https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9614-2788
Figures
Abstract
The benefits of introducing a systematic lung-protective protocol for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring invasive ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are unknown. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effects of introducing such a protocol in terms of mortality, duration of ventilation, and length of ICU stay. In this single-centre, retrospective, quality comparison study, we identified patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation in our ICU between February 2020 and October 2021. We established a systematic lung-protective protocol for the pre-introduction group until March 2021 and the post-introduction group after April 2021. Patients who did not receive invasive ventilation and who underwent veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a referring hospital were excluded. We collected patient characteristics at the time of ICU admission, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, and Murray score. The study outcomes were ICU mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of ventilation. The pre-introduction and post-introduction groups included 18 and 50 patients, respectively. No significant differences were observed in sex, BMI, SOFA score, APACHE II score, and Murray score; however, age was lower in the post-introduction group (70 vs. 56, P = 0.003). The introduction of this protocol did not improve ICU mortality. However, it reduced the ICU length of stay (26 days vs. 11 days, P = 0.003) and tended to shorten the duration of ventilation (15 days vs. 10 days, P = 0.06). The introduction of the protocol was associated with a decrease in the length of ICU stay and duration of ventilation; however, it did not change mortality. The application of the protocol could improve the security of medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further prospective multicentre studies are needed.
Citation: Takahashi Y, Utsumi S, Fujizuka K, Suzuki H, Ushio N, Amemiya Y, et al. (2023) Effect of a systematic lung-protective protocol for COVID-19 pneumonia requiring invasive ventilation: A single center retrospective study. PLoS ONE 18(1): e0267339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267339
Editor: Antonio Solimando, Bari University Aldo Moro, ITALY
Received: April 5, 2022; Accepted: December 27, 2022; Published: January 12, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Takahashi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The dataset includes basic information on COVID-19 patients admitted to our ICU, underlying diseases, respiratory parameters, treatment, and outcomes. Since the name of the hospital is also published, it may be possible to identify the patient from the data set. From an ethical standpoint, the information was made available only when there was a reasonable cause. The data are not owned by a third party. Data are available from Maebashi Red Cross Hospital, Gunma, Japan (Tel: 027-265-3333, FAX: 027-225-5250) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests: No financial or non-financial benefits have been received or will be received from any party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.
Introduction
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic that has spread at an overwhelming rate and has caused many deaths [1]. The severity of COVID-19 pneumonia varies, and most cases are mild and non-fatal [2, 3]. However, the most severe cases requiring invasive ventilation, which we called severe COVID-19 pneumonia, meet the criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and have a high fatality rate [4]. Since these patients require intensive care, each country needs to secure intensive care unit (ICU) resources and investigate effective treatments [5].
Severe COVID-19 pneumonia has been found to share many similarities with ARDS in terms of respiratory mechanics [6]. Therefore, lung-protective strategies, such as lung-protective ventilation with continuous intravenous infusion of a neuromuscular blocking agent, early application of prone positioning, and prolonged prone positioning, could be effective not only for patients with ARDS but also for those with severe COVID-19 pneumonia [7–10]. However, these measures have not been fully implemented. There is a need for the implementation of such measures in clinical practice [11].
We anticipated that it would be valuable to establish a systematic protocol for severe COVID-19 pneumonia and therefore implement a lung-protective strategy. The benefits of introducing a protocol for severe COVID-19 pneumonia remain unknown.
The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical effects of a systematic lung-protective protocol for COVID-19 pneumonia in terms of mortality, duration of ventilation, and length of ICU stay.
Methods
Study setting
This was a single-centre, retrospective, quality comparison study conducted at Maebashi Red Cross Hospital. The study period was from February 2020 to October 2021, with the pre-introduction group until March 2021, and the post-introduction group after April 2021. Our study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Maebashi Red Cross Hospital (ID: 2021–51), which waived the requirement for informed consent from patients and their relatives, given the retrospective and observational nature of the study. Our study is reported in accordance with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (S1 Table).
Population/patients
Patients over 18 years of age with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to our ICU were screened. The exclusion criteria were the following: 1) patients who did not receive invasive ventilation, 2) patients who had contraindications for prone positioning (S2 Table), 3) and those who underwent veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) in a referring hospital.
Intervention/indicators
The systematic lung-protective protocol was introduced in patients requiring ventilator management with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to our ICU from April 2021 to October 2021.
Firstly, after ICU admission, all patients were introduced to a high-flow nasal cannula, and oxygenation, respiratory acidosis, and respiratory effort were assessed.
The criteria for intubation were as follows: Patients met one of the conditions PaO2/FIO2 <150 mmHg [12], respiratory acidosis with pH<7.30, or excessive respiratory efforts.
Secondly, patients were placed in prone positioning with lung-protective ventilation and administered continuous intravenous infusion of rocuronium, a neuromuscular blocking agent, promptly after intubation. The target parameters of lung-protective ventilation were as follows: (i) tidal ventilation volume at 6 mL/ predicted body weight [13], (ii) driving pressure <15 cm H2O [14], and (iii) plateau airway pressure <30 cm H2O [15]. In addition, the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was determined according to the lower PEEP/higher FIO2 table proposed by the ARDS Clinical Trials Network [16]. The targets of prone positioning were as follows: (i) early prone positioning: the application of prone positioning within 36 h after intubation, and (ii) prolonged prone positioning: average duration being at least 16 h per session [7].
Thirdly, prone positioning was discontinued when PaO2/ FIO2 >200 mmHg could be maintained for more than 4 h in the supine position. It was discontinued using a neuromuscular blocking agent simultaneously when prone positioning was completed.
Even if PaO2/ FIO2>200 mmHg could not be achieved, the continuation of prone positioning was limited to 96 h after intubation, at which point the need for V-V ECMO was discussed [17].
Fourthly, patients were slowly weaned off the respiratory setting by adjusting the respiratory setting and sedatives and if necessary, using a neuromuscular blocking agent for respiratory effort and ventilation asynchrony.
Finally, the protocol was withdrawn if they met the criteria for the initiation of spontaneous awakening test and spontaneous breathing test [18]. In addition, the protocol was terminated when V-V ECMO was introduced (Fig 1).
MAEBASHI COVID-19 PROTOCOL (included the lung-protective strategy): Lung-protective ventilation with neuromuscular blocking agents, early application of prone positioning, and prolonged prone positioning. Abbreviations: P/F = PaO2/FIO2; PBW = predicted body weight; Vt = Tidal Volume (mL); Pplat = plateau airway pressure; NMBA = neuromuscular blocking agent; V-V ECMO = veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; SAT = spontaneous awakening test; SBT = spontaneous breathing test.
Drug therapy during the protocol is shown separately in S3 Table.
Comparison/control
The control group comprised patients requiring ventilator management with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to our ICU from February 2020 to March 2021 prior to the introduction of the protocol.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome was mortality in the ICU. The secondary outcomes were duration of ventilation and length of stay in the ICU.
Ventilation duration was defined as the absence of reintubation or the use of non-invasive ventilation within 48 h of extubation. For patients with tracheostomy, we defined weaning from the ventilator as the ability to breathe without assistance from a tracheostomy cannula for more than 24 h [7].
Data collection
We collected data as follows: (i) patient characteristics at the time of ICU admission included the following: age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, Murray score [19]; (ii) medications received during ICU stay; (iii) availability of treatment with V-V ECMO; (iv) ventilator parameters within two days after ICU admission (tidal ventilation volume/predicted body weight, driving pressure, plateau airway pressure, positive end-expiratory pressure), induction time and average duration time of prone positioning, and presence of complications associated with prone positioning; (v) the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) as defined in previous literature [20].
These data were collected retrospectively from electronic medical records.
Statistical analysis
Distributed continuous variables without a normal distribution were presented as median and interquartile range. Categorical data were summarised as numbers or percentages. For univariate analysis, the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables were used for comparison. For multivariate analysis, if the residues did not follow a normal distribution, they were log-transformed and subjected to multiple regression analysis, adjusting for significant covariates at baseline. Data were assumed to be missing at random, with no imputation or interpolation of the missing values.
