RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Survivors of chronic critical illness often experience weakness and functional dependence to various degrees after their intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Evaluating their functional status with the traditional six-minute walk test is challenging due to space constraints or patient intolerance. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of using the six-minute step test (6MST) as a measure of functional capacity in chronically critically ill patients early after ICU discharge. METHODS: This prospective study was undertaken in a private Brazilian hospital. From July 2019 to July 2020, all chronically critically ill patients were asked to participate 48 hours after ICU discharge. On the day of study inclusion and a week later, those who consented underwent functional assessment comprised of the 6MST, peripheral muscle strength using handgrip strength (HGS), and mobility using the ICU mobility scale (IMS). RESULTS: A total of 40 patients were included. The 6MST was feasible in 40% on the first evaluation and 57% on the second. The median 6MST was 0 [0-5] on the first evaluation and 3.5 [0-7.75] on the second (P = 0.005). The median HGS increased from 11.50 [9.25-18] on the first evaluation to 14.5 [10-20] on the second (P = 0.006). The median IMS was 4.5 [3.25-7] on the first evaluation and 6 [3.25-7] on the second (P<0.001). Despite the significant improvement, all parameters measured remained well below normal. CONCLUSION: The 6MST was a feasible measure of functional capacity in chronically critically ill patients early after ICU discharge. Patients had functional capacity well below predicted values.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has been associated with a significant burden to those who survive the acute phase. We aimed to describe the quality of life and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days after hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to a private hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between April of 2020 and April of 2021 were interviewed by telephone at 30 and 90 days after discharge to assess the quality of life and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. RESULTS: A total of 2,138 patients were included. The mean age was 58.6 ± 15.8 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 9.0 (5.0-15.8) days. Between the two time points, depression increased from 3.1% to 7.2% (p < 0.001), anxiety increased from 3.2% to 6.2% (p < 0.001), and PTSD increased from 2.3% to 5.0% (p < 0.001). At least one physical symptom related to COVID-19 diagnosis persisted in 32% of patients at day 90. CONCLUSIONS: Persistence of physical symptoms was high even at 90 days after discharge. Although the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was low, these symptoms persisted for three months, with a significant increase between the time points. This finding indicates the need to identify at-risk patients so that they can be given an appropriate referral at discharge.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Objective: COVID-19 has been associated with a significant burden to those who survive the acute phase. We aimed to describe the quality of life and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days after hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to a private hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between April of 2020 and April of 2021 were interviewed by telephone at 30 and 90 days after discharge to assess the quality of life and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Results: A total of 2,138 patients were included. The mean age was 58.6 ± 15.8 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 9.0 (5.0-15.8) days. Between the two time points, depression increased from 3.1% to 7.2% (p < 0.001), anxiety increased from 3.2% to 6.2% (p < 0.001), and PTSD increased from 2.3% to 5.0% (p < 0.001). At least one physical symptom related to COVID-19 diagnosis persisted in 32% of patients at day 90. Conclusions: Persistence of physical symptoms was high even at 90 days after discharge. Although the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was low, these symptoms persisted for three months, with a significant increase between the time points. This finding indicates the need to identify at-risk patients so that they can be given an appropriate referral at discharge.

RESUMO Objetivo: A COVID-19 tem sido associada a um fardo significativo para aqueles que sobrevivem à fase aguda. Nosso objetivo foi descrever a qualidade de vida e sintomas de ansiedade, depressão e transtorno de estresse pós-traumático (TEPT) 90 dias após a alta hospitalar em pacientes com COVID-19. Métodos: Pacientes com COVID-19 internados em um hospital privado na cidade de São Paulo (SP) entre abril de 2020 e abril de 2021 foram entrevistados por telefone 30 e 90 dias após a alta para avaliar a qualidade de vida e sintomas de depressão, ansiedade e TEPT. Resultados: Foram incluídos 2.138 pacientes. A média de idade foi de 58,6 ± 15,8 anos, e a mediana do tempo de internação hospitalar foi de 9,0 (5,0-15,8) dias. Entre os dois momentos, a depressão aumentou de 3,1% para 7,2% (p < 0,001), a ansiedade, de 3,2% para 6,2% (p < 0,001), e o TEPT, de 2,3% para 5,0% (p < 0,001). Pelo menos um sintoma físico relacionado ao diagnóstico de COVID-19 persistia em 32% dos pacientes no 90º dia. Conclusões: A persistência dos sintomas físicos foi elevada mesmo 90 dias após a alta. Embora a prevalência de sintomas de ansiedade, depressão e TEPT tenha sido baixa, esses sintomas persistiram por três meses, com aumento significativo entre os momentos. Esse achado indica a necessidade de identificar os pacientes de risco para que possam receber o encaminhamento adequado no momento da alta.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.

OBJETIVO: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). CONCLUSÃO: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.

Assuntos

RESUMO

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Métodos: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Resultados: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). Conclusão: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Methods: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Results: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). Conclusion: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of burnout syndrome among intensive care physicians working in a tertiary private hospital as well as their perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their life. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Intensive care units dedicated to the care of COVID-19 in Hospital Sirio-Libanes, Sao Paulo, Southeastern part of Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Intensive care physicians. INTERVENTIONS: Each participant received an envelope with a questionnaire composed of demographic and occupational variables, information related to their personal and professional experiences facing the COVID-19 pandemic and the Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was to assess the prevalence of burnout syndrome among physicians working in an intensive care unit dedicated to the care of COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 51 from the universe of 63 (82%) intensive care physicians participated in the study. Nineteen (37.2%) met the criteria for burnout syndrome. In the three domains that characterise burnout syndrome, we found a low level of personal achievement in 96.1% of physicians interviewed, a high level of depersonalisation in 51.0% and 51.0% with a high level of emotional exhaustion. Decision-making conflicts between the intensive care unit team and other attending physicians were frequent (50% of all conflicts). A third of the participants had been diagnosed with COVID-19, 22 (43.1%) reported having a family member infected and 8 (15.7%) lost someone close to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants felt that fear of infecting their loved ones was the aspect of their lives that changed most as compared with the prepandemic period. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout syndrome was frequent among intensive care unit physicians treating patients with COVID-19 in a large tertiary private hospital. Future studies should expand our results to other private and public hospitals and test strategies to promote intensive care unit physicians' mental health.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Coexistence of cancer and COVID-19 is associated with worse outcomes. However, the studies on cancer-related characteristics associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes have shown controversial results. The objective of the study was to evaluate cancer-related characteristics associated with invasive mechanical ventilation use or in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We designed a cohort multicenter study including adults with active cancer admitted to ICU due to COVID-19. Seven cancer-related characteristics (cancer status, type of cancer, metastasis occurrence, recent chemotherapy, recent immunotherapy, lung tumor, and performance status) were introduced in a multilevel logistic regression model as first-level variables and hospital was introduced as second-level variable (random effect). Confounders were identified using directed acyclic graphs. RESULTS: We included 274 patients. Required to undergo invasive mechanical ventilation were 176 patients (64.2%) and none of the cancer-related characteristics were associated with mechanical ventilation use. Approximately 155 patients died in hospital (56.6%) and poor performance status, measured with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score was associated with increased in-hospital mortality, with odds ratio = 3.54 (1.60-7.88, 95% CI) for ECOG =2 and odds ratio = 3.40 (1.60-7.22, 95% CI) for ECOG = 3 to 4. Cancer status, cancer type, metastatic tumor, lung cancer, and recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy were not associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active cancer and COVID-19 admitted to ICU, poor performance status was associated with in-hospital mortality but not with mechanical ventilation use. Cancer status, cancer type, metastatic tumor, lung cancer, and recent chemotherapy or immunotherapy were not associated with invasive mechanical ventilation use or in-hospital mortality.

