and to mechanical ventilation.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(3):273-280
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230359-pt
, , , , , , To describe the role of physiotherapists in assisting patients suspected to have or diagnosed with COVID-19 hospitalized in intensive care units in Brazil regarding technical training, working time, care practice, labor conditions and remuneration.
An analytical cross-sectional survey was carried out through an electronic questionnaire distributed to physiotherapists who worked in the care of patients with COVID-19 in Brazilian intensive care units.
A total of 657 questionnaires were completed by physiotherapists from the five regions of the country, with 85.3% working in adult, 5.4% in neonatal, 5.3% in pediatric and 3.8% in mixed intensive care units (pediatric and neonatal). In intensive care units with a physiotherapists available 24 hours/day, physiotherapists worked more frequently (90.6%) in the assembly, titration, and monitoring of noninvasive ventilation (p = 0.001). Most intensive care units with 12-hour/day physiotherapists (25.8%) did not apply any protocol compared to intensive care units with 18-hour/day physiotherapy (9.9%) versus 24 hours/day (10.2%) (p = 0.032). Most of the respondents (51.0%) received remuneration 2 or 3 times the minimum wage, and only 25.1% received an additional payment for working with patients suspected to have or diagnosed with COVID-19; 85.7% of them did not experience a lack of personal protective equipment.
Intensive care units with 24-hour/day physiotherapists had higher percentages of protocols and noninvasive ventilation for patients with COVID-19. The use of specific resources varied between the types of intensive care units and hospitals and in relation to the physiotherapists’ labor conditions. This study showed that most professionals had little experience in intensive care and low wages.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(3):273-280
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230359-pt
, , , , , , To describe the role of physiotherapists in assisting patients suspected to have or diagnosed with COVID-19 hospitalized in intensive care units in Brazil regarding technical training, working time, care practice, labor conditions and remuneration.
An analytical cross-sectional survey was carried out through an electronic questionnaire distributed to physiotherapists who worked in the care of patients with COVID-19 in Brazilian intensive care units.
A total of 657 questionnaires were completed by physiotherapists from the five regions of the country, with 85.3% working in adult, 5.4% in neonatal, 5.3% in pediatric and 3.8% in mixed intensive care units (pediatric and neonatal). In intensive care units with a physiotherapists available 24 hours/day, physiotherapists worked more frequently (90.6%) in the assembly, titration, and monitoring of noninvasive ventilation (p = 0.001). Most intensive care units with 12-hour/day physiotherapists (25.8%) did not apply any protocol compared to intensive care units with 18-hour/day physiotherapy (9.9%) versus 24 hours/day (10.2%) (p = 0.032). Most of the respondents (51.0%) received remuneration 2 or 3 times the minimum wage, and only 25.1% received an additional payment for working with patients suspected to have or diagnosed with COVID-19; 85.7% of them did not experience a lack of personal protective equipment.
Intensive care units with 24-hour/day physiotherapists had higher percentages of protocols and noninvasive ventilation for patients with COVID-19. The use of specific resources varied between the types of intensive care units and hospitals and in relation to the physiotherapists’ labor conditions. This study showed that most professionals had little experience in intensive care and low wages.
, , , , , Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(3):302-310
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230141-pt
, , , , , To evaluate the accuracy of the persistent AKI risk index (PARI) in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days in patients hospitalized due to acute respiratory failure.
This study was done in a cohort of diagnoses of consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit of eight hospitals in Curitiba, Brazil, between March and September 2020 due to acute respiratory failure secondary to suspected COVID-19. The COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed or refuted by RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The ability of PARI to predict acute kidney injury at 72 hours, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days was analyzed by ROC curves in comparison to delta creatinine, SOFA, and APACHE II.
Of the 1,001 patients in the cohort, 538 were included in the analysis. The mean age was 62 ± 17 years, 54.8% were men, and the median APACHE II score was 12. At admission, the median SOFA score was 3, and 83.3% had no renal dysfunction. After admission to the intensive care unit, 17.1% had acute kidney injury within 72 hours, and through 7 days, 19.5% had persistent acute kidney injury, 5% underwent renal replacement therapy, and 17.1% died. The PARI had an area under the ROC curve of 0.75 (0.696 - 0.807) for the prediction of acute kidney injury at 72 hours, 0.71 (0.613 - 0.807) for renal replacement therapy, and 0.64 (0.565 - 0.710) for death.
The PARI has acceptable accuracy in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours and renal replacement therapy within 7 days of admission to the intensive care unit, but it is not significantly better than the other scores.
Abstract
Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(3):302-310
DOI 10.5935/2965-2774.20230141-pt
, , , , , To evaluate the accuracy of the persistent AKI risk index (PARI) in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days in patients hospitalized due to acute respiratory failure.
This study was done in a cohort of diagnoses of consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit of eight hospitals in Curitiba, Brazil, between March and September 2020 due to acute respiratory failure secondary to suspected COVID-19. The COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed or refuted by RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The ability of PARI to predict acute kidney injury at 72 hours, persistent acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy, and death within 7 days was analyzed by ROC curves in comparison to delta creatinine, SOFA, and APACHE II.
Of the 1,001 patients in the cohort, 538 were included in the analysis. The mean age was 62 ± 17 years, 54.8% were men, and the median APACHE II score was 12. At admission, the median SOFA score was 3, and 83.3% had no renal dysfunction. After admission to the intensive care unit, 17.1% had acute kidney injury within 72 hours, and through 7 days, 19.5% had persistent acute kidney injury, 5% underwent renal replacement therapy, and 17.1% died. The PARI had an area under the ROC curve of 0.75 (0.696 - 0.807) for the prediction of acute kidney injury at 72 hours, 0.71 (0.613 - 0.807) for renal replacement therapy, and 0.64 (0.565 - 0.710) for death.
The PARI has acceptable accuracy in predicting acute kidney injury within 72 hours and renal replacement therapy within 7 days of admission to the intensive care unit, but it is not significantly better than the other scores.
