scholarly journals Vital signs of severe COVID-19 patients during inter-hospital helicopter transfer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelis Slagt ◽  
Eduard Johannes Spoelder ◽  
Marijn Cornelia Theresia Tacken ◽  
Maartje Frijlink ◽  
Sjoerd Servaas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Stroke Volume ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Systemic Vascular Resistance ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic in The Netherlands, critically ill ventilated COVID-19 patients were not only transferred between hospitals by ambulance, but also by the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). To date, little is known about the impact of helicopter transport on critically ill patients, and COVID-19 patients in particular. This study was conducted to explore the impact of inter-hospital helicopter transfer on vital signs of mechanically ventilated severe COVID-19 intensive care patients, with special focus on take-off, midflight, and landing. Methods: All ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients who were transported between April 2020 and June 2021 by the Dutch ‘Lifeliner 5’ HEMS team and who were fully monitored including non-invasive cardiac output, were included in this study. Three 10 minute timeframes (take-off, midflight and landing) were defined for analysis. Continuous data of vital parameters heartrate, peripheral oxygen saturation, arterial blood pressure, end-tidal CO2 and non-invasive cardiac output using electrical cardiometry were collected and stored at a 1 minute interval. Data were analysed for differences over time within the timeframes using 1-way analysis of variance. Significant differences were checked for clinical relevance. Results: Ninety-eight patients were included in the analysis. During take-off an increase was noticed in cardiac output (from 6.7 to 8.1 Lmin-1; P<0.0001) which was determined by a decrease in systemic vascular resistance (from 1068 to 750 dyne·s·cm−5, P<0.0001) accompanied by an increase in stroke volume (from 92.0 to 110.2 ml, P<0.0001). Other parameters were unchanged during take-off and mid-flight. During the landing cardiac output and stroke volume slightly decreased (from 7.9 to 7.1 Lmin-1, P<0.0001 and from 108.3 to 100.6 ml, P<0.0001 respectively) and total systemic vascular resistance increased (P<0.0001). Though statistically significant, the found changes were small and not clinically relevant to the medical status of the patients as judged by the attending physicians. Conclusions: Interhospital helicopter transfer of ventilated intensive care patients with COVID-19 can be performed safely and does not result in clinically relevant changes in vital signs. This study this has been assessed by the medical ethical committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (identifier 2021-7313). The committee waived the need for informed consent. The study was registered at www.trialregister.nl (identifier NL9307).

scholarly journals Vital signs of severe COVID-19 patients during inter-hospital helicopter transfer

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelis Slagt ◽  
Eduard Johannes Spoelder ◽  
Marijn Cornelia Theresia Tacken ◽  
Maartje Frijlink ◽  
Sjoerd Servaas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Stroke Volume ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Systemic Vascular Resistance ◽  
Vascular Resistance ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic in The Netherlands, critically ill ventilated COVID-19 patients were transferred not only between hospitals by ambulance but also by the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS). To date, little is known about the impact of helicopter transport on critically ill patients and COVID-19 patients in particular. This study was conducted to explore the impact of inter-hospital helicopter transfer on vital signs of mechanically ventilated severe COVID-19 intensive care patients, with special focus on take-off, midflight, and landing.Methods: All ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients who were transported between April 2020 and June 2021 by the Dutch ‘Lifeliner 5’ HEMS team and who were fully monitored, including noninvasive cardiac output, were included in this study. Three 10-minute timeframes (take-off, midflight and landing) were defined for analysis. Continuous data on the vital parameters heart rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, arterial blood pressure, end-tidal CO2 and noninvasive cardiac output using electrical cardiometry were collected and stored at 1-minute intervals. Data were analydzed for differences over time within the timeframes using 1-way analysis of variance. Significant differences were checked for clinical relevance.Results: Ninety-eight patients were included in the analysis. During take-off, an increase was noticed in cardiac output (from 6.7 to 8.1 Lmin-1; P<0.0001), which was determined by a decrease in systemic vascular resistance (from 1068 to 750 dyne·s·cm−5, P<0.0001) accompanied by an increase in stroke volume (from 92.0 to 110.2 ml, P<0.0001). Other parameters were unchanged during take-off and mid-flight. During landing, cardiac output and stroke volume slightly decreased (from 7.9 to 7.1 Lmin-1, P<0.0001 and from 108.3 to 100.6 ml, P<0.0001, respectively), and total systemic vascular resistance increased (P<0.0001). Though statistically significant, the found changes were small and not clinically relevant to the medical status of the patients as judged by the attending physicians.Conclusions: Interhospital helicopter transfer of ventilated intensive care patients with COVID-19 can be performed safely and does not result in clinically relevant changes in vital signs.This study was assessed by the medical ethical committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (identifier 2021-7313). The committee waived the need for informed consent. The study was registered at www.trialregister.nl (identifier NL9307).

scholarly journals Impact of non-invasive respiratory support in severe patients with COVID-19

ANALES RANM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 137 (137(02)) ◽  
pp. 154-160
Author(s):  
Ester Zamarrón ◽  
Carlos Carpio ◽  
Ana Santiago ◽  
Sergio Alcolea ◽  
Juan Carlos Figueira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Respiratory Therapy ◽  
Respiratory Support ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Discharged Patients ◽  
Respiratory Treatment ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: to assess the impact of non-invasive respiratory therapies in critically ill patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 hospitalized patients who required non-invasive respiratory support. The impact of these treatments was evaluated in three groups of patients: pre-intensive care patients, discharged patients from critical care unit (CCU) and non-CCU admitted patients. The impact was assessed 30 days after completing respiratory therapy and was categorized as hospital discharge, transfer to a rehabilitation center, admission to the UCC and deceased. Results: a total of 80 patients were included (average age: 65.9 ± 11.9; men = 45 [56.3%]). 29 (36.3%) patients received BIPAP, 35 (43.8%) CPAP and 27 (33.4%) high-oxygen nasal cannula. Regarding the groups for the indication of respiratory treatment, 37 (46.3%) patients corresponded to the pre-intensive care patients, 24 (30%) were discharged patients from the CCU and 19 (23.8%) to the non-CCU admitted group. In the pre-intensive care, admission to a CCU was avoided in 19 (52.8%) patients and, on the other hand, 14 (38.9%) patients finally were admitted in a CCU. In the group of discharged patients from the UCC 19 (82.6%) patients showed a favorable course of disease. Only 3 (13%) patients were admitted in a UCC or died. Finally, in the group of non-CCU admitted, 6 (31.3%) improved after the use of respiratory therapy and 13 (68.4%) were deceased. Conclusions: respiratory therapies have a favorable impact on critically ill patients affected by COVID-19, both in patients with an indication for admission in the CCU, in those who are discharged from the CCUs and in those who do not have criteria for admission in these units.

Determination of cardiac output using ensemble-averaged impedance cardiograms

1985 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 200-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Muzi ◽  
T. J. Ebert ◽  
F. E. Tristani ◽  
D. C. Jeutter ◽  
J. A. Barney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Stroke Volume ◽  
Volume Index ◽  
Breath Hold ◽  
Ensemble Averaging ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Impedance Data ◽  
R Value ◽  
Rest And Exercise

Although impedance cardiography provides safe and reliable noninvasive estimates of stroke volume in humans, its usefulness is limited by the necessity for subjects to be apneic and motionless. In an effort to circumvent this restriction we studied the validity of ensemble-averaging of impedance data in exercising normal subjects and in intensive-care patients. The correlation coefficient (r value) between 128 ensemble-averaged and standard hand-digitized determinations of stroke volume index from the same records taken during rest and exercise in six normal male subjects was +0.97 (P less than 0.001). The r value for ensemble-averaged stroke volume indices during free breathing and breath hold in the same subjects was +0.92 (P less than 0.001), suggesting that breath hold did not significantly affect the stroke volume estimation. In 14 freely breathing hospital intensive-care patients the r value between simultaneous thermodilution cardiac output readings and ensemble-averaged impedance determinations was +0.87 (P less than 0.01). The results indicate that ensemble-averaging of transthoracic impedance data provides waveforms from which reliable estimates of cardiac output can be made during normal respiration in healthy human subjects at rest and exercise and in critically ill patients.

scholarly journals Non-invasive Oscillometry-Based Estimation of Cardiac Output – Can We Use It in Clinical Practice?

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Reshetnik ◽  
Jonida Gjolli ◽  
Markus van der Giet ◽  
Friederike Compton
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Pulse Wave ◽  
Estimation Method ◽  
Fluid Challenge ◽  
Pulse Wave Analysis ◽  
Wave Analysis ◽  
Non Invasive

While invasive thermodilution techniques remain the reference methods for cardiac output (CO) measurement, there is a currently unmet need for non-invasive techniques to simplify CO determination, reduce complications related to invasive procedures required for indicator dilution CO measurement, and expand the application field toward emergency room, non-intensive care, or outpatient settings. We evaluated the performance of a non-invasive oscillometry-based CO estimation method compared to transpulmonary thermodilution. To assess agreement between the devices, we used Bland–Altman analysis. Four-quadrant plot analysis was used to visualize the ability of Mobil-O-Graph (MG) to track CO changes after a fluid challenge. Trending analysis of CO trajectories was used to compare MG and PiCCO® calibrated pulse wave analysis over time (6 h). We included 40 patients from the medical intensive care unit at the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin between November 2019 and June 2020. The median age was 73 years. Forty percent of the study population was male; 98% was ventilator-dependent and 75% vasopressor-dependent at study entry. The mean of the observed differences for the cardiac output index (COI) was 0.7 l∗min–1*m–2 and the lower, and upper 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were -1.9 and 3.3 l∗min–1*m–2, respectively. The 95% confidence interval for the LOA was ± 0.26 l∗min–1*m–2, the percentage error 83.6%. We observed concordant changes in CO with MG and PiCCO® in 50% of the measurements after a fluid challenge and over the course of 6 h. Cardiac output calculation with a novel oscillometry-based pulse wave analysis method is feasible and replicable in critically ill patients. However, we did not find clinically applicable agreement between MG and thermodilution or calibrated pulse wave analysis, respectively, assessed with established evaluation routine using the Bland–Altman approach and with trending analysis methods. In summary, we do not recommend the use of this method in critically ill patients at this time. As the basic approach is promising and the CO determination with MG very simple to perform, further studies should be undertaken both in hemodynamically stable patients, and in the critical care setting to allow additional adjustments of the underlying algorithm for CO estimation with MG.

scholarly journals The use of an external ultrasound fixator (Probefix) on intensive care patients: a feasibility study

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Blans ◽  
F. H. Bosch ◽  
J. G. van der Hoeven
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Output ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Dynamic Parameters ◽  
Fixed Position ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Non Invasive ◽  
Accuracy Of Measurements ◽  
Before And After

Abstract Background In critical care medicine, the use of transthoracic echo (TTE) is expanding. TTE can be used to measure dynamic parameters such as cardiac output (CO). An important asset of TTE is that it is a non-invasive technique. The Probefix is an external ultrasound holder strapped to the patient which makes it possible to measure CO using TTE in a fixed position possibly making the CO measurements more accurate compared to separate TTE CO measurements. The feasibility of the use of the Probefix to measure CO before and after a passive leg raising test (PLR) was studied. Intensive care patients were included after detection of hypovolemia using Flotrac. Endpoints were the possibility to use Probefix. Also CO measurements with and without the use of Probefix, before and after a PLR were compared to the CO measurements using Flotrac. Side effects in terms of skin alterations after the use of Probefix and patient’s comments on (dis)comfort were evaluated. Results Ten patients were included; in eight patients, sufficient recordings with the use of Probefix could be obtained. Using Bland–Altman plots, no difference was found in accuracy of measurements of CO with or without the use of Probefix before and after a PLR compared to Flotrac generated CO. There were only mild and temporary skin effects of the use of Probefix. Conclusions In this small feasibility study, the Probefix could be used in eight out of ten intensive care patients. The use of Probefix did not result in more or less accurate CO measurements compared to manually recorded TTE CO measurements. We suggest that larger studies on the use of Probefix in intensive care patients are needed.

scholarly journals Outcomes of non-COVID-19 critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Răzvan Bologheanu ◽  
Mathias Maleczek ◽  
Daniel Laxar ◽  
Oliver Kimberger
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Icu Length Of Stay ◽  
Matched Study ◽  
The Impact

Summary Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupts routine care and alters treatment pathways in every medical specialty, including intensive care medicine, which has been at the core of the pandemic response. The impact of the pandemic is inevitably not limited to patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and their outcomes; however, the impact of COVID-19 on intensive care has not yet been analyzed. Methods The objective of this propensity score-matched study was to compare the clinical outcomes of non-COVID-19 critically ill patients with the outcomes of prepandemic patients. Critically ill, non-COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the first wave of the pandemic were matched with patients admitted in the previous year. Mortality, length of stay, and rate of readmission were compared between the two groups after matching. Results A total of 211 critically ill SARS-CoV‑2 negative patients admitted between 13 March 2020 and 16 May 2020 were matched to 211 controls, selected from a matching pool of 1421 eligible patients admitted to the ICU in 2019. After matching, the outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups: ICU mortality was 5.2% in 2019 and 8.5% in 2020, p = 0.248, while intrahospital mortality was 10.9% in 2019 and 14.2% in 2020, p = 0.378. The median ICU length of stay was similar in 2019: 4 days (IQR 2–6) compared to 2020: 4 days (IQR 2–7), p = 0.196. The rate of ICU readmission was 15.6% in 2019 and 10.9% in 2020, p = 0.344. Conclusion In this retrospective single center study, mortality, ICU length of stay, and rate of ICU readmission did not differ significantly between patients admitted to the ICU during the implementation of hospital-wide COVID-19 contingency planning and patients admitted to the ICU before the pandemic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document