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has brought significant challenges worldwide, with high mortality, increased use of hospital resources, and the collapse of healthcare systems. We aimed to describe the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients and assess the impact on the use of hospital resources and compare with critically ill medical patients without COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to a private ICU in Sao Paulo, Brazil from March to June 2020. We compared these patients with those admitted to the unit in the same period of the previous year. A total of 212 consecutive patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were compared with 185 medical patients from the previous year. Patients with COVID-19 were more frequently males (76% vs. 56%, p<0.001) and morbidly obese (7.5% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.027), and had lower SAPS 3 (49.65 (12.19) vs. 55.63 (11.94), p<0.001) and SOFA scores (3.78 (3.53) vs. 4.48 (3.11), p = 0.039). COVID-19 patients had a longer ICU stay (median of 7 vs. 3 days, p<0.001), longer duration of mechanical ventilation (median of 9 vs. 4 days, p = 0.003), and more frequent tracheostomies (10.8 vs. 1.1%, p<0.001). Survival rates until 28 days were not statistically different (91% vs. 85.4%, p = 0.111). After multivariable adjustment for age, gender, SAPS 3, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, COVID-19 remained not associated with survival at 28 days (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.33-1.06, p = 0.076). Among patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation, the observed mortality at 28-days was 16.2% in COVID-19 patients compared to 34.6% in the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 required more hospital resources, including invasive and non-invasive ventilation, had a longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and a more prolonged ICU and hospital length of stay. There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 28 and 60 days, suggesting that health systems preparedness be an important determinant of clinical outcomes.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Spirituality can give meaning to life, providing support and guidance in complex situations. Despite its importance in palliative care, the role of spirituality for family caregivers of patients under exclusive palliative care has not received enough attention in the literature. We aimed to address the correlation between spirituality and the emotional burden of family members of patients under exclusive palliative care. METHODS: This transversal study was conducted in a tertiary private teaching hospital, in São Paulo, Brazil. The study comprised family members of patients receiving palliative care exclusively. Only one caregiver who cared for the patient for at least 2 months was invited to participate. Family members answered the following questionnaires: WHOQOL spirituality, religiousness and personal beliefs (SRPB), Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20). They were excluded if patients were residing in a Long Stay Institution. Continuous variables were expressed by median and quartiles and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test with Muller-Dunn post-test adjusted by Bonferroni or with the Mann-Whitney test for two groups. We used multivariable linear regression to identify independent predictors of caregiver burden. RESULTS: A total of 178 family members were interviewed in a median of 8 [4-13.25] days after patient admission. Almost 40% of families presented high score of burden. Faith and Meaning in Life were the facets that scored the highest, with a median of 4.50 [4.00-5.00] for both facets. There was an inverse correlation between Zarit score and all of the WHOQOL-SRPB facets, indicating that the lower the spirituality, the greater the emotional burden. Inner peace was the strongest protective factor associated with burden. CONCLUSIONS: Psycho-socio-spiritual interaction can improve the coping ability of family caregivers of patients under exclusive palliative care, addressing a critical gap in the provision of holistic palliative care services.

Assuntos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of single-bed versus multibed room intensive care units (ICU) architectural designs on the stress and burnout of ICU staff and on the stress and satisfaction of family visitors. BACKGROUND: There are countless architectural variations among ICUs, but all involve single-bed or multibed rooms. Although it is well known that ICU design affects important patient outcomes, the effect of ICU design on family and staff has been insufficiently studied. METHODS: Among ICU staff and family visitors, stress was evaluated with Lipp's Inventory of Stress Symptoms. ICU staff burnout was evaluated with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Family visitor satisfaction was evaluated with Molter's Critical Care Family Needs Inventory. RESULTS: Among 156 ICU professionals who were interviewed, similar burnout rates were observed between ICU staff who worked single-bed versus multibed rooms. However, stress reported by ICU staff within the previous 24 hr was higher among the ICU staff who worked in single-bed rooms (14.3% vs. 4.7%, p = .04). Among 176 family visitors who were interviewed, a similar level of stress was reported by family members who visited patients in single-bed or multibed rooms. However, the satisfaction of family members visiting patients in single-bed rooms was higher (96.0% vs. 84.6%, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Single-bed ICU design was associated with greater satisfaction of family visitors yet with higher levels of stress for ICU staff. Meanwhile, similar burnout levels were observed for ICU staff who worked in single-bed or multibed rooms.

Assuntos