Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Myocardial injury and cardiovascular complications in COVID-19: a cohort study in severe and critical patients

OBJECTIVE

To characterize myocardial injury and cardiovascular complications and their predictors in severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit.

METHODS

This was an observational cohort study of severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Myocardial injury was defined as blood levels of cardiac troponin above the 99th percentile upper reference limit. Cardiovascular events considered were the composite of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, myocardial infarction, acute limb ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, heart failure and arrhythmia. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression or Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine predictors of myocardial injury.

RESULTS

Of 567 patients with severe and critical COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, 273 (48.1%) had myocardial injury. Of the 374 patients with critical COVID-19, 86.1% had myocardial injury, and also showed more organ dysfunction and higher 28-day mortality (56.6% versus 27.1%, p < 0.001). Advanced age, arterial hypertension and immune modulator use were predictors of myocardial injury. Cardiovascular complications occurred in 19.9% of patients with severe and critical COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, with most events occurring in patients with myocardial injury (28.2% versus 12.2%, p < 0.001). The occurrence of an early cardiovascular event during intensive care unit stay was associated with higher 28-day mortality compared with late or no events (57.1% versus 34% versus 41.8%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Myocardial injury and cardiovascular complications were commonly found in patients with severe and critical forms of COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, and both were associated with increased mortality in these patients.

Level of Diffusion and Training of Lung Ultrasound during the COVID-19 Pandemic - A National Online Italian Survey (ITALUS) from the Lung Ultrasound Working Group of the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care (SIAARTI)

PURPOSE

 The goal of this survey was to describe the use and diffusion of lung ultrasound (LUS), the level of training received before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the clinical impact LUS has had on COVID-19 cases in intensive care units (ICU) from February 2020 to May 2020.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 The Italian Lung Ultrasound Survey (ITALUS) was a nationwide online survey proposed to Italian anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians carried out after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It consisted of 27 questions, both quantitative and qualitative.

RESULTS

 807 responded to the survey. The median previous LUS experience was 3 years (IQR 1.0-6.0). 473 (60.9 %) reported having attended at least one training course on LUS before the COVID-19 pandemic. 519 (73.9 %) reported knowing how to use the LUS score. 404 (52 %) reported being able to use LUS without any supervision. 479 (68.2 %) said that LUS influenced their clinical decision-making, mostly with respect to patient monitoring. During the pandemic, the median of patients daily evaluated with LUS increased 3-fold (p < 0.001), daily use of general LUS increased from 10.4 % to 28.9 % (p < 0.001), and the daily use of LUS score in particular increased from 1.6 % to 9.0 % (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

 This survey showed that LUS was already extensively used during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic by anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians in Italy, and then its adoption increased further. Residency programs are already progressively implementing LUS teaching. However, 76.7 % of the sample did not undertake any LUS certification.

Restrictive fluids versus standard care in adults with sepsis in the emergency department (REFACED): A multicenter, randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Fluid treatment in sepsis is a challenge and clinical equipoise exists regarding intravenous (IV) volumes. We aimed to determine whether a 24-h protocol restricting IV fluid was feasible in adult patients with sepsis without shock presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The REFACED Sepsis trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label, feasibility trial, assigning sepsis patients without shock to 24 h of restrictive, crystal IV fluid administration or standard care. In the IV fluid restriction group fluid boluses were only permitted if predefined criteria for hypoperfusion occurred. Standard care was at the discretion of the treating team. The primary outcome was total IV crystalloid fluid volumes at 24 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included total fluid volumes, feasibility measures, and patient-centered outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 123 patients (restrictive 61 patients and standard care 62 patients) in the primary analysis. A total of 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28%-37%) of eligible patients meeting all inclusion criteria and no exclusion criteria were included. At 24 h, the mean (±SD) IV crystalloid fluid volumes were 562 (±1076) ml versus 1370 (±1438) ml in the restrictive versus standard care group (mean difference -801 ml, 95% CI -1257 to -345 ml, p = 0.001). Protocol violations occurred in 21 (34%) patients in the fluid-restrictive group. There were no differences between groups in adverse events, use of mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, acute kidney failure, length of stay, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

A protocol restricting IV crystalloid fluids in ED patients with sepsis reduced 24-h fluid volumes compared to standard care. A future trial powered toward patient-centered outcomes appears feasible.

Dual Role of Extracellular Vesicles in Sepsis-Associated Kidney and Lung Injury

Extracellular vesicles form a complex intercellular communication network, shuttling a variety of proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids, including regulatory RNAs, such as microRNAs. Transfer of these molecules to target cells allows for the modulation of sets of genes and mediates multiple paracrine and endocrine actions. EVs exert broad pro-inflammatory, pro-oxidant, and pro-apoptotic effects in sepsis, mediating microvascular dysfunction and multiple organ damage. This deleterious role is well documented in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. On the other hand, protective effects of stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles have been reported in experimental models of sepsis. Stem cell-derived extracellular vesicles recapitulate beneficial cytoprotective, regenerative, and immunomodulatory properties of parental cells and have shown therapeutic effects in experimental models of sepsis with kidney and lung involvement. Extracellular vesicles are also likely to play a role in deranged kidney-lung crosstalk, a hallmark of sepsis, and may be key to a better understanding of shared mechanisms underlying multiple organ dysfunction. In this review, we analyze the state-of-the-art knowledge on the dual role of EVs in sepsis-associated kidney/lung injury and repair. PubMed library was searched from inception to July 2022, using a combination of medical subject headings (MeSH) and keywords related to EVs, sepsis, acute kidney injury (AKI), acute lung injury (ALI), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Key findings are summarized into two sections on detrimental and beneficial mechanisms of actions of EVs in kidney and lung injury, respectively. The role of EVs in kidney-lung crosstalk is then outlined. Efforts to expand knowledge on EVs may pave the way to employ them as prognostic biomarkers or therapeutic targets to prevent or reduce organ damage in sepsis.

Assisting individuals with diabetes in the COVID-19 pandemic period: Examining the role of religious factors and faith communities

With the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, diabetes management has become more challenging than it has ever been. Studies on the management of diabetes during this time are required. Unfortunately, the lack of information on the potential role of religious factors and faith communities in diabetes management during the COVID-19 era prevents us from fully understanding the issue of diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic period. People with chronic conditions such as diabetes may benefit from some form of religious support from faith communities and their ability to cope could be fostered by some religious factors. It is unclear how religious factors and faith communities contribute to diabetes management. In this article, the authors examine how people with diabetes can be aided in the COVID-19 pandemic period from the perspective of religious factors and faith communities. Based on the studies identified, it appears that religious factors and faith communities play an important role in managing diabetes among patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy During Pregnancy and COVID-19: A Case Study

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is emerging as a vital resource for survival of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19. Although recent research provides much insight into the advantages of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in this patient population, little has been published on its use in pregnancy. This case study describes the use of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a young pregnant woman with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19. It illustrates the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach to this treatment modality, allowing time for a fetus to become viable while preserving the life of the mother. In this case, the mother was able to return home after receiving this therapy and resume normal activities of daily living independently.

Effect of EARLY administration of DEXamethasone in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and risk of development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (EARLY-DEX COVID-19): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Corticosteroids are one of the few drugs that have shown a reduction in mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the RECOVERY trial, the use of dexamethasone reduced 28-day mortality compared to standard care in hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or invasive mechanical ventilation. Evidence has shown that 30% of COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms at presentation will progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), particularly patients in whom laboratory inflammatory biomarkers associated with COVID-19 disease progression are detected. We postulated that dexamethasone treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without additional oxygen requirements and at risk of progressing to severe disease might lead to a decrease in the development of ARDS and thereby reduce death.

Methods/design

This is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel, open-label trial testing dexamethasone in 252 adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who do not require supplementary oxygen on admission but are at risk factors for the development of ARDS. Risk for the development of ARDS is defined as levels of lactate dehydrogenase > 245 U/L, C-reactive protein > 100 mg/L, and lymphocyte count of < 0.80 × 10⁹/L. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either dexamethasone or standard of care. Patients in the dexamethasone group will receive a dose of 6 mg once daily during 7 days. The primary outcome is a composite of the development of moderate or more severe ARDS and all-cause mortality during the 30-day period following enrolment.

Discussion

If our hypothesis is correct, the results of this study will provide additional insights into the management and progression of this specific subpopulation of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia without additional oxygen requirements and at risk of progressing to severe disease.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04836780. Registered on 8 April 2021 as EARLY-DEX COVID-19.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06722-x.

Expanding current guidelines for management of COVID-19 focusing on low- and middle-income countries

Within a short time, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic spreading at a speed and scale that has been able to overwhelm even the most advanced health care systems quickly. Multiple guidelines published by organizations such as the WHO and US' CDC address the response to COVID-19 at the international, national, and local levels. Although these guidelines are meant to be globally accessible, implementing them is a challenge given the variability in the health care systems worldwide between low- and middleincome countries (LMIC) and high-income countries and even amongst different regions within each LMIC. We have chosen to evaluate the current guidelines focusing on LMIC and expand on the guidelines as necessary.

Microbiological and Clinical Findings of SARS-CoV-2 Infection after 2 Years of Pandemic: From Lung to Gut Microbiota

Early recognition and prompt management are crucial for improving survival in COVID-19 patients, and after 2 years of the pandemic, many efforts have been made to obtain an early diagnosis. A key factor is the use of fast microbiological techniques, considering also that COVID-19 patients may show no peculiar signs and symptoms that may differentiate COVID-19 from other infective or non-infective diseases. These techniques were developed to promptly identify SARS-CoV-2 infection and to prevent viral spread and transmission. However, recent data about clinical, radiological and laboratory features of COVID-19 at time of hospitalization could help physicians in early suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection and distinguishing it from other etiologies. The knowledge of clinical features and microbiological techniques will be crucial in the next years when the endemic circulation of SARS-CoV-2 will be probably associated with clusters of infection. In this review we provide a state of the art about new advances in microbiological and clinical findings of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalized patients with a focus on pulmonary and extrapulmonary characteristics, including the role of gut microbiota.

Predictors of Respiratory Support Use in Emergency Department Patients With COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure

BACKGROUND

Given the known downstream implications of choice of respiratory support on patient outcomes, all factors influencing these decisions, even those not limited to the patient, warrant close consideration. We examined the effect of emergency department (ED)-specific system factors, such as work load and census, on the use of noninvasive versus invasive respiratory support.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-center retrospective cohort study of all adult subjects with severe COVID-19 requiring an ICU admission from 5 EDs within a single urban health care system. Subject demographics, severity of illness, and the type of respiratory support used were obtained. Using continuous measures of ED census, boarding, and active management, we estimated ED work load for each subjects' ED stay. The subjects were categorized by type(s) of respiratory support used: low-flow oxygen, noninvasive respiratory support (eg, noninvasive ventilation [NIV] and/or high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]), invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation after trial of NIV/HFNC. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine system factors associated with the type of respiratory support used in the ED.

RESULTS

A total of 634 subjects were included. Of these, 431 (70.0%) were managed on low-flow oxygen alone, 108 (17.0%) on NIV/HFNC, 54 (8.5%) on invasive mechanical ventilation directly, and 41 (6.5%) on NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED. Higher severity of illness and underlying lung disease increased the odds of requiring invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 1.05 [95% CI 1.03-1.07] and odds ratio 3.47 [95% CI 1.37-8.78], respectively). Older age decreased odds of being on invasive mechanical ventilation compared to low-flow oxygen (odds ratio 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.99]). As ED work load increased, the odds for subjects to be managed initially with NIV/HFNC prior to invasive mechanical ventilation increased 6-8-fold.

CONCLUSIONS

High ED work load was associated with higher odds on HFNC/NIV prior to invasive mechanical ventilation.

Obesity and Coronavirus Disease 2019

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought severe challenges to global public health. Many studies have shown that obesity plays a vital role in the occurrence and development of COVID-19. Obesity exacerbates COVID-19, leading to increased intensive care unit hospitalization rate, high demand for invasive mechanical ventilation, and high mortality. The mechanisms of interaction between obesity and COVID-19 involve inflammation, immune response, changes in pulmonary dynamics, disruptions of receptor ligands, and dysfunction of endothelial cells. Therefore, for obese patients with COVID-19, the degree of obesity and related comorbidities should be evaluated. Treatment methods such as administration of anticoagulants and anti-inflammatory drugs like glucocorticoids and airway management should be actively initiated. We should also pay attention to long-term prognosis and vaccine immunity and actively address the physical and psychological problems caused by longterm staying-at-home during the pandemic. The present study summarized the research to investigate the role of obesity in the incidence and progression of COVID-19 and the psychosocial impact and treatment options for obese patients with COVID-19, to guide the understanding and management of the disease.

Intensive and Critical Care Nursing of a COVID-19 Patient in Turkey: A Case Study

BACKGROUND

A multidisciplinary approach is required to provide holistic care and treatment in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Being in the center of the multidisciplinary approach, nurses provide therapeutic, primary, and psychosocial care for the patients.

OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to diagnose according to the North American Nursing Diagnosis Associations by determining the care needs of a case who was diagnosed with COVID-19, planning interventions, and observing the results.

METHODS

This descriptive case study included a patient who applied to a university hospital located in Istanbul/Turkey between March and April 2020 because of COVID-19. As the inclusion criteria, only a positive result from a polymerase chain reaction test was accepted. The details of the patient presented in the study were obtained through face-to-face interviews and electronic medical records.

DISCUSSION

Specified care plans enable defining problems in practice for all needs of the individual and developing solution recommendations. It was observed that there were improvements and a decrease in symptom severity after the interventions were applied for the symptoms developing in the case. The execution of the treatment and care practices under quality and effective nursing care such as giving proper ventilatory support at the right time, giving prone position for a long time, and providing sufficient fluid resuscitation and an early and balanced diet contributed to the patient's discharge from the intensive care unit successfully without having any organ dysfunction. This presentation is expected to be a source for collaborative nursing care for other cases diagnosed with COVID-19 and intensive care indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing care interventions were applied for gas exchange, risk of decreased tissue perfusion, excess fluid volume, and constipation nursing diagnosis. It was observed that there were improvements and a decrease in symptom severity after the interventions were applied for the symptoms developing in the case. This presentation is expected to be a source for collaborative nursing care for other cases diagnosed with COVID-19 and intensive care indications.