Statistical tests were two-tailed, and statistical significance was set at p<0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR [21], a graphical user interface for R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
Results
Baseline characteristics
A total of 96 patients were admitted to our ICU, and of these, 68 patients who received invasive ventilation were eligible for our study (Fig 2). Eighteen patients were included in the pre-introduction group, and 50 patients were included in the post-introduction group.
We identified 96 patients over 18-years-old with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in our intensive care unit (ICU); 26 patients did not receive invasive ventilation, and 2 patients who underwent veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a referring hospital were excluded. A total of 68 patients were included in the analysis, with 18 in the pre-introduction group and 50 in the post-introduction group.
Table 1 shows the patients characteristics.
There were no significant differences between the groups in sex, body mass index, SOFA score, APACHE II score, or Murray score; however, age was lower in the post-introduction group (70 vs. 56, P = 0.003). The type of antiviral drug used changed over time in the two groups, while the use of corticosteroids was not different. The incidence of VAP was not different between the two groups (OR, 0.64; 95% Cl, 0.18–2.16), although the use of antibiotics was higher in the post-introduction group (P<0.001). The rate of V-V ECMO significantly reduced from 33% to 2% in the post-introduction group (OR, 0.04; 95% Cl, 0.01–0.41).
Lung-protective strategy
Table 2 shows the parameters of ventilation, prone positioning, and complications associated with prone positioning.
The parameters of lung-protective ventilation did not differ between the two groups. The achievement of early prone positioning increased from 56% to 98% in the post-introduction group, and the average duration of prone positioning significantly increased from 15 h to 18 h in the post-introduction group (P = 0.007). Although the duration of prone positioning increased, there was no increase in the number of complications in the post-introduction group.
Primary and secondary outcomes
The results of outcomes are shown in Table 3.
The mortality rate in the ICU showed a decreasing trend from 17% to 4%; however, it did not show statistical significance (OR, 0.21; 95% Cl, 0.01–2.05).
The duration of ventilation was reduced from 15 days to 10 days, with statistical significance in the univariate analysis; however, it did not remain statistically significant after adjusting for age, sex, and SOFA score (S4 Table).
The length of stay in the ICU was reduced from 33 to 11 days, with statistical significance. Even after adjusting for age, sex, and SOFA score, the differences remained statistically significant (P = 0.003, S5 Table).
Discussion
Overview
The introduction of the protocol for COVID-19 pneumonia requiring invasive ventilation did not improve mortality in the ICU; however, it reduced the length of ICU stay and tended to shorten the duration of ventilation.
Mortality
In our study, mortality at the ICU did not improve by introducing the protocol.
This may be because the rate of V-V ECMO tended to be higher in the pre-introduction group. The results of V-V ECMO treatments for COVID-19 pneumonia have been good, according to a report by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization [22]. The high rate of V-V ECMO could have positively affected mortality in the pre-introduction group. However, it is important to note that despite the lack of difference in severity between the two groups, the rate of V-V ECMO was reduced by introducing the protocol, and ICU mortality was not worse in the post-introduction group.
In addition, ICU mortality tended to be lower in our hospital than reported in previous studies. For example, the overall mortality of 7% in the ICU in our cohort was lower compared with 38% reported in the PRoVENT-COVID cohort (Table 3) [23]. The small number of death events may have contributed to the lack of statistically significant differences.
Therefore, it is important that the introduction of the protocol did not worsen mortality with no increase in V-V ECMO initiation.
Length of ICU stay and duration of ventilation
The protocol reduced the length of ICU stay and ventilation duration.
In our study, despite no difference in the rate of achievement of lung-protective ventilation in the two groups, the achievement of early applied prone positioning and the duration of prone positioning increased significantly, suggesting that these approaches could be effective. In the PROSEVA study, the achievement of early prone positioning and the duration of prone positioning reduced the length of stay in the ICU and duration of ventilation [7]. Therefore, the results of our study are consistent with those of the PROSEVA study. As a result, the introduction of the protocol could comply with these approaches, contributing to an improvement in the length of stay in the ICU and the duration of ventilation.
Stratification of patients in whom the protocol was effective
Mortality rates may differ depending on the responsiveness of the PaO2/ FIO2 ratio after prone positioning [24]. In a previous study, patients whose PaO2/ FIO2 ratio increased by 20 mmHg or more after prone positioning had a lower mortality rate than those whose ratio changed by less than 20 mmHg (38% vs. 65%, p = 0.039) [24].
However, our study did not examine the assessment of respiratory status before and after prone positioning, and stratification may alter the validity of the protocol.
Adverse events associated with the protocol
There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to adverse events associated with prone positioning in our study, as well as in the PROSEVA study [7]. The low incidence of adverse events could be related to the fact that our hospital and the facilities that participated in PROSEVA study were familiar with the management of severe respiratory failure. No other protocol-related adverse events were found.
Limitation
In addition to our study design being single-centred and retrospective, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mutation, prevalence and susceptible age of COVID-19, and drug treatment strategy for COVID-19 pneumonia changed significantly before and after the introduction of the protocol. These could have influenced the results, and the number of cases was not sufficient to adequately adjust for the confounding factors.
Despite these limitations, during a pandemic, this protocol could contribute to securing medical resources by reducing the length of ICU stay and duration of ventilation.
With no increasing adverse events, this protocol could be generalised since it does not require special drugs or equipment but only prone positioning.
Conclusions
The introduction of the protocol for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who required invasive ventilation was associated with improved length of stay in the ICU and duration of ventilation; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the protocol could contribute to the efficient use of medical resources during the pandemic through adherence to lung protection strategies. Further investigation regarding the efficacy of the protocol using a multicentre prospective study is required.
Supporting information
S1 Table. STROBE statement—Checklist of items that should be included in reports of cohort studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267339.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Contraindication for prone positioning.
a. Intracranial pressure >30 mmHg or cerebral perfusion pressure <60 mmHg. b. Massive haemoptysis requiring an immediate surgical or interventional radiology procedure. c. Tracheal surgery or sternotomy during the previous 15 days. d. Serious facial trauma or facial surgery during the previous 15 days. e. Deep venous thrombosis treated for less than 2 days. f. Cardiac pacemaker inserted in the last 2 days. g. Unstable spine, femur, or pelvic fractures. h. Mean arterial pressure lower than 65 mmHg. i. Pregnant women. j. Single anterior chest tube with air leaks.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267339.s002
(PPTX)
S3 Table. Drug administration strategy in the study protocol.
Medications for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia were as follows: (i) Immune-based agent: We administered dexamethasone, dose was 0.15 mg/kg, and the duration of administration was from 7 days to 10 days [25]. (ii) Antiviral agent: Remdesivir was administered at a dose of 200 mg on the first day and 100 mg thereafter; the duration of administration was from 7 days to 10 days [26]. (iii) Thromboprophylaxis agent: We administered subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin 10,000 units until the patients could move automatically [27]. In addition, as a preventative antibiotic for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), we chose tazobactam-piperacillin based on previous reports regarding the frequency of VAP occurrence due to the causative bacteria and used it until the patient was extubated [20].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267339.s003
(PPTX)
S4 Table. Multiple linear regression analysis of duration of ventilation.
The multivariable analysis was conducted with age, sex, and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA): these are considered risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The duration of ventilation was log-transformed before the multivariate analysis. The pre-introduction group included 17, and the post-introduction group included 50 patients.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267339.s004
(PPTX)
S5 Table. Multiple linear regression analysis of length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay.
The multivariable analysis was conducted with age, sex, and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA): these are considered risk factors for severe severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The length of ICU stay was log-transformed before the multivariate analysis. The pre-introduction group included 18 patients, and the post-introduction group included 50 patients.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267339.s005
(PPTX)
References
- 1. Berlin DA, Gulick RM, Martinez FJ. Severe Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383: 2451–2460. pmid:32412710
- 2. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72,314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020;323: 1239–1242. pmid:32091533
- 3. Giuseppe L, Anna DT, Assunta S, Antonio GS, Federica A, Martina C, et al. J Clin Med. 2021;10: 2920. pmid:34209964
- 4. Gibson PG, Qin L, Puah SH. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS): clinical features and differences from typical pre-COVID-19 ARDS. Med J Aust. 2020;213: 54–56.e1. pmid:32572965
- 5. Litton E, Bucci T, Chavan S, Ho YY, Holley A, Howard G, et al. Surge capacity of intensive care units in case of acute increase in demand caused by COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212: 463–467. pmid:32306408
- 6. Fan E, Beitler JR, Brochard L, Calfee CS, Ferguson ND, Slutsky AS, et al. COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: is a different approach to management warranted? Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8: 816–821. pmid:32645311
- 7. Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368: 2159–2168. pmid:23688302
- 8. Papazian L, Forel JM, Gacouin A, Penot-Ragon C, Perrin G, Loundou A, et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010;363: 1107–1116. pmid:20843245
- 9. Shelhamer MC, Wesson PD, Solari IL, Jensen DL, Steele WA, Dimitrov VG, et al. Prone positioning in moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19: A cohort study and analysis of physiology. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36: 241–252. pmid:33380236
- 10. Mathews KS, Soh H, Shaefi S, Wang W, Bose S, Coca S, et al. Prone positioning and survival in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus Disease 2019-related respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2021;49: 1026–1037. pmid:33595960
- 11. Giacomo B, John GL, Tài P, Eddy F, Laurent B, Andres E, et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA. 2016;315: 788–800. pmid:26903337
- 12. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, Madotto F, Fan E, Brochard L, et al. Noninvasive ventilation of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: insights from the LUNG SAFE study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195: 67–77. pmid:27753501
- 13. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, Brower RG, Matthay MA, Morris A, Schoenfeld D, Thompson BT, et al. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2000;342: 1301–1308. pmid:10793162
- 14. Amato MBP, Meade MO, Slutsky AS, Brochard L, Costa ELV, Schoenfeld DA, et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2015;372: 747–755. pmid:25693014
- 15. Marini JJ, Gattinoni L. Management of COVID-19 respiratory distress. JAMA. 2020;323: 2329–2330. pmid:32329799
- 16. Brower RG, Lanken PN, MacIntyre N, Matthay MA, Morris A, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressures in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2004;351: 327–336. pmid:15269312
- 17. Bartlett RH, Ogino MT, Brodie D, McMullan DM, Lorusso R, Maclaren G, et al. Initial ELSO guidance document: ECMO for COVID-19 patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure. ASAIO J. 2020;66: 472–474. pmid:32243267
- 18. Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, Thomason JW, Schweickert WD, Pun BT, et al. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371: 126–134. pmid:18191684
- 19. D’Negri CE, de Vito EL. Making it possible to measure knowledge, experience and intuition in diagnosing lung injury severity: a fuzzy logic vision based on the Murray score. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10: 70. pmid:21050478
- 20. Rouzé A, Martin-Loeches I, Povoa P, Makris D, Artigas A, Bouchereau M, et al. Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: a European multicenter cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47: 188–198. pmid:33388794
- 21. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48: 452–458. pmid:23208313
- 22. Barbaro RP, MacLaren G, Boonstra PS, Iwashyna TJ, Slutsky AS, Fan E, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19: an international cohort study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. Lancet. 2020;396: 1071–1078. pmid:32987008
- 23. Botta M, Tsonas AM, Pillay J, Boers LS, Algera AG, Bos LDJ, et al. Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9: 139–148. pmid:33169671
- 24. Langer T, Brioni M, Guzzardella A, Carlesso E, Cabrini L, Castelli G, et al. Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients. Critical Care. 2021;25. pmid:33823862
- 25. Group SJAC, Murthy S, Diaz JV, Slutsky AS, Villar J, et al. Association between administration of systemic corticosteroids and mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19: A meta-analysis. WHO rapid evidence appraisal for COVID-19 therapies (REACT) working. JAMA. 2020;324: 1330–1341. pmid:32876694
- 26. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, Mehta AK, Zingman BS, Kalil AC, et al. Remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19—final report. N Engl J Med. 2020;383: 1813–1826. pmid:32445440
- 27. REMAP-CAP Investigators; ACTIV-4a Investigators; ATTACC Investigators; Ewan CG, Charlotte AB, Bryan JM, et al. Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2021;385: 777–789. pmid:34351722