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

Emerging treatment strategies for COVID-19 infection

The new type of coronavirus (COVID-19), SARS-CoV-2 originated from Wuhan, China and has led to a worldwide pandemic. COVID-19 is a novel emerging infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 characterized as atypical pneumonia. As of July 1, 2020, more than 10 million people worldwide had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. The typical manifestations of COVID-19 include fever, sore throat, fatigue, cough, and dyspnoea combined with recent exposure. Most of the patients with COVID-19 have mild or moderate disease, however up to 5-10% present with severe and even life-threatening disease course. The mortality rates are approximately 2%. Therefore, there is an urgent need for effective and specific antiviral treatment. Currently, supportive care measures such as ventilation oxygenation and fluid management remain the standard of care. Several clinical trials are currently trying to identify the most potent drug or combination against the disease, and it is strongly recommended to enroll patients into ongoing trials. Antivirals can be proven as safe and effective only in the context of randomized clinical trials. Currently several agents such as chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, favipiravir, monoclonal antibodies, antisense RNA, corticosteroids, convalescent plasma and vaccines are being evaluated. The large numbers of therapeutic interventions aim to define the most efficacious regimen. The aim of this article is to describe the treatment strategies that have been used for COVID-19 patients and review all the available literature.

Combination therapy with plasma exchange and glucocorticoid may be effective for severe COVID-19 infection: A retrospective observational study

We retrospectively analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of five patients with COVID-19 who were received glucocorticoid (with or without pulse therapy) and therapeutic plasma exchange. The efficacy of the treatment was determined by whether the patient was able to be transferred from the COVID-19 exclusive ICU to the general ward. In comparing patients who received prednisolone pulse therapy (three cases) with those who did not (two cases), 2/3 (66%) and 0/2 (0%) patients could be discharged from the COVID-19 dedicated ICU, respectively. Among five patients who was performed plasma exchange, two elderly male patients who underwent plasma exchange as early as within 8 days of disease exacerbation survived and were able to be transferred to the general ward. This observational study indicates that plasma exchange in conjunction with methylprednisolone pulse therapy at the appropriate time may be an effective treatment for elderly patients with severe COVID-19.

Changes in the management and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic

Objective

To analyze whether changes in medical care due to the application of COVID-19 protocols affected clinical outcomes in patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic.

Methods

This was a retrospective, observational cohort study carried out in a thirty-eight-bed surgical and medical intensive care unit of a high complexity private hospital. Patients with respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit during March and April 2020 and the same months in 2019 were selected. We compared interventions and outcomes of patients without COVID-19 during the pandemic with patients admitted in 2019. The main variables analyzed were intensive care unit respiratory management, number of chest tomography scans and bronchoalveolar lavages, intensive care unit complications, and status at hospital discharge.

Results

In 2020, a significant reduction in the use of a high-flow nasal cannula was observed: 14 (42%) in 2019 compared to 1 (3%) in 2020. Additionally, in 2020, a significant increase was observed in the number of patients under mechanical ventilation admitted to the intensive care unit from the emergency department, 23 (69%) compared to 11 (31%) in 2019. Nevertheless, the number of patients with mechanical ventilation after 5 days of admission was similar in both years: 24 (69%) in 2019 and 26 (79%) in 2020.

Conclusion

Intensive care unit protocols based on international recommendations for the COVID-19 pandemic have produced a change in non-COVID-19 patient management. We observed a reduction in the use of a high-flow nasal cannula and an increased number of tracheal intubations in the emergency department. However, no changes in the percentage of intubated patients in the intensive care unit, the number of mechanical ventilation days or the length of stay in intensive care unit.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19

ECMO management of severe ARDS patients with COVID-19, who are not responding to lung protective ventilation and salvage strategies like prone positioning or inhaled nitric oxide, is safe if performed in a dedicated referral centre. https://bit.ly/3p5HOEN.

Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus Disease 2019 During Nebulizer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Rationale: There is an urgent need to understand the risk of viral transmission during nebulizer treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objectives: To assess the risk of transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and influenza with administration of drugs via nebulizer. Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases, including PubMed^®, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, preprint databases, and clinicaltrials.gov through December 1, 2020. Any study design in any language describing the risk of viral transmission with nebulizer treatment was eligible. Data were abstracted by one investigator and verified by a second. Results: We identified 22 articles: 1 systematic review, 7 cohort/case-control studies, 7 case series, and 7 simulation-based studies. Eight individual studies involved patients with SARS, five involved MERS, and one involved SARS-CoV-2. The seven cohort/case-control studies (four high risk of bias [ROB], three unclear ROB) found mixed results (median odds ratio 3.91, range 0.08-20.67) based on very weak data among a small number of health care workers (HCWs) with variable use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Case series had multiple potential contributors to transmission. Simulation studies found evidence for droplet dispersion after saline nebulization and measureable influenza viral particles up to 1.7 m from the source after 10 minutes of nebulization with a patient simulator. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Conclusions: Case series raise concern of transmission risk, and simulation studies demonstrate droplet dispersion with virus recovery, but specific evidence that exposure to nebulizer treatment increases transmission of coronaviruses similar to COVID-19 is inconclusive. Tradeoffs balancing HCW safety and patient appropriateness can potentially minimize risk, including choice of delivery method for inhaled medications (e.g., nebulizer vs. metered dose inhaler) and PPE (e.g., N95 vs. surgical mask).

Prediction Models for the Clinical Severity of Patients With COVID-19 in Korea: Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available about the present characteristics and dynamic clinical changes that occur in patients with COVID-19 during the early phase of the illness.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and validate machine learning models based on clinical features to assess the risk of severe disease and triage for COVID-19 patients upon hospital admission.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter cohort study included patients with COVID-19 who were released from quarantine until April 30, 2020, in Korea. A total of 5628 patients were included in the training and testing cohorts to train and validate the models that predict clinical severity and the duration of hospitalization, and the clinical severity score was defined at four levels: mild, moderate, severe, and critical.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 5601 patients, 4455 (79.5%), 330 (5.9%), 512 (9.1%), and 301 (5.4%) were included in the mild, moderate, severe, and critical levels, respectively. As risk factors for predicting critical patients, we selected older age, shortness of breath, a high white blood cell count, low hemoglobin levels, a low lymphocyte count, and a low platelet count. We developed 3 prediction models to classify clinical severity levels. For example, the prediction model with 6 variables yielded a predictive power of >0.93 for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. We developed a web-based nomogram, using these models.

CONCLUSIONS

Our prediction models, along with the web-based nomogram, are expected to be useful for the assessment of the onset of severe and critical illness among patients with COVID-19 and triage patients upon hospital admission.

The Natural History of a Patient With COVID-19 Pneumonia and Silent Hypoxemia

A patient who declined all interventions, including oxygen, and recovered highlights the importance of treating the individual instead of clinical markers and provides a time course for recovery from pneumonia and severe hypoxemia.

Ventilation management in acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19 versus ARDS from another origin - a descriptive narrative review

Introduction

It is uncertain whether ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differs from that in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from another origin.

Areas covered

We undertook two literature searches in PubMed to identify observational studies reporting on ventilation management––one in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19, and one in patients with ARDS from another origin. The searches identified 14 studies in patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19, and 8 studies in patients with ARDS from another origin.

Expert opinion

In patients with acute respiratory failure related to COVID-19, ventilation management seems to be similar to that of patients with ARDS from another origin. The future lies in studies focused on personalized treatment of ARDS of all origins, including COVID-19.

Evaluation of superinfection, antimicrobial usage, and airway microbiome with metagenomic sequencing in COVID-19 patients: A cohort study in Shanghai

Background

In COVID-19 patients, information regarding superinfection, antimicrobial assessment, and the value of metagenomic sequencing (MS) could help develop antimicrobial stewardship.

Method

This retrospective study analyzed 323 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients for co-infection rate and antimicrobial usage in the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center (SPHCC) from January 23rd to March 14th 2020. The microbiota composition was also investigated in patients with critically severe COVID-19.

Results

The total population co-infection rate was 17/323 (5.3%) and 0/229 (0), 4/78 (5.1%), and 13/16 (81.3%) for the mild, severe, and critically severe subgroups, respectively. Proven fungal infection was significantly associated with a higher mortality rate (p = 0.029). In critically severe patients, the rate of antimicrobials and carbapenem usage were 16/16 (100%) and 13/16 (81.3%), respectively, in which the preemptive and empiric antimicrobial days accounted for 51.6% and 30.1%, respectively. Targeted therapy only accounted for 18.3%. MS was implemented to detect non-COVID-19 virus co-existence and the semi-quantitative surveillance of bacteremia, with clear clinical benefit seen in cases with MS-based precision antimicrobial management. Airway microbiome analysis suggested that the microbiota compositions in critically severe COVID-19 patients were likely due to intubation and mechanical ventilation.

Conclusions

In the SPHCC cohort, we observed a non-negligible rate of super-infection, especially for the critically ill COVID-19 patients. Fungal co-infection requires intensive attention due to the high risk of mortality, and the clinical benefit of MS in guiding antimicrobial management warrants further investigation.

[COVID-19, drugs and hospital pharmacy]

Observation, interpretation, actions for improvement, questioning are all terms that echo the situation of caregivers since the outbreak of the COVID-19 epidemic in France at the beginning of 2020. All those involved in the healthcare chain have had to cope with the influx of patients and to show that they are capable of seeing their practices evolve on a daily basis. What was recommended a few weeks earlier could quickly become obsolete. It was necessary to be reactive and the question of drug treatments was at the heart of the concerns, requiring prescribers to keep themselves informed and pharmacists to be as mobilized as possible to respond to requests from the field as quickly as possible.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19 Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Italian Society for Cardiac Surgery Report

An increased need of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is going to become evident as treatment of SARS-CoV-2 respiratory distress syndrome. This is the first report of the Italian Society for Cardiac Surgery (SICCH) on preliminary experience with COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO support. Data from 12 Italian hospitals participating in SICCH were retrospectively analyzed. Between March 1 and September 15, 2020, a veno-venous (VV) ECMO system was installed in 67 patients (94%) and a veno-arterio-venous ECMO in four (6%). Five patients required VA ECMO after initial weaning from VV ECMO. Thirty (42.2%) patients were weaned from ECMO, while 39 (54.9%) died on ECMO, and six (8.5%) died after ECMO removal. Overall hospital survival was 36.6% (n = 26). Main causes of death were multiple organ failure (n = 14, 31.1%) and sepsis (n = 11, 24.4%). On multivariable analysis, predictors of death while on ECMO support were older age (p = 0.048), elevated pre-ECMO C-reactive protein level (p = 0.048), higher positive end-expiratory pressure on ventilator (p = 0.036) and lower lung compliance (p = 0.032). If the conservative treatment is not effective, ECMO support might be considered as life-saving rescue therapy for COVID-19 refractory respiratory failure. However warm caution and thoughtful approaches for timely detection and treatment should be taken for such a delicate patients population.

Promising Therapy for Heart Failure in Patients with Severe COVID-19: Calming the Cytokine Storm

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a serious global threat to human health and the economy. Based on accumulating evidence, its continuous progression involves not only pulmonary injury but also damage to the cardiovascular system due to intertwined pathophysiological risks. As a point of convergence in the pathophysiologic process between COVID-19 and heart failure (HF), cytokine storm induces the progression of COVID-19 in patients presenting pre-existing or new onset myocardial damage and even HF. Cytokine storm, as a trigger of the progression of HF in patients with COVID-19, has become a novel focus to explore therapies for target populations. In this review, we briefly introduce the basis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and illuminate the mechanism and links among COVID-19, cytokine storm, and HF. Furthermore, we discuss drugs and therapeutic targets for patients with COVID-19 and HF.

The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Use on Patient Mortality and the Availability of Mechanical Ventilators in COVID-19

Rationale: How to provide advanced respiratory support for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to maximize population-level survival while optimizing mechanical ventilator access is unknown.Objectives: To evaluate the use of high-flow nasal cannula for COVID-19 on population-level mortality and ventilator availability.Methods: We constructed dynamical (deterministic) simulation models of high-flow nasal cannula and mechanical ventilation use for COVID-19 in the United States. Model parameters were estimated through consensus based on published literature, local data, and experience. We had the following two outcomes: 1) cumulative number of deaths and 2) days without any available ventilators. We assessed the impact of various policies for the use of high-flow nasal cannula (with or without "early intubation") versus a scenario in which high-flow nasal cannula was unavailable.Results: The policy associated with the fewest deaths and the least time without available ventilators combined the use of high-flow nasal cannula for patients not urgently needing ventilators with the use of early mechanical ventilation for these patients when at least 10% of ventilator supply was not in use. At the national level, this strategy resulted in 10,000-40,000 fewer deaths than if high-flow nasal cannula were not available. In addition, with moderate national ventilator capacity (30,000-45,000 ventilators), this strategy led to up to 25 (11.8%) fewer days without available ventilators. For a 250-bed hospital with 100 mechanical ventilators, the availability of 13, 20, or 33 high-flow nasal cannulas prevented 81, 102, and 130 deaths, respectively.Conclusions: The use of high-flow nasal cannula coupled with early mechanical ventilation when supply is sufficient results in fewer deaths and greater ventilator availability.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Critical Illness

OBJECTIVES

To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document.

METHODS

Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given?

CONCLUSIONS

Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.

The use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19: A systematic review

Objective

Guidelines from different regions on the use of non-invasive ventilation in COVID-19 have generally been inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and availability of guidelines, and whether non-invasive ventilation in the early stages of the pandemic is of importance.

Design and method

Databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, as well as websites of international organizations and gray literature, were searched up to June 23, 2020. The reference lists of eligible papers were also hand-searched.

Results

A total of 26 guidelines met the inclusion criteria. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, the guidelines’ methodological quality was low. Among six domains, Rigour of Development and Editorial Independence were of the lowest quality. Given the lack of evidence from randomized clinical trials and the great variation between different regions, recommendations for non-invasive ventilation have generated considerable debate regarding the early stages of COVID-19.

Conclusions

Improving the methodological quality of the guidelines should be a goal with regard to future pandemics. Additionally, better-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to resolve contradictions regarding the impact of non-invasive ventilation.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42020198410.

The Arab region's contribution to global COVID-19 research: Bibliometric and visualization analysis

BACKGROUND

At the global level and in the Arab world, particularly in low-income countries, COVID-19 remains a major public health issue. As demonstrated by an incredible number of COVID-19-related publications, the research science community responded rapidly. Therefore, this study was intended to assess the growing contribution of the Arab world to global research on COVID-19.

METHODS

For the period between December 2019 and March 2021, the search for publications was conducted via the Scopus database using terms linked to COVID-19. VOSviewer 1.6.16 software was applied to generate a network map to assess hot topics in this area and determine the collaboration patterns between different countries. Furthermore, the research output of Arab countries was adjusted in relation to population size and gross domestic product (GDP).

RESULTS

A total of 143,975 publications reflecting the global overall COVID-19 research output were retrieved. By restricting analysis to the publications published by the Arab countries, the research production was 6131 documents, representing 4.26% of the global research output regarding COVID-19. Of all these publications, 3990 (65.08%) were original journal articles, 980 (15.98%) were review articles, 514 (8.38%) were letters and 647 (10.55%) were others, such as editorials or notes. The highest number of COVID-19 publications was published by Saudi Arabia (n = 2186, 35.65%), followed by Egypt (n = 1281, 20.78%) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), (n = 719, 11.73%). After standardization by population size and GDP, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Lebanon had the highest publication productivity. The collaborations were mostly with researchers from the United States (n = 968), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 661). The main research lines identified in COVID-19 from the Arab world are related to: public health and epidemiology; immunological and pharmaceutical research; signs, symptoms and clinical diagnosis; and virus detection.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel analysis of the latest Arab COVID-19-related studies is discussed in the current study and how these findings are connected to global production. Continuing and improving future collaboration between developing and developed countries will also help to facilitate the sharing of responsibilities for COVID-19 in research results and the implementation of policies for COVID-19.

Early awake proning in critical and severe COVID-19 patients undergoing noninvasive respiratory support: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND/MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in two teaching hospitals over a 3-month period (March 2010-June 2020) comparing severe and critical COVID-19 patients admitted to Respiratory Intensive Care Unit for non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) and subjected to awake prone position (PP) with those receiving standard care (SC). Primary outcome was endotracheal intubation (ETI) rate. In-hospital mortality, time to ETI, tracheostomy, length of RICU and hospital stay served as secondary outcomes. Risk factors associated to ETI among PP patients were also investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients were included, 76 in the SC and 38 in the PP group. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates showed greater effect of PP compared to SC on ETI rate (HR = 0.45 95% CI [0.2-0.9], p = 0.02) even after adjustment for baseline confounders (HR = 0.59 95% CI [0.3-0.94], p = 0.03). After stratification according to non-invasive respiratory support, PP showed greater significant benefit for those on High Flow Nasal Cannulae (HR = 0.34 95% CI [0.12-0.84], p = 0.04). Compared to SC, PP patients also showed a favorable difference in terms of days free from respiratory support, length of RICU and hospital stay while mortality and tracheostomy rate were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Prone positioning in awake and spontaneously breathing Covid-19 patients is feasible and associated with a reduction of intubation rate, especially in those patients undergoing HFNC. Although our results are intriguing, further randomized controlled trials are needed to answer all the open questions remaining pending about the real efficacy of PP in this setting.

Mortality, critical illness, and mechanical ventilation among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on therapeutic anticoagulants

Background

COVID-19 is associated with hypercoagulability and increased incidence of thrombosis. We compared the clinical outcomes of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who were on therapeutic anticoagulants to those on prophylactic anticoagulation.

Materials and methods

We performed an observational study of adult inpatients' with COVID-19 from March 9 to June 26, 2020. We compared patients who were continued on their outpatient prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation and those who were newly started on therapeutic anticoagulation for COVID-19 (without other indication) to those who were on prophylactic doses. The primary outcome was overall death while secondary outcomes were critical illness (World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement score ≥5), mechanical ventilation, and death among patients who first had critical illness. We adjusted for age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), Charlson score, glucose on admission, and use of antiplatelet agents.

Results

Of 1716 inpatients with COVID-19, 171 patients were continued on their therapeutic anticoagulation and 78 were started on new therapeutic anticoagulation for COVID-19. In patients continued on home therapeutic anticoagulation, there were no differences in overall death, critical illness, mechanical ventilation, or death among patients with critical illness compared to patients on prophylactic anticoagulation. In patients receiving new therapeutic anticoagulation for COVID-19, there was increased death (OR 5.93; 95% CI 3.71-9.47), critical illness (OR 14.51; 95% CI 7.43-28.31), need mechanical ventilation (OR 11.22; 95% CI 6.67-18.86), and death after first having critical illness (OR 5.51; 95% CI 2.80-10.87).

Conclusions

Therapeutic anticoagulation for inpatients with COVID-19 was not associated with improved outcomes.

Tocilizumab for the Critically Ill With Severe COVID-19: A Community Hospital Case Series

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the use of tocilizumab in a community hospital setting for critically ill patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN

A retrospective case series.

SETTING

Five community hospitals within 1 urban health system.

PATIENTS

Adult patients whom received tocilizumab between March 27th, 2020 to April 30th, 2020 for severe COVID-19.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen patients in total were evaluated from the 5 community hospitals. The mean (± SD) age of the patients was 53.9 ± 9.2 years, 56% were men, and the most common comorbidities present on admission were hypertension (31%) and diabetes mellitus (25%). All patients received at least 1 other treatment modality for COVID-19 (steroids, hydroxychloroquine, or convaslescent plasma). Additionally, all patients on admission to intensive care units had severe COVID-19 with 56% requiring mechanical ventilation with a pre-tocilizumab median (IQR) Pao₂: Fio₂ of 84 (69 - 108.6), 19% requiring vasopressor support, and inflammatory markers (CRP, LDH, ferritin, and IL-6) were elevated. The median (IQR) tocilizumab dose was 400 mg (400-600) which correlated with a weight-based mean (± SD) dose of 5.4 mg/kg ± 1.3. Of the 16 patients that received tocilizumab, 8 (50%) were discharged home, 7 (44%) died, and 1 (6%) was still hospitalized at the end of data collection. Patients who died were more likely to be older 62 ± 2 years, female (57%), had a higher rate of mechanical ventilation (86%) and vasopressors (43%) use at baseline, and had a higher median (IQR) IL-6 level prior to tocilizumab administration 550 pg/mL (IQR 83-1924). There were no reported adverse drug reactions reported after the administration of tocilizumab for any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings do not support the effectiveness of tocilizumab in treatment of severe COVID-19 infection in critically ill patients.

Severe covid-19 pneumonia: pathogenesis and clinical management

Severe covid-19 pneumonia has posed critical challenges for the research and medical communities. Older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase the risk for severe disease. For people hospitalized with covid-19, 15-30% will go on to develop covid-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS). Autopsy studies of patients who died of severe SARS CoV-2 infection reveal presence of diffuse alveolar damage consistent with ARDS but with a higher thrombus burden in pulmonary capillaries. When used appropriately, high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may allow CARDS patients to avoid intubation, and does not increase risk for disease transmission. During invasive mechanical ventilation, low tidal volume ventilation and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration to optimize oxygenation are recommended. Dexamethasone treatment improves mortality for the treatment of severe and critical covid-19, while remdesivir may have modest benefit in time to recovery in patients with severe disease but shows no statistically significant benefit in mortality or other clinical outcomes. Covid-19 survivors, especially patients with ARDS, are at high risk for long term physical and mental impairments, and an interdisciplinary approach is essential for critical illness recovery.

Pulmonary Hemodynamics and Ventilation in Patients With COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure and ARDS

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that COVID-19-associated severe respiratory failure (CARDS) might differ from usual acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to failing autoregulation of pulmonary vessels and higher shunt. We sought to investigate pulmonary hemodynamics and ventilation properties in patients with CARDS compared to patients with ARDS of pulmonary origin.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive adults with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 patients treated in our ICU in 04/2020 and a comparison of the data to matched controls with ARDS due to respiratory infections treated in our ICU from 01/2014 to 08/2019 for whom pulmonary artery catheter data were available.

RESULTS

CARDS patients (n = 10) had ventilation characteristics similar to those of ARDS (n = 10) patients. Nevertheless, mechanical power applied by ventilation was significantly higher in CARDS patients (23.4 ± 8.9 J/min) than in ARDS (15.9 ± 4.3 J/min; P < 0.05). COVID-19 patients had similar pulmonary artery pressure but significantly lower pulmonary vascular resistance, as cardiac output was higher in CARDS vs. ARDS patients (P < 0.05). Shunt fraction and dead space were similar in CARDS compared to ARDS (P > 0.05) and were correlated with hypoxemia in both groups. The arteriovenous pCO₂ difference (▵pCO₂) was elevated (CARDS 5.5 ± 2.8 mmHg vs. ARDS 4.7 ± 1.1 mmHg; P > 0.05), as was the P_(v-a)CO₂/C_(a-v)O₂ ratio (CARDS mean 2.2 ± 1.5 vs. ARDS 1.7 ± 0.8; P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients seems to differ only slightly from ARDS regarding ventilation characteristics and pulmonary hemodynamics. Our data indicate microcirculatory dysfunction. More data need to be collected to assure these findings and gain more pathophysiological insights into COVID-19 and respiratory failure.

Exploratory Analysis of Physical Therapy Process of Care and Psychosocial Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical Therapists

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the physical therapy process of care, clinical practices, and the self-reported psychosocial impact of working during the 2020 pandemic on physical therapists and physical therapist assistants.

METHODS

An electronic survey including closed and open-ended questions was distributed to physical therapists employed in a range of health care settings across the United States.

RESULTS

Physical therapy use and process of care varied across settings. Feasibility of performing an assessment was the main driver for selection of outcome measures. Interventions were mainly geared toward improving respiratory function and deconditioning. Prone patient positioning, now commonplace, was used infrequently by therapists in acute care prior to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Similarly, outpatient and home care settings noted an increase in the use of respiratory-driven interventions such as incentive spirometry and breathing exercises. Qualitative data analysis revealed both physical barriers (personal protective equipment [PPE]) and social barriers to care. Therapists noted challenges in discharge planning and patient/family education due to the impact of social isolation. They also noted difficulty maintaining productivity standards because of additional time spent in changing PPE and following safety measures. Participants dealt with rapid changes in their role, changing productivity standards, and needing to increase their knowledge in a short amount of time.

CONCLUSION

Physical therapy use varied widely across settings. Despite some concern for personal health, respondents felt that the COVID-19 pandemic increased a sense of togetherness among team members and promoted greater appreciation for life and work.

IMPACT

This exploration of the process of care and current clinical practices across settings provides important knowledge about the role of physical therapists and physical therapist assistants in the care of patients with COVID-19. Gaining an understanding of the psychosocial impact of the pandemic among therapists could assist in creating solutions to better support clinicians' well-being.

Role of awake prone positioning in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19: an experience from a developing country

There is limited evidence on the efficacy of awake prone positioning (PP) in non-ventilated patients with COVID-19 who have hypoxemia. We, therefore, aim to describe our experience with the use of early proning in awake, non-intubated patients with confirmed COVID-19. In our retrospective observational study, 23 patients with confirmed positive PCR test results for Severe Acute respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and hypoxemia that required oxygen therapy with or without non-invasive ventilation were treated with PP. Patients were classified into mild, moderate and severe COVID-19 disease. There were no targeted number of hours for proning per day and patients were kept in prone position according to their tolerance. The primary outcome measure was the avoidance of intubation and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stays and complications related to PP. The mean (standard deviation) age of our cohort was 54.5 (11.7) years, and the majority were males (21/23, 91.3%). Sixty-one per cent (14/23) of the patients were suffering from severe disease and 82.6% (19/23) had bilateral lung involvement with interstitial infiltrates. Majority of the patients were prone positioned for a median of 6 days (IQR 4 - 8). Only one patient required transfer to ICU for mechanical ventilation and subsequently died due to severe ARDS. All 22 patients showed progressive improvement in oxygen requirement and PF ratio, mostly after 3-5 days of proning. The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days. All patients, except one, were discharged in stable conditions, on room air or on a minimal oxygen requirement of 1-2 liters. No major complication of PP was recorded. Awake prone positioning is a valuable and safe therapeutic adjunct that can be applied in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19. It can also be included in the home-based management protocols of COVID-19 to improve patient outcomes and mitigate the burden on health care facilities.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines on the Management of Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the ICU: First Update

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.

METHODS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility.

RESULTS

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning.

CONCLUSION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula, a Boon or a Bane for COVID-19 Patients? An Evidence-Based Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review instantiates the efficacy and safety of HFNC in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

RECENT FINDINGS

Globally, the healthcare system is facing an unprecedented crisis of resources due to the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Fever, cough, dyspnea, myalgia, fatigue, and pneumonia are the most common symptoms associated with it. The incidence of invasive mechanical ventilation in ICU patients ranges from 29.1 to 89.9%. Supplemental oxygen therapy is the main stay treatment for managing hypoxemic respiratory failure. The high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a novel non-invasive strategy for better oxygenation and ventilation in critically ill patients. In this grim scenario, a reduction in mechanical ventilation by means of HFNC is of prime interest.

SUMMARY

HFNC is considered an aerosol-generating intervention with the risk of viral aerosolization with a concern of potential nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is no consensus regarding the use of HFNC in novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP). HFNC seems to be an effective and safe treatment modality in acute respiratory failure with optimal settings and selection of ideal patients.

Prediction of Sepsis in COVID-19 Using Laboratory Indicators

Background

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global public health concern. Many inpatients with COVID-19 have shown clinical symptoms related to sepsis, which will aggravate the deterioration of patients’ condition. We aim to diagnose Viral Sepsis Caused by SARS-CoV-2 by analyzing laboratory test data of patients with COVID-19 and establish an early predictive model for sepsis risk among patients with COVID-19.

Methods

This study retrospectively investigated laboratory test data of 2,453 patients with COVID-19 from electronic health records. Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) was employed to build four models with different feature subsets of a total of 69 collected indicators. Meanwhile, the explainable Shapley Additive ePlanation (SHAP) method was adopted to interpret predictive results and to analyze the feature importance of risk factors.

Findings

The model for classifying COVID-19 viral sepsis with seven coagulation function indicators achieved the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.9213 (95% CI, 89.94–94.31%), sensitivity 97.17% (95% CI, 94.97–98.46%), and specificity 82.05% (95% CI, 77.24–86.06%). The model for identifying COVID-19 coagulation disorders with eight features provided an average of 3.68 (±) 4.60 days in advance for early warning prediction with 0.9298 AUC (95% CI, 86.91–99.04%), 82.22% sensitivity (95% CI, 67.41–91.49%), and 84.00% specificity (95% CI, 63.08–94.75%).

Interpretation

We found that an abnormality of the coagulation function was related to the occurrence of sepsis and the other routine laboratory test represented by inflammatory factors had a moderate predictive value on coagulopathy, which indicated that early warning of sepsis in COVID-19 patients could be achieved by our established model to improve the patient’s prognosis and to reduce mortality.

Spontaneous Breathing and Evolving Phenotypes of Lung Damage in Patients with COVID-19: Review of Current Evidence and Forecast of a New Scenario

The mechanisms of acute respiratory failure other than inflammation and complicating the SARS-CoV-2 infection are still far from being fully understood, thus challenging the management of COVID-19 patients in the critical care setting. In this unforeseen scenario, the role of an individual's excessive spontaneous breathing may acquire critical importance, being one potential and important driver of lung injury and disease progression. The consequences of this acute lung damage may impair lung structure, forecasting the model of a fragile respiratory system. This perspective article aims to analyze the progression of injured lung phenotypes across the SARS-CoV-2 induced respiratory failure, pointing out the role of spontaneous breathing and also tackling the specific respiratory/ventilatory strategy required by the fragile lung type.

Using Bayesian Methods to Augment the Interpretation of Critical Care Trials. An Overview of Theory and Example Reanalysis of the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial

Most randomized trials are designed and analyzed using frequentist statistical approaches such as null hypothesis testing and P values. Conceptually, P values are cumbersome to understand, as they provide evidence of data incompatibility with a null hypothesis (e.g., no clinical benefit) and not direct evidence of the alternative hypothesis (e.g., clinical benefit). This counterintuitive framework may contribute to the misinterpretation that the absence of evidence is equal to evidence of absence and may cause the discounting of potentially informative data. Bayesian methods provide an alternative, probabilistic interpretation of data. The reanalysis of completed trials using Bayesian methods is becoming increasingly common, particularly for trials with effect estimates that appear clinically significant despite P values above the traditional threshold of 0.05. Statistical inference using Bayesian methods produces a distribution of effect sizes that would be compatible with observed trial data, interpreted in the context of prior assumptions about an intervention (called "priors"). These priors are chosen by investigators to reflect existing beliefs and past empirical evidence regarding the effect of an intervention. By calculating the likelihood of clinical benefit, a Bayesian reanalysis can augment the interpretation of a trial. However, if priors are not defined a priori, there is a legitimate concern that priors could be constructed in a manner that produces biased results. Therefore, some standardization of priors for Bayesian reanalysis of clinical trials may be desirable for the critical care community. In this Critical Care Perspective, we discuss both frequentist and Bayesian approaches to clinical trial analysis, introduce a framework that researchers can use to select priors for a Bayesian reanalysis, and demonstrate how to apply our proposal by conducting a novel Bayesian trial reanalysis.

Drape to prevent disease transmission during endotracheal intubation

Endotracheal intubation poses high risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and other respiratory pathogens. We designed and here describe a protective drape that we believe will greatly reduce this risk. Unlike the intubation box that has been described prior, it is portable, disposable, and does not restrict operator dexterity. We have used it extensively and successfully during the height of the corona virus disease of 2019 outbreak.

Spontaneous pneumomediastinum in Covid-19 : a case of complete resolution despite invasive positive pressure ventilation

We present the case of a 65-year-old patient who was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to Covid-19 respiratory failure. During his hospital stay, he developed a spontaneous pneumomediastinum (SP). To date, there have been few reports of SP associated with Covid-19 and even less is known about the impact of positive pressure ventilation on these patients. Our patient was first treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC). Because of further respiratory deterioration, he was supported with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Later, he required intubation and ventilation with invasive positive pressure ventilation. Despite this, a complete spontaneous resolution of the pneumomediastinum was observed 13 days after the initial diagnosis.

A Nurse's Guide to COVID-19

ABSTRACT

To assist nurses caring for hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the authors synthesize evidence-based information on the disease, providing background on the epidemiology and history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the causative virus. They also discuss the risks for severe effects of the illness, the multiple signs and symptoms hospitalized adults with COVID-19 may manifest, and the precautions hospitals should take to keep health care providers and patients safe during the course of this pandemic.

Outcomes of COVID-19 With the Mayo Clinic Model of Care and Research

OBJECTIVE

To report the Mayo Clinic experience with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related to patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with COVID-19 diagnosed between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2020, at any of the Mayo Clinic sites. We abstracted pertinent comorbid conditions such as age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index variables, and treatments received. Factors associated with hospitalization and mortality were assessed in univariate and multivariate models.

RESULTS

A total of 7891 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection with research authorization on file received care across the Mayo Clinic sites during the study period. Of these, 7217 patients were adults 18 years or older who were analyzed further. A total of 897 (11.4%) patients required hospitalization, and 354 (4.9%) received care in the intensive care unit (ICU). All hospitalized patients were reviewed by a COVID-19 Treatment Review Panel, and 77.5% (695 of 897) of inpatients received a COVID-19-directed therapy. Overall mortality was 1.2% (94 of 7891), with 7.1% (64 of 897) mortality in hospitalized patients and 11.3% (40 of 354) in patients requiring ICU care.

CONCLUSION

Mayo Clinic outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infection in the ICU, hospital, and community compare favorably with those reported nationally. This likely reflects the impact of interprofessional multidisciplinary team evaluation, effective leveraging of clinical trials and available treatments, deployment of remote monitoring tools, and maintenance of adequate operating capacity to not require surge adjustments. These best practices can help guide other health care systems with the continuing response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Journey From SARS-CoV-2 to COVID-19 and Beyond: A Comprehensive Insight of Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Pathogenesis, and Overview of the Progress into Its Therapeutic Management

The 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), commonly known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), was first revealed in late 2019 in Wuhan city, Hubei province, China. It was subsequently spread globally and thereby declared as a pandemic by WHO in March 2020. The disease causes severe acute respiratory illness and is highly contagious due to the fast-onward transmission. As of the mid of November 2020, the disease has affected 220 countries with more than 16 million active cases and 1.3 million deaths worldwide. Males, pregnant women, the elderly, immunosuppressed patients, and those with underlying medical conditions are more vulnerable to the disease than the general healthy population. Unfortunately, no definite treatment is available. Although remdesivir as an antiviral had been approved for use in those above 12 years of age and 40 kg weight group, it has been observed to be ineffective in large-scale SOLIDARITY trials by WHO. Moreover, dexamethasone has been found to increase the recovery rate of ventilated patients; oxygen and inhaled nitric oxide as a vasodilator have been given emergency expanded access. In addition, more than 57 clinical trials are being conducted for the development of the vaccines on various platforms. Two vaccines were found to be significantly promising in phase III results. It is concluded that till the approval of a specific treatment or development of a vaccine against this deadly disease, the preventive measures should be followed strictly to reduce the spread of the disease.

Cardiovascular Disease and Severe Hypoxemia Are Associated With Higher Rates of Noninvasive Respiratory Support Failure in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is the major complication of coronavirus disease 2019, yet optimal respiratory support strategies are uncertain. We aimed to describe outcomes with high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and identify individual factors associated with noninvasive respiratory support failure.

Design:

Retrospective cohort study to describe rates of high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and/or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation success (live discharge without endotracheal intubation). Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models were used to identify patient characteristics associated with high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and/or noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure (endotracheal intubation and/or in-hospital mortality).

Setting:

One large academic health system, including five hospitals (one quaternary referral center, a tertiary hospital, and three community hospitals), in New York City.

Patients:

All hospitalized adults 18–100 years old with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted between March 1, 2020, and April 28, 2020.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main Results:

A total of 331 and 747 patients received high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation as the highest level of noninvasive respiratory support, respectively; 154 (46.5%) in the high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula cohort and 167 (22.4%) in the noninvasive positive pressure ventilation cohort were successfully discharged without requiring endotracheal intubation. In adjusted models, significantly increased risk of high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation failure was seen among patients with cardiovascular disease (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.17–2.83 and subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.06–1.84, respectively). Conversely, a higher peripheral blood oxygen saturation to Fio₂ ratio at high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation initiation was associated with reduced risk of failure (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19–0.54, and subdistribution hazard ratio 0.34; 95% CI, 0.21–0.55, respectively).

Conclusions:

A significant proportion of patients receiving noninvasive respiratory modalities for coronavirus disease 2019 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure achieved successful hospital discharge without requiring endotracheal intubation, with lower success rates among those with comorbid cardiovascular disease or more severe hypoxemia. The role of high-flow oxygen delivered through nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019–related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure warrants further consideration.

Computed tomography assessment of PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data concerning the optimal ventilator management in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia; particularly, the optimal levels of positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of two levels of PEEP on alveolar recruitment in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

METHODS

A single-center cohort study was conducted in a 39-bed intensive care unit at a university-affiliated hospital in Genoa, Italy. Chest computed tomography (CT) was performed to quantify aeration at 8 and 16 cmH2O PEEP. The primary endpoint was the amount of alveolar recruitment, defined as the change in the non-aerated compartment at the two PEEP levels on CT scan.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were included in this analysis. Alveolar recruitment was median [interquartile range] 2.7 [0.7-4.5] % of lung weight and was not associated with excess lung weight, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, respiratory system compliance, inflammatory and thrombophilia markers. Patients in the upper quartile of recruitment (recruiters), compared to non-recruiters, had comparable clinical characteristics, lung weight and gas volume. Alveolar recruitment was not different in patients with lower versus higher respiratory system compliance. In a subgroup of 20 patients with available gas exchange data, increasing PEEP decreased respiratory system compliance (median difference, MD - 9 ml/cmH2O, 95% CI from - 12 to - 6 ml/cmH2O, p < 0.001) and the ventilatory ratio (MD - 0.1, 95% CI from - 0.3 to - 0.1, p = 0.003), increased PaO2 with FiO2 = 0.5 (MD 24 mmHg, 95% CI from 12 to 51 mmHg, p < 0.001), but did not change PaO2 with FiO2 = 1.0 (MD 7 mmHg, 95% CI from - 12 to 49 mmHg, p = 0.313). Moreover, alveolar recruitment was not correlated with improvement of oxygenation or venous admixture.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, higher PEEP resulted in limited alveolar recruitment. These findings suggest limiting PEEP strictly to the values necessary to maintain oxygenation, thus avoiding the use of higher PEEP levels.

Therapeutic Rationale for Endotoxin Removal with Polymyxin B Immobilized Fiber Column (PMX) for Septic Shock

Endotoxin removal therapy with polymyxin B immobilized fiber column (PMX) has been clinically applied for sepsis and septic shock patients since 1994. The effectiveness and usefulness of this therapy have been demonstrated for more than a quarter of a century. However, a documented survival benefit has not yet been demonstrable in a large, multicenter, randomized and controlled trial. Following the findings derived from a large sepsis clinical trial with PMX in North America, a new trial is ongoing to determine if PMX has a long-term survival benefit when administered to septic patients. Another approach to support a survival benefit from intervention with PMX is to utilize a detailed analysis available from a large clinical data base. The endotoxin adsorption capacity of PMX columns in vitro and the effectiveness of PMX columns can be further demonstrable in animal models. The capability of PMX and details of its mechanism of action to intervene in the sepsis cascade and impede organ dysfunction in septic patients is not fully understood. The surface antigen expression in monocytes and neutrophils are improved after PMX therapy. Immunomodulatory effects as a result of endotoxin removal and/or other mechanisms of action have been suggested. These effects and other potential immune effects may explain some of the improved effects upon organ dysfunction of sepsis and septic shock patients. Endotoxemia may be involved in the pathophysiology of other diseases than sepsis. A rapid diagnostic method to detect and target endotoxemia could allow us to practice precision medicine and expand the clinical indications of endotoxin removal therapy.

Neurological Disorders Associated With COVID-19 Hospital Admissions: Experience of a Single Tertiary Healthcare Center

Background: Early reports have detailed a range of neurological symptoms in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, there is a lack of detailed description and incidence of the neurological disorders amongst hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We describe a range of neurological disorders (other than non-specific neurological symptoms), including their clinical, radiological, and laboratory findings, encountered in our cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to a large tertiary institution.

Methods: We reviewed our prospectively collated database of all adult Neurology referrals, Neurology and Stroke admissions and Neurological multi-disciplinary team meetings for all hospitalized patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 from 17 March 2020 to 31 August 2020.

Results: Twenty-nine of 1,243 COVID-19 inpatients (2.3%) presented with COVID-19-related neurological disorders. The mean age was 68.9 ± 13.5(SD) years, age range of 34–97 years, and there were 16 males. Twenty two patients had confirmed, five were probable and two had suspected COVID-19 infection according to the WHO case classification. Eight patients (27%) required critical care admission. Neurological symptoms at presentation included acute confusion and delirium, seizures, and new focal neurological deficits. Based on the pre-defined neurological phenotype, COVID-19 patients were grouped into four main categories. Sixteen patients had cerebrovascular events (13 with acute ischemic stroke and three had hemorrhagic features), seven patients were found to have inflammatory, non-inflammatory and autoimmune encephalopathy (including two with known Multiple Sclerosis), whilst disorders of movement and peripheral nervous system were diagnosed in three patients each.

Conclusion: Although the exact prevalence and etiology remain unclear, new onset of neurological disorders, in addition to anosmia, is non-sporadic during the acute COVID-19-infection. Longitudinal follow-up of these patients is required to determine the clinical and functional outcome, treatment response and long-term effects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Characteristics of COVID-19 patients with bacterial coinfection admitted to the hospital from the emergency department in a large regional healthcare system

Introduction

The rate of bacterial coinfection with SARS‐CoV‐2 is poorly defined. The decision to administer antibiotics early in the course of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection depends on the likelihood of bacterial coinfection.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients admitted through the emergency department with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection over a 6‐week period in a large healthcare system in the United States. Blood and respiratory culture results were abstracted and adjudicated by multiple authors. The primary outcome was the rate of bacteremia. We secondarily looked to define clinical or laboratory features associated with bacteremia.

Results

There were 542 patients admitted with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, with an average age of 62.8 years. Of these, 395 had blood cultures performed upon admission, with six true positive results (1.1% of the total population). An additional 14 patients had positive respiratory cultures treated as true pathogens in the first 72 h. Low blood pressure and elevated white blood cell count, neutrophil count, blood urea nitrogen, and lactate were statistically significantly associated with bacteremia. Clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between patients with and without bacteremia.

Conclusions

We found a low rate of bacteremia in patients admitted with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In hemodynamically stable patients, routine antibiotics may not be warranted in this population.

Benefits of early aggressive immunomodulatory therapy (tocilizumab and methylprednisolone) in COVID-19: Single center cohort study of 685 patients

INTRODUCTION

A growing evidence suggests that immune dysregulation and thrombotic phenomena are key features in the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Apart from antivirals and respiratory support, anticoagulants, corticoids and immunomodulators are increasingly being prescribed, especially for more severe cases. We describe the clinical outcome of a large cohort of patients preferentially treated with glucocorticoids and interleukin inhibitors.

METHODS

Single center and retrospective case series. Adult patients admitted with COVID-19 related respiratory insufficiency were included. Patients who died within 2 days after admission and those testing positive but asymptomatic were excluded. We defined two study periods: from March 3rd to March 31 st, 2020 (beginning of epidemic until peak of incidence) and April 1 st to May 7 th, 2020 (second half of epidemic). The majority of patients received respiratory support, combinations of antimicrobials, anticoagulants, corticoids and interleukin inhibitors. Antivirals were preferentially given in the first period. The clinical outcome (death and ventilator dependency) of both periods was compared.

RESULTS

From March 3 rd to May 7 th, 685 patients were included for analysis (58.4% males, mean age 68.9 years). Patients in the first period (n ​= ​408) were younger (66.6 vs 71.1 years, p ​= ​0.003), presented lower mean P a O 2/F i O2 ratio at admission (256.5 vs 270.4 ​mm Hg,p ​= ​0.0563), higher ferritin (1520 vs 1221 ​ng/ml, p ​= ​0.01), higher IL-6 (679 vs 194 ​pg/ml, p ​< ​0.0001) and similar D-dimer levels (3.59 vs 3.39 ​μg/mL, p ​= ​0.65) compared to the second period (n ​= ​277). Lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon were preferentially given in the first period (23.8% and 32% vs 1.8% and 11.9%, p ​< ​0.0001). Use of corticoids (88.2% vs 87.4%, p ​= ​0,74) and tocilizumab (26.29 vs 20.22% p ​= ​0.06) were similarly administered in both periods. Patients in the second period needed less mechanical ventilation (4.9% vs 16.9%, p ​< ​0.0001), fewer ICU admission (6.1% vs 20.1%,p ​< ​0.0001) and showed similar mortality (17.7% vs 15.4%, p ​= ​0.43). Infectious and thrombotic complications were comparable in both periods (both around 8%, with no statistical difference). Patients treated with tocilizumab (n ​= ​163) had lower mortality rate compared to those untreated under the same indication (7.9% vs 24.2%, p ​< ​0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective COVID-19 in-hospital cohort, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon showed no significant impact on survival. Extensive use of corticosteroids and tocilizumab resulted in good overall outcome and showed acceptable complication rates.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients in Tokyo: a single-center observational study from the first wave

Background

Many studies have been published about critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early phases of the pandemic but the characteristic or survival of critically ill Japanese patients have not yet been investigated. We sought to investigate the characteristics, inflammatory laboratory finding trends, and outcomes among critically ill Japanese patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with the first wave of COVID-19.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was performed in a single institution in the center of Tokyo. Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU from March 19 to April 30, 2020 were included. Trends for significant inflammatory laboratory findings were analyzed. In-hospital death, days of mechanical ventilation or oxygen supplementation, days of ICU or hospital stay were followed until May 26, 2020.

Results

Twenty-four patients were included. Median age was 57.5 years, and 79% were male. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was elevated to a median of 10.1 on admission and peaked on Day 10 of illness. Seventeen patients were intubated on Day 11 of illness and received mechanical ventilation. One patient underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The majority (88%) received systemic steroids, including 16 patients who received high dose methylprednisolone (500–1000 mg). Favipiravir was used in 38% of patients. Two patients, including 1 who refused intensive care, died. Eighteen patients were discharged. Median length of ICU and hospital stay for all patients was 6 and 22 days, respectively. Median length of ventilator dependency was 7 days. Four patients underwent a tracheostomy and received prolonged ventilation for more than 21 days. One patient receiving mechanical ventilation died. