English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Abstract   Background  The COVID‐19 pandemic has greatly increased the incidence and clinical importance of critical illness myopathy (CIM), because it is one of the most common complications of modern intensive care medicine. Current diagnostic criteria only allow diagnosis of CIM at an advanced stage, so that patients are at risk of being overlooked, especially in early stages. To determine the frequency of CIM and to assess a recently proposed tool for early diagnosis, we have followed a cohort of COVID‐19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and compared the time course of muscle excitability measurements with the  definite  diagnosis of CIM.    Methods  Adult COVID‐19 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland requiring mechanical ventilation were recruited and examined on Days 1, 2, 5, and 10 post‐intubation. Clinical examination, muscle excitability measurements, medication record, and laboratory analyses were performed on all study visits, and additionally nerve conduction studies, electromyography and muscle biopsy on Day 10. Muscle excitability data were compared with a cohort of 31 age‐matched healthy subjects. Diagnosis of  definite  CIM was made according to the current guidelines and was based on patient history, results of clinical and electrophysiological examinations as well as muscle biopsy.    Results  Complete data were available in 31 out of 44 recruited patients (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [9.8] years). Of these, 17 (55%) developed CIM. Muscle excitability measurements on Day 10 discriminated between patients who developed CIM and those who did not, with a diagnostic precision of 90% (AUC 0.908; 95% CI 0.799–1.000; sensitivity 1.000; specificity 0.714). On Days 1 and 2, muscle excitability parameters also discriminated between the two groups with 73% (AUC 0.734; 95% CI 0.550–0.919; sensitivity 0.562; specificity 0.857) and 82% (AUC 0.820; CI 0.652–0.903; sensitivity 0.750; specificity 0.923) diagnostic precision, respectively. All critically ill COVID‐19 patients showed signs of muscle membrane depolarization compared with healthy subjects, but in patients who developed CIM muscle membrane depolarization on Days 1, 2 and 10 was more pronounced than in patients who did not develop CIM.    Conclusions  This study reports a 55% prevalence of  definite  CIM in critically ill COVID‐19 patients. Furthermore, the results confirm that muscle excitability measurements may serve as an alternative method for CIM diagnosis and support its use as a tool for early diagnosis and monitoring the development of CIM.

Development and early diagnosis of critical illness myopathy in COVID‐19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome