Introduction: Besides dyspnoea and cough, patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or sarcoidosis may experience distressing non-respiratory symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle weakness. However, whether and to what extent symptom burden differs between patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and individuals without respiratory disease remains currently unknown. Objectives: To study the respiratory and non-respiratory burden of multiple symptoms in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and to compare the symptom burden with individuals without impaired spirometric values, FVC and FEV1 (controls). Methods: Demographics and symptoms were assessed in 59 patients with IPF, 60 patients with sarcoidosis and 118 controls (age ≥18 years). Patients with either condition were matched to controls by sex and age. Severity of 14 symptoms was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale. Results: 44 patients with IPF (77.3% male; age 70.6±5.5 years) and 44 matched controls, and 45 patients with sarcoidosis (48.9% male; age 58.1±8.6 year) and 45 matched controls were analyzed. Patients with IPF scored higher on 11 symptoms compared to controls (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, cough, fatigue, muscle weakness and insomnia. Patients with sarcoidosis scored higher on all 14 symptoms (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, fatigue, cough, muscle weakness, insomnia, pain, itch, thirst, micturition (night, day). Conclusions: Generally, respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden is significantly higher in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis compared to controls. This emphasizes the importance of awareness for respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden in IPF or sarcoidosis and the need for additional research to study the underlying mechanisms and subsequent interventions.
BackgroundMechanical ventilation affects the respiratory muscles, but little is known about long-term recovery of respiratory muscle weakness (RMW) and potential associations with physical functioning in survivors of critical illness. The aim of this study was to investigate the course of recovery of RMW and its association with functional outcomes in patients who received mechanical ventilation.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study with 6-month follow-up among survivors of critical illness who received ≥ 48 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation. Primary outcomes, measured at 3 timepoints, were maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures (MIP/MEP). Secondary outcomes were functional exercise capacity (FEC) and handgrip strength (HGS). Longitudinal changes in outcomes and potential associations between MIP/MEP, predictor variables, and secondary outcomes were investigated through linear mixed model analysis.ResultsA total of 59 participants (male: 64%, median age [IQR]: 62 [53–66]) were included in this study with a median (IQR) ICU and hospital length of stay of 11 (8–21) and 35 (21–52) days respectively. While all measures were well below predicted values at hospital discharge (MIP: 68.4%, MEP 76.0%, HGS 73.3% of predicted and FEC 54.8 steps/2m), significant 6-month recovery was seen for all outcomes. Multivariate analyses showed longitudinal associations between older age and decreased MIP and FEC, and longer hospital length of stay and decreased MIP and HGS outcomes. In crude models, significant, longitudinal associations were found between MIP/MEP and FEC and HGS outcomes. While these associations remained in most adjusted models, an interaction effect was observed for sex.ConclusionRMW was observed directly after hospital discharge while 6-month recovery to predicted values was noted for all outcomes. Longitudinal associations were found between MIP and MEP and more commonly used measures for physical functioning, highlighting the need for continued assessment of respiratory muscle strength in deconditioned patients who are discharged from ICU. The potential of targeted training extending beyond ICU and hospital discharge should be further explored.
MULTIFILE
Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6–12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.