COVID-19-Related ARDS: Key Mechanistic Features and Treatments

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous syndrome historically characterized by the presence of severe hypoxemia, high-permeability pulmonary edema manifesting as diffuse alveolar infiltrate on chest radiograph, and reduced compliance of the integrated respiratory system as a result of widespread compressive atelectasis and fluid-filled alveoli. Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is a novel etiology caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that may present with distinct clinical features as a result of the viral pathobiology unique to SARS-CoV-2. In particular, severe injury to the pulmonary vascular endothelium, accompanied by the presence of diffuse microthrombi in the pulmonary microcirculation, can lead to a clinical presentation in which the severity of impaired gas exchange becomes uncoupled from lung capacity and respiratory mechanics. The purpose of this review is to highlight the key mechanistic features of C-ARDS and to discuss the implications these features have on its treatment. In some patients with C-ARDS, rigid adherence to guidelines derived from clinical trials in the pre-COVID era may not be appropriate.

Effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality in COVID-19 patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis

The effect of corticosteroid therapy is still controversial on prevention of mortality in coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19). The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of corticosteroids on mortality. This systematic review was performed as per preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses guidelines. A systematic search was performed at different databases namely Medline/PubMed, Cochrane and Google scholar on 10 February 2022. A pooled estimate for effect of corticosteroid therapy on mortality was calculated as outcome of study. Risk bias analysis and Newcastle Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of randomized control trial (RCT) and cohort studies, respectively. Cochran's Q test and the I² statistic were conducted for heterogeneity and accordingly study model was applied. A total 43 studies were included, having sample size of 96,852 patients. Amongst them, 19,426 and 77,426 patients received corticosteroid therapy (intervention group) or standard treatment without corticosteroid (control group), respectively. Mortality observed in the intervention and control group was 14.2% (2749) and 7.1% (5459), respectively. The pooled estimate 2.173 (95% CI: 2.0690–2.2820) showed significantly increased mortality in intervention as compared to control. The pooled estimate of methyprednisolone 1.206 (95% CI: 1.0770–1.3500) showed significantly increased mortality while the pooled estimate of dexamethasone 1.040 (95% CI: 0.9459–1.1440) showed insignificantly increased mortality as compared to control. In conclusion, corticosteroid therapy produced a negative prognosis as depicted by increased mortality among COVID‐19 patients. The possible reasons might be delay in virus clearance and secondary infections due to corticosteroids initiated at high dose in the early stage of infection.

Airway Management of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19: Survey Results from Physicians from 19 Countries in Latin America

Airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic has been one of the most challenging aspects of care that anesthesiologists and intensivists face. This study was conducted to evaluate the management of tracheal intubation in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. This is a cross-sectional and international multicenter study based on a 37-item questionnaire. The survey was available to physicians who had performed intubations and tracheostomies in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and had provided informed consent to participate. The primary outcome is the preference to use a specific device for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes are clinical practice variables, use of video laryngoscopes, difficult airway management, and safety features to prevent cross-infection. This study included 2411 physicians who performed an average of 11.90 and 20.67 tracheal intubations in patients diagnosed or suspected of having COVID-19 disease, respectively. Physicians were mainly from the specialties of Anesthesiology (61.2%) and Intensive Care (7.4%). COVID-19 infection diagnosed by positive PCR or serology in physicians participating in intubation in this study was 15.1%. Respondents considered preoxygenation for more than three minutes very useful (75.7%). The preferred device for tracheal intubation was the video laryngoscope (64.8%). However, the direct laryngoscope (57.9%) was the most commonly used, followed by the video laryngoscope (37.5%). The preferred device to facilitate intubation was the Eschmann guide (34.2%). Percutaneous tracheostomy was the preferred technique (39.5%) over the open tracheostomy (22%). The predicted or unpredicted difficult airway management in these patients was preferably performed with a video laryngoscope (61.7% or 63.7, respectively). Intubation was mostly performed by two or more expert airway physicians (61.6%). The use of personal protective equipment increased the practitioners' discomfort during intubation maneuvers. The video laryngoscope is the preferred device for intubating patients with COVID-19, combined with the Eschmann guide, flexible stylet within the endotracheal tube, or Frova guide to facilitate intubation. The sub-analysis of the two groups of physicians by the level of intubation experience showed a higher use of the video laryngoscope (63.4%) in the experts group and no significant differences between the two groups in terms of cross-infection rates in physicians, in their preference for the use of the video laryngoscope or in the number of intubations performed in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

Defying convention in the time of COVID-19: Insights into the role of γδ T cells

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). COVID-19 is a complex disease which immune response can be more or less potent. In severe cases, patients might experience a cytokine storm that compromises their vital functions and impedes clearance of the infection. Gamma delta (γδ) T lymphocytes have a critical role initiating innate immunity and shaping adaptive immune responses, and they are recognized for their contribution to tumor surveillance, fighting infectious diseases, and autoimmunity. γδ T cells exist as both circulating T lymphocytes and as resident cells in different mucosal tissues, including the lungs and their critical role in other respiratory viral infections has been demonstrated. In the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection, γδ T cell responses are understudied. This review summarizes the findings on the antiviral role of γδ T cells in COVID-19, providing insight into how they may contribute to the control of infection in the mild/moderate clinical outcome.

Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Awake Non-Intubated Patients With COVID-19 ARDS at High Risk for Barotrauma

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of an awake venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) management strategy in preventing clinically relevant barotrauma in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at high risk for pneumothorax (PNX)/pneumomediastinum (PMD), defined as the detection of the Macklin-like effect on chest computed tomography (CT) scan.

DESIGN

A case series.

SETTING

At the intensive care unit of a tertiary-care institution.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven patients with COVID-19-associated severe ARDS and Macklin-like radiologic sign on baseline chest CT.

INTERVENTIONS

Primary VV-ECMO under spontaneous breathing instead of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). All patients received noninvasive ventilation or oxygen through a high-flow nasal cannula before and during ECMO support. The study authors collected data on cannulation strategy, clinical management, and outcome. Failure of awake VV-ECMO strategy was defined as the need for IMV due to worsening respiratory failure or delirium/agitation. The primary outcome was the development of PNX/PMD.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

No patient developed PNX/PMD. The awake VV-ECMO strategy failed in 1 patient (14.3%). Severe complications were observed in 4 (57.1%) patients and were noted as the following: intracranial bleeding in 1 patient (14.3%), septic shock in 2 patients (28.6%), and secondary pulmonary infections in 3 patients (42.8%). Two patients died (28.6%), whereas 5 were successfully weaned off VV-ECMO and were discharged home.

CONCLUSIONS

VV-ECMO in awake and spontaneously breathing patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS may be a feasible and safe strategy to prevent the development of PNX/PMD in patients at high risk for this complication.

Variation in Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation Among Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio.

RESULTS

Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4-4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).

A narrative review of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS): "typical" or "atypical" ARDS?

Background and Objective

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is highly infectious and mainly involves the respiratory system, with some patients rapidly progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is the leading cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Hence, fully understanding the features of COVID-19-related ARDS (CARDS) and early management of this disease would improve the prognosis and reduce the mortality of severe COVID-19. With the development of recent studies which have focused on CARDS, whether CARDS is "typical" or "atypical" ARDS has become a hotly debated topic.

Methods

We searched for relevant literature from 1999 to 2021 published in PubMed by using the following keywords and their combinations: "COVID-19", "CARDS", "ARDS", "pathophysiological mechanism", "clinical manifestations", "prognosis", and "clinical trials". Then, we analyzed, compared and highlighted the differences between classic ARDS and CARDS from all of the aspects above.

Key Content and Findings

Classical ARDS commonly occurs within 1 week after a predisposing cause, yet the median time from symptoms onset to CARDS is longer than that of classical ARDS, manifesting within a period of 9.0-12.0 days. Although the lung mechanics exhibited in CARDS grossly match those of classical ARDS, there are some atypical manifestations of CARDS: the severity of hypoxemia seemed not to be proportional to injury of lung mechanics and an increase of thrombogenic processes. Meanwhile, some patients' symptoms do not correspond with the extent of the organic injury: a chest computed tomography (CT) will reveal the severe and diffuse lung injuries, yet the clinical presentations of patients can be mild.

Conclusions

Despite the differences between the CARDS and ARDS, in addition to the treatment of antivirals, clinicians should continue to follow the accepted evidence-based framework for managing all ARDS cases, including CARDS.

Evaluation of hospitalized patients with a possible diagnosis of COVID-19

Background/Aim: The definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 disease is made by demonstrating the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in nasopharyngeal swab samples. In patients who present with COVID-19-like symptoms but are found to be PCR negative, lung tomography, physical examination, and specific laboratory findings can guide diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to retrospectively evaluate the clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings of patients who presented with Covid-19-like symptoms. but were found to be PCR negative. Methods: This study was planned as a retrospective cohort study. Patients hospitalized in the pandemic service of Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University between 19 March and 30 September 2020 - who were PCR negative and defined as possible cases through diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up guidelines of the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health, were included. Of these patients, those without radiological pulmonary involvement were defined as group A, and those with radiological pulmonary involvement were defined as group B. Clinical and laboratory findings of both groups were evaluated and compared. Results: In the lung tomographic examination of 238 patients in the study, 16.4% in group A without radiological lung findings and 83.6% in group B with signs of inflammation were identified. While common complaints were high fever and diarrhea in group A, cough and shortness of breath were significantly higher in group B. The most common comorbidities in both groups were hypertension and diabetes, respectively, while hypertension was found to be significantly higher in group B. There was no mortality in any patient without lung involvement, but there was no significant difference between groups in terms of mortality. Conclusion: These techniques can be used in PCR-negative patients presenting with COVID-19, for an estimation of patients with a severe prognosis with pulmonary tomography findings, symptoms, laboratory results, and accompanying disease at the time of admission. Determining parameters that identify at-risk patients during the early period may contribute to improving patient management and the appropriate use of limited resources.

Challenges in hyperglycemia management in critically ill patients with COVID-19

Hyperglycemia is commonly associated with adverse outcomes especially in patients requiring intensive care unit stay. Data from the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic indicates that individuals with diabetes appear to be at similar risk for COVID-19 infection to those without diabetes but are more likely to experience increased morbidity and mortality. The proposed hypothesis for hyperglycemia in COVID-19 include insulin resistance, critical illness hyperglycemia (stress- induced hyperglycemia) secondary to high levels of hormones like cortisol and catecholamines that counteract insulin action, acute cytokine storm and pancreatic cell dysfunction. Diabetic patients are more likely to have severe hyperglycemic complications including diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Management of hyperglycemia in COVID-19 is often complicated by use of steroids, prolonged total parenteral or enteral nutrition, frequent acute hyperglycemic events, and restrictions with fluid management due to acute respiratory distress syndrome. While managing hyperglycemia special attention should be paid to mode of insulin delivery, frequency of glucose monitoring based on patient and caregiver safety thereby minimizing exposure and conserving personal protective equipment. In this article we describe the pathophysiology of hyperglycemia, challenges encountered in managing hyperglycemia, and review some potential solutions to address them.

Understanding Immune Responses to Viruses-Do Underlying Th1/Th2 Cell Biases Predict Outcome?

Emerging and re-emerging viral diseases have increased in number and geographical extent during the last decades. Examples include the current COVID-19 pandemic and the recent epidemics of the Chikungunya, Ebola, and Zika viruses. Immune responses to viruses have been well-characterised within the innate and adaptive immunity pathways with the outcome following viral infection predominantly attributed to properties of the virus and circumstances of the infection. Perhaps the belief that the immune system is often considered as a reactive component of host defence, springing into action when a threat is detected, has contributed to a poorer understanding of the inherent differences in an individual's immune system in the absence of any pathology. In this review, we focus on how these host factors (age, ethnicity, underlying pathologies) may skew the T helper cell response, thereby influencing the outcome following viral infection but also whether we can use these inherent biases to predict patients at risk of a deviant response and apply strategies to avoid or overcome them.

The role of routine SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare-workers in acute care hospitals in 2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vulnerable patient populations in particular must be protected, and clinics should not become transmission hotspots to avoid delaying medical treatments independent of COVID. Because asymptomatic transmission has been described, routine screening of asymptomatic HCW would potentially be able to interrupt chains of infection through early detection.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus with regard to non-incident related testing of healthcare workers using polymerase chain reaction on May 4th 2021. Studies since January 2020 were included. An assessment of risk of bias and representativeness was performed.

RESULTS

The search identified 39 studies with heterogeneous designs. Data collection of the included studies took place from January to August 2020. The studies were conducted worldwide and the sample size of the included HCW ranged from 70 to 9449 participants. In total, 1000 of 51,700 (1.9%) asymptomatic HCW were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR testing. The proportion of positive test results ranged between 0 and 14.3%. No study reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The heterogeneous proportions might be explained by different regional incidences, lock-downs, and pre-analytical pitfalls that reduce the sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal swab. The very high prevalence in some studies indicates that screening HCW for SARS-CoV-2 may be important particularly in geographical regions and pandemic periods with a high-incidence. With low numbers and an increasing rate of vaccinated HCW, a strict cost-benefit consideration must be made, especially in times of low incidences. Since we found no studies that reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days, re-evaluation should be done when these are available.

COVID-19 in the Critically Ill Pregnant Patient

Pregnant women are at increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and COVID-19-related complications. Their increased risk in conjuncture with the normal physiologic changes in pregnancy poses unique challenges for the management of the critically ill pregnant patient. This article will review the initial management of pregnant patients who develop acute hypoxic respiratory failure and subsequent treatment of those that deteriorate to acute respiratory distress syndrome and require advanced therapies. Moreover, fetal monitoring and timing of delivery will be reviewed.

COVID-19 and Nutrition: Summary of Official Recommendations

Medical nutrition therapy may have a key role in the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the spread of misinformation, the present review organizes and summarizes nutrition recommendations regarding COVID-19, serving as a reference guide for health professionals. Nineteen official recommendations were included of international, US, Asian, European, Canadian, and Australian origin on (i) lactation, (ii) nutrition during quarantine, (iii) nutrition in high-risk groups, (iv) nutrition for recovery at home, and (v) nutrition in hospital. Breastfeeding is encouraged, and the role of hydration and the adoption of a healthy diet during quarantine are emphasized. Older people and/or people with comorbidities should be checked for malnutrition and follow a healthy diet. For patients recovering at home, hydration, protein, and energy intake should be ensured. For hospitalized patients, early feeding with a priority on enteral route is recommended.

More questions than answers for the use of inhaled nitric oxide in COVID-19

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is a potent vasodilator approved for use in term and near-term neonates, but with broad off-label use in settings including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As an inhaled therapy, iNO reaches well ventilated portions of the lung and selectively vasodilates the pulmonary vascular bed, with little systemic effect due to its rapid inactivation in the bloodstream. iNO is well documented to improve oxygenation in a variety of pathological conditions, but in ARDS, these transient improvements in oxygenation have not translated into meaningful clinical outcomes. In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS, iNO has been proposed as a potential treatment due to a variety of mechanisms, including its vasodilatory effect, antiviral properties, as well as anti-thrombotic and anti-inflammatory actions. Presently however, no randomized controlled data are available evaluating iNO in COVID-19, and published data are largely derived from retrospective and cohort studies. It is therefore important to interpret these limited findings with caution, as many questions remain around factors such as patient selection, optimal dosing, timing of administration, duration of administration, and delivery method. Each of these factors may influence whether iNO is indeed an efficacious therapy - or not - in this context. As such, until randomized controlled trial data are available, use of iNO in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 related ARDS should be considered on an individual basis with sound clinical judgement from the attending physician.

Adoption and Deadoption of Medications to Treat Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

OBJECTIVES:

The COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by rapidly evolving evidence regarding the efficacy of different therapies, as well as rapidly evolving health policies in response to that evidence. Data on adoption and deadoption are essential as we learn from this pandemic and prepare for future public health emergencies.

DESIGN:

We conducted an observational cohort study in which we determined patterns in the use of multiple medications to treat COVID-19: remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, IV corticosteroids, tocilizumab, heparin-based anticoagulants, and ivermectin. We analyzed changes both overall and within subgroups of critically ill versus Noncritically ill patients.

SETTING:

Data from Optum’s deidentified Claims-Clinical Dataset, which contains multicenter electronic health record data from U.S. hospitals.

PATIENTS:

Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 from January 2020 to June 2021.

INTERVENTIONS:

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:

Of 141,533 eligible patients, 34,515 (24.4%) required admission to an ICU, 14,754 (10.4%) required mechanical ventilation, and 18,998 (13.4%) died during their hospitalization. Averaged over the entire time period, corticosteroid use was most common (47.0%), followed by remdesivir (33.2%), anticoagulants (19.3%), hydroxychloroquine (7.3%), and tocilizumab (3.4%). Usage patterns varied substantially across treatments. For example, hydroxychloroquine use peaked in March 2020 and leveled off to near zero by June 2020, whereas the use of remdesivir, corticosteroids, and tocilizumab all increased following press releases announcing positive results of large international trials. Ivermectin use increased slightly over the study period but was extremely rare overall (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, medication treatment patterns evolved reliably in response to emerging evidence and changes in policy. These findings may inform efforts to promote optimal adoption and deadoption of treatments for acute care conditions.

Early spontaneous breathing for acute respiratory distress syndrome in individuals with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) represents the most severe course of COVID-19 (caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus), usually resulting in a prolonged stay in an intensive care unit (ICU) and high mortality rates. Despite the fact that most affected individuals need invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), evidence on specific ventilation strategies for ARDS caused by COVID-19 is scarce. Spontaneous breathing during IMV is part of a therapeutic concept comprising light levels of sedation and the avoidance of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). This approach is potentially associated with both advantages (e.g. a preserved diaphragmatic motility and an optimised ventilation-perfusion ratio of the ventilated lung), as well as risks (e.g. a higher rate of ventilator-induced lung injury or a worsening of pulmonary oedema due to increases in transpulmonary pressure). As a consequence, spontaneous breathing in people with COVID-19-ARDS who are receiving IMV is subject to an ongoing debate amongst intensivists.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of early spontaneous breathing activity in invasively ventilated people with COVID-19 with ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoid spontaneous breathing.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which includes CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials.gov WHO ICTRP, and medRxiv) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies from their inception to 2 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible study designs comprised randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated spontaneous breathing in participants with COVID-19-related ARDS compared to ventilation strategies that avoided spontaneous breathing (e.g. using NMBA or deep sedation levels). Additionally, we considered controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series with comparison group, prospective cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies. For these non-RCT studies, we considered a minimum total number of 50 participants to be compared as necessary for inclusion. Prioritised outcomes were all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or worsening, quality of life, rate of (serious) adverse events and rate of pneumothorax. Additional outcomes were need for tracheostomy, duration of ICU length of stay and duration of hospitalisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two review authors independently screened all studies at the title/abstract and full-text screening stage. We also planned to conduct data extraction and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We planned to conduct meta-analysis for each prioritised outcome, as well as subgroup analyses of mortality regarding severity of oxygenation impairment and duration of ARDS. In addition, we planned to perform sensitivity analyses for studies at high risk of bias, studies using NMBA in addition to deep sedation level to avoid spontaneous breathing and a comparison of preprints versus peer-reviewed articles. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no eligible studies for this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no direct evidence on whether early spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is beneficial or detrimental to this particular group of patients.  RCTs comparing early spontaneous breathing with ventilatory strategies not allowing for spontaneous breathing in SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS are necessary to determine its value within the treatment of severely ill people with COVID-19. Additionally, studies should aim to clarify whether treatment effects differ between people with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS and people with non-SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS.

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research Trend during the First Two Years of the Pandemic in the United Arab Emirates: A PRISMA-Compliant Bibliometric Analysis

Scientific research is an integral part of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. This bibliometric analysis describes the COVID-19 research productivity of the United Arab Emirates (UAE)-affiliated researchers during the first two years of the pandemic, 2020 to 2022. The Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database was utilized to retrieve publications related to COVID-19 published by UAE-affiliated researcher(s). A total of 1008 publications met the inclusion criteria and were included in this bibliometric analysis. The most studied broad topics were general internal medicine (11.9%), public environmental occupational health (7.8%), pharmacology/pharmacy (6.3%), multidisciplinary sciences (5%), and infectious diseases (3.4%). About 67% were primary research articles, 16% were reviews, and the remaining were editorials letters (11.5%), meeting abstracts/proceedings papers (5%), and document corrections (0.4%). The University of Sharjah was the leading UAE-affiliated organization achieving 26.3% of the publications and funding 1.8% of the total 1008 published research. This study features the research trends in COVID-19 research affiliated with the UAE and shows the future directions. There was an observable nationally and international collaboration of the UAE-affiliated authors, particularly with researchers from the USA and England. This study highlights the need for in-depth systematic reviews addressing the specific COVID-19 research-related questions and studied populations.

Aspirin Therapy on Prophylactic Anticoagulation for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Analysis of the HOPE-COVID-19 Registry

Background

COVID‐19 is an infectious illness, featured by an increased risk of thromboembolism. However, no standard antithrombotic therapy is currently recommended for patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of additional therapy with aspirin over prophylactic anticoagulation (PAC) in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 and its impact on survival.

Methods and Results

A total of 8168 patients hospitalized for COVID‐19 were enrolled in a multicenter‐international prospective registry (HOPE COVID‐19). Clinical data and in‐hospital complications, including mortality, were recorded. Study population included patients treated with PAC or with PAC and aspirin. A comparison of clinical outcomes between patients treated with PAC versus PAC and aspirin was performed using an adjusted analysis with propensity score matching. Of 7824 patients with complete data, 360 (4.6%) received PAC and aspirin and 2949 (37.6%) PAC. Propensity‐score matching yielded 298 patients from each group. In the propensity score‐matched population, cumulative incidence of in‐hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with PAC and aspirin versus PAC (15% versus 21%, Log Rank P=0.01). At multivariable analysis in propensity matched population of patients with COVID‐19, including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, kidney failure, and invasive ventilation, aspirin treatment was associated with lower risk of in‐hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; [95% CI 0.42–0.92], P=0.018).

Conclusions

Combination PAC and aspirin was associated with lower mortality risk among patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 in a propensity score matched population compared to PAC alone.

Impact of dexamethasone on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients: a propensity-matched cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of treatment with steroids on the incidence and outcome of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN

Propensity-matched retrospective cohort study from February 24 to December 31, 2020, in 4 dedicated COVID-19 Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Lombardy (Italy).

PATIENTS

Adult consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients were subdivided into two groups: (1) treated with low-dose corticosteroids (dexamethasone 6 mg/day intravenous for 10 days) (DEXA+); (2) not treated with corticosteroids (DEXA-). A propensity score matching procedure (1:1 ratio) identified patients' cohorts based on: age, weight, PEEP Level, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), C reactive protein plasma concentration at admission, sex and admission hospital (exact matching).

INTERVENTION

Dexamethasone 6 mg/day intravenous for 10 days from hospital admission.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seven hundred and thirty-nine patients were included, and the propensity-score matching identified two groups of 158 subjects each. Eighty-nine (56%) DEXA+ versus 55 (34%) DEXA- patients developed a VAP (RR 1.61 (1.26-2.098), p = 0.0001), after similar time from hospitalization, ICU admission and intubation. DEXA+ patients had higher crude VAP incidence rate (49.58 (49.26-49.91) vs. 31.65 (31.38-31.91)VAP*1000/pd), (IRR 1.57 (1.55-1.58), p < 0.0001) and risk for VAP (HR 1.81 (1.31-2.50), p = 0.0003), with longer ICU LOS and invasive mechanical ventilation but similar mortality (RR 1.17 (0.85-1.63), p = 0.3332). VAPs were similarly due to G+ bacteria (mostly Staphylococcus aureus) and G- bacteria (mostly Enterobacterales). Forty-one (28%) VAPs were due to multi-drug resistant bacteria. VAP was associated with almost doubled ICU and hospital LOS and invasive mechanical ventilation, and increased mortality (RR 1.64 [1.02-2.65], p = 0.040) with no differences among patients' groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Critically ill COVID-19 patients are at high risk for VAP, frequently caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria, and the risk is increased by corticosteroid treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04388670, retrospectively registered May 14, 2020.

Usefulness of low tidal volume ventilation strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effects of lower tidal volume ventilation (LTV) were controversial for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the use of LTV strategy in patients with ARDS. We performed a literature search on MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, "Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi", clinical trial registration sites, and the reference of recent guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the LTV strategy with the higher tidal volume ventilation (HTV) strategy in patients with ARDS. Two authors independently evaluated the eligibility of studies and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were 28-day mortality. We used the GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of evidence. Among the 19,864 records screened, 13 RCTs that recruited 1874 patients were included in our meta-analysis. When comparing LTV (4-8 ml/kg) versus HTV (> 8 ml/kg), the pooled risk ratio for 28-day mortality was 0.79 (11 studies, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.94, I2 = 43%, n = 1795, moderate certainty of evidence). Subgroup-analysis by combined high positive end-expiratory pressure with LTV showed interaction (P = 0.01). Our study indicated that ventilation with LTV was associated with reduced risk of mortality in patients with ARDS when compared with HTV. Trial registration: UMIN-CTR (UMIN000041071).

Oxygen saturation in pregnant individuals with COVID-19: time for re-appraisal?

Managing pregnant individuals with acute respiratory disease secondary to COVID-19 has been a challenge. Most professional societies including the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommend keeping O₂ saturation at ≥95% in pregnant individuals. Reaching this target has been increasingly difficult in some patients, especially during the latest wave of infections attributed to the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2. In the absence of adequate supporting data, and in the setting of a reassuring fetal status, we propose that maternal O₂ saturation should be maintained between 92% and 96% for admitted patients with acute respiratory failure who require supplemental O₂. This may prevent unnecessary invasive interventions that might not hold maternal or fetal benefit, specifically at very preterm gestational ages.

Decompressive hemicraniectomy for acute ischemic stroke: A neurosurgical view in a pandemic COVID-19 time highlights of literature

Background and purpose: The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which was identified after the outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, has kept the whole world in tenterhooks due to its severe life-threatening nature of the infection. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 a pandemic in 2020, an unprecedented challenge, having a high contagious life-threatening condition with unprecedented impacts for worldwide societies and health care systems. Neurologic symptoms related to SARS-CoV-2 have been described recently in the literature, and acute cerebrovascular disease is one of the most serious complications. The occurrence of large-vessel occlusion in young patients with COVID-19 infection has been exceedingly rare. In this article, we describe the profile of patients undergoing decompressive craniectomy for the treatment of intracranial hypertension by stroke associated with COVID-19 published so far. A narrative review of the central issue in focus was designed: decompressive craniectomy in a pandemic time.

Critical Care Simulation Education Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Coronaviruses are important emerging human and animal pathogens. SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is responsible for the current global pandemic. Early in the course of the pandemic, New York City became one of the world's "hot spots" with more than 250,000 cases and more than 15,000 deaths. Although medical providers in New York were fortunate to have the knowledge gained in China and Italy before it came under siege, the magnitude and severity of the disease were unprecedented and arguably under appreciated. The surge of patients with significant COVID-19 threatened to overwhelm health care systems, as New York City health systems realized that the number of specialized critical care providers would be inadequate. A large academic medical system recognized that rapid redeployment of noncritical providers into such roles would be needed. An educational gap was therefore identified: numerous providers with minimal critical care knowledge or experience would now be required to provide critical-level patient care under supervision of intensivists. Safe provision of such high level of patient care mandated the development of "educational crash courses."

METHODS

The purpose of this special article is to summarize the approach adopted by the Institute for Critical Care Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine's Human Emulation, Education, and Evaluation Lab for Patient Safety and Professional Study Simulation Center in developing a training program for noncritical care providers in this novel disease.

RESULTS

Using this joint approach, we were able to swiftly educate a wide range of nonintensive care unit providers (such as surgical, internal medicine, nursing, and advanced practice providers) by focusing on refreshing critical care knowledge and developing essential skillsets to assist in the care of these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the practical methods reviewed here could be adopted by any health care system that is preparing for an unprecedented surge of critically ill patients.

Hourly Analysis of Mechanical Ventilation Parameters in Critically Ill Adult Covid-19 Patients: Association with Mortality

Objective: There exists controversy about the pathophysiology and lung mechanics of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), because some report severe hypoxemia with preserved respiratory system mechanics, contrasting with "classic" ARDS. We performed a detailed hourly analysis of the characteristics and time course of lung mechanics and biochemical analysis of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for COVID-19-associated ARDS, comparing survivors and non-survivors. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the data stored in the ICU information system of patients admitted in our hospital ICU that required IMV due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia between March 5th and April 30th, 2020. We compare respiratory system mechanics and gas exchange during the first ten days of IMV, discriminating volume and pressure controlled modes, between ICU survivors and non-survivors. Results: 140 patients were included, analyzing 11 138 respiratory mechanics recordings. Global mortality was 38.6%. Multivariate analysis showed that age (OR 1.092, 95% (CI 1.014-1.176)) and need of renal replacement therapies (OR 10.15, (95% CI 1.58-65.11)) were associated with higher mortality. Previous use of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) also seemed to show an increased mortality (OR 4.612, (95% CI 1.19-17.84)) although this significance was lost when stratifying by age. Respiratory variables start to diverge significantly between survivors and non-survivors after the 96 to 120 hours (hs) from mechanical ventilation initiation, particularly respiratory system compliance. In non survivors, mechanical power at 24 and 96 hs was higher regardless ventilatory mode. Conclusions: In patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring mechanical ventilation, non survivors have different respiratory system mechanics than survivors in the first 10 days of ICU admission. We propose a checkpoint at 96-120 hs to assess patients improvement or worsening in order to consider escalating to extracorporeal therapies.

Antibiotic Prescription and In-Hospital Mortality in COVID-19: A Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, empiric antibiotics (ATBs) have been prescribed on a large scale in both in- and outpatients. We aimed to assess the impact of antibiotic treatment on the outcomes of hospitalised patients with moderate and severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study in six clinical hospitals, between January 2021 and May 2021.

RESULTS

We included 553 hospitalised COVID-19 patients, of whom 58% (311/553) were prescribed antibiotics, while bacteriological tests were performed in 57% (178/311) of them. Death was the outcome in 48 patients-39 from the ATBs group and 9 from the non-ATBs group. The patients who received antibiotics during hospitalisation had a higher mortality (RR = 3.37, CI 95%: 1.7-6.8), and this association was stronger in the subgroup of patients without reasons for antimicrobial treatment (RR = 6.1, CI 95%: 1.9-19.1), while in the subgroup with reasons for antimicrobial therapy the association was not statistically significant (OR = 2.33, CI 95%: 0.76-7.17). After adjusting for the confounders, receiving antibiotics remained associated with a higher mortality only in the subgroup of patients without criteria for antibiotic prescription (OR = 10.3, CI 95%: 2-52).

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, antibiotic treatment did not decrease the risk of death in the patients with mild and severe COVID-19, but was associated with a higher risk of death in the subgroup of patients without reasons for it.

Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients under Mechanical Ventilation with COVID-19 and Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Health Technology Assessment

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients under mechanical ventilation with COVID-19 and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). A systematic review of the literature published in PubMed, Cochrane Library and LILACS databases, was performed. A manual search was also conducted using the reference lists of the studies included in the full-text assessment, as well as a grey-literature search on Google. Additionally, websites of state institutions and organizations developing clinical practice guidelines and health technology assessments were reviewed. The ClinicalTrials.gov website was screened along with the websites of the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and the National Registry of Health Research Projects of the Peruvian National Institute of Health. No restrictions were applied in terms of language, time, or country. A total of 13 documents were assessed, which included 7 clinical practice guidelines, 3 health technology assessments, 1 systematic review, 1 randomized clinical trial, and 1 observational study. A critical appraisal was conducted for each document. After this, we considered that the currently available evidence is insufficient for a conclusion supporting the use of ECMO in patients under mechanical ventilation with severe ARDS associated to COVID-19 in terms of mortality, safety, and quality of life.

Various Aspects of Non-Invasive Ventilation in COVID-19 Patients: A Narrative Review

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is primarily used to treat acute respiratory failure. However, it has broad applications to manage a range of other diseases successfully. The main advantage of NIV lies in its capability to provide the same physiological effects as invasive ventilation while avoiding the placement of an artificial airway and its associated life-threatening complications. The war on the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. The present narrative review aimed at identifying various aspects of NIV usage, in COVID-19 and other patients, such as the onset time, mode, setting, positioning, sedation, and types of interface. A search for articles published from May 2020 to April 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, PMC central, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. Of the initially identified 5,450 articles, 73 studies and 24 guidelines on the use of NIV were included. The search was limited to studies involving human cases and English language articles. Despite several reported benefits of NIV, the evidence on the use of NIV in COVID-19 patients does not yet fully support its routine use.

Airway recommendations for perioperative patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists.

SOURCE

Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations that focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 were included. Accelerated screening was used; data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data were organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed among recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended videolaryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent but also show significant differences. Given the paucity of data early in the pandemic, it is not surprising that identified publications largely reflected expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. We suggest future efforts should promote coordinated responses and provide suggestions for studying and establishing best practices in perioperative patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date created, 26 March 2020.

HbA1c level may be a risk factor for oxygen therapy requirement in patients with coronavirus disease 2019

INTRODUCTION

Many clinical studies have identified significant predictors or risk factors for the severity or mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. However, there are very limited reports on the risk factors for requiring oxygen therapy during hospitalization. In particular, we sought to investigate whether plasma glucose and HbA1c levels could be risk factors for oxygen therapy requirement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted of 131 COVID-19 patients hospitalized at Saitama Medical University Hospital between March 2020 and November 2020. To identify the risk factors for oxygen therapy requirement during hospitalization, a stepwise multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was performed using several clinical parameters commonly obtained on admission, including plasma glucose and HbA1c levels.

RESULTS

Of the 131 patients with COVID-19, 33.6% (44/131) received oxygen therapy during hospitalization. According to the logistic regression analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR]: 8.76, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65-46.5, P < 0.05), age (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.02-1.12, P < 0.01), HbA1c levels (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.09-3.44, P < 0.05), and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.54-3.20, P < 0.01) emerged as independent variables associated with oxygen therapy requirement during hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to male sex, age, and serum CRP levels, HbA1c levels on admission may serve as a risk factor for oxygen therapy requirement during the clinical course of COVID-19, irrespective of diabetes history and status. This may contribute to the efficient delegation of limited numbers of hospital beds to patients at risk for oxygen therapy requirement.

One-Year Multidisciplinary Follow-Up of Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation

OBJECTIVES

Patients with COVID-19 frequently develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Data on long-term survival of these patients are lacking. The authors investigated 1-year survival, quality of life, and functional recovery of patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients with COVID-19 ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and discharged alive from hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were contacted by phone after 1 year. Functional, cognitive, and psychological outcomes were explored through a questionnaire and assessed using validated scales. Patients were offered the possibility to undergo a follow-up chest computed tomography (CT) scan.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The study included all adult (age ≥18 years) patients with COVID-19-related ARDS admitted to an ICU of the authors' institution between February 25, 2020, and April 27, 2020, who received at least 1 day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Of 116 patients who received IMV, 61 (52.6%) survived to hospital discharge. These survivors were assessed 1 year after discharge and 56 completed a battery of tests of cognition, activities of daily living, and interaction with family members. They had overall good functional recovery, with >80% reporting good recovery and no difficulties in usual activities. A total of 52 (93%) of patients had no dyspnea at rest. Severe anxiety/depression was reported by 5 (8.9%) patients. Comparing 2-month and 1-year data, the authors observed the most significant improvements in the areas of working status and exertional dyspnea. One-year chest CT scans were available for 36 patients; fibrotic-like changes were present in 4 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients who survived the acute phase of COVID-19 and were discharged from the hospital were alive at the 1-year follow up, and the vast majority of them had good overall recovery and quality of life.

Brachial Plexus Injury and Musculocutaneous Nerve Palsy During Prone Positioning in a Patient With COVID-19

Prone positioning is crucial in the respiratory management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and reduces mortality. However, this may be complicated by compression-related peripheral nerve injury. We report the case of a male in his 80s with obesity admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed brachial plexus disorder in the right upper extremity and musculocutaneous neuropathy in the left. The patient's cough, dyspnea, and fatigue did not improve; therefore, he was intubated and placed in the prone position for one week. The patient complained of bilateral upper limb weakness on regaining consciousness. We diagnosed left musculocutaneous nerve palsy and right brachial plexus palsy based on physical findings and needle electromyography (EMG). Physical therapy was initiated, including joint range-of-motion exercises focused on preventing contractures in the extremities and active assistive exercises. Motor impairment improved, and the patient was discharged from the rehabilitation center.

Predictive model for bacterial co-infection in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a multicenter observational cohort study

Objective

The aim of our study was to build a predictive model able to stratify the risk of bacterial co-infection at hospitalization in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Multicenter observational study of adult patients hospitalized from February to December 2020 with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Endpoint was microbiologically documented bacterial co-infection diagnosed within 72 h from hospitalization. The cohort was randomly split into derivation and validation cohort. To investigate risk factors for co-infection univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Predictive risk score was obtained assigning a point value corresponding to β-coefficients to the variables in the multivariable model. ROC analysis in the validation cohort was used to estimate prediction accuracy.

Results

Overall, 1733 patients were analyzed: 61.4% males, median age 69 years (IQR 57–80), median Charlson 3 (IQR 2–6). Co-infection was diagnosed in 110 (6.3%) patients. Empirical antibiotics were started in 64.2 and 59.5% of patients with and without co-infection (p = 0.35). At multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort: WBC ≥ 7.7/mm³, PCT ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, and Charlson index ≥ 5 were risk factors for bacterial co-infection. A point was assigned to each variable obtaining a predictive score ranging from 0 to 5. In the validation cohort, ROC analysis showed AUC of 0.83 (95%CI 0.75–0.90). The optimal cut-point was ≥2 with sensitivity 70.0%, specificity 75.9%, positive predictive value 16.0% and negative predictive value 97.5%. According to individual risk score, patients were classified at low (point 0), intermediate (point 1), and high risk (point ≥ 2). CURB-65 ≥ 2 was further proposed to identify patients at intermediate risk who would benefit from early antibiotic coverage.

Conclusions

Our score may be useful in stratifying bacterial co-infection risk in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, optimizing diagnostic testing and antibiotic use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-022-01801-2.

Selective COVID-19 Coinfections in Diabetic Patients with Concomitant Cardiovascular Comorbidities Are Associated with Increased Mortality

Coinfections and comorbidities add additional layers of difficulties into the challenges of COVID-19 patient management strategies. However, studies examining these clinical conditions are limited. We have independently investigated the significance of associations of specific bacterial species and different comorbidities in the outcome and case fatality rates among 129 hospitalized comorbid COVID-19 patients. For the first time, to best of our knowledge, we report on the predominance of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii in COVID-19 non-survival diabetic patients The two species were significantly associated to COVID-19 case fatality rates (p-value = 0.02186). Coinfection rates of Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii in non-survivors were 93% and 73%, respectively. Based on standard definitions for antimicrobial resistance, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Acinetobacter baumannii were classified as multidrug resistant and extremely drug resistant, respectively. All patients died at ICU with similar clinical characterisitics. Of the 28 major coinfections, 24 (85.7%) were in non-survivor diabetic patients, implying aggravating and worsening the course of COVID-19. The rates of other comorbidities varied: asthma (47%), hypertension (79.4%), ischemic heart disease (71%), chronic kidney disease (35%), and chronic liver disease (32%); however, the rates were higher in K. pneumoniae and were all concomitantly associated to diabetes. Other bacterial species and comorbidities did not have significant correlation to the outcomes. These findings have highly significant clinical implications in the treatment strategies of COVID-19 patients. Future vertical genomic studies would reveal more insights into the molecular and immunological mechanisms of these frequent bacterial species. Future large cohort multicenter studies would reveal more insights into the mechanisms of infection in COVID-19.

Efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in the patient with COVID-19: a randomised control trial (COPLA-II trial)

IMPORTANCE

No proven treatment is available for severely ill COVID-19. Therapeutic use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (COPLA) is under investigation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of COPLA with standard medical therapy (SMT) alone in severe COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicentric, open-labelled, phase-III randomised controlled trial conducted at two treatment centres with COPLA collected at the third dedicated centre in North-India, the coordinating centre during trial from June 2020 to December 2020. The study population comprised 400 participants in the ratio of 1:1 in each treatment group.

INTERVENTION

One group received COPLA with SMT (n=200), and another group received SMT only (n=200).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement measured by a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included duration of O₂ therapy, the proportion of patients on mechanical ventilation at day-7, mortality, SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels, cytokine levels and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The median time to a two-point reduction in the ordinal scale in both groups was 9 days (IQR=7-13) (p=0.328). The median duration of O₂ therapy was 8 days (IQR=6-12) in COPLA and 10 days (IQR=6-12) in SMT group (p=0.64). The PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio showed significant improvement at 7 days in COPLA group(p=0.036). There was no difference in mortality till 28 days in both groups (p=0.62). However, if COPLA was given within 3 days of hospital admission, a significant reduction in ordinal scale was observed (p=0.04). Neutralising antibody titres in COPLA group (80 (IQR 80-80)) were higher than SMT group (0 (IQR 0-80)) at 48 hours (p=0.001). COPLA therapy led to a significant reduction in TNF-α levels at 48 hours (p=0.048) and D-dimer at 7 days (p=0.02). Mild allergic reactions were observed in 3 (1.5%) patients in COPLA group.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Convalescent plasma with adequate antibody titres should be transfused in COVID-19 patients along with SMT in the initial 3 days of hospitalisation for better clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04425915.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes.

Methods

A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not).

Findings

Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I2  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I2  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I2  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I2  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I2  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I2  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I2  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I2  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death.

Interpretation

Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings.

Funding

There was no funding source for this study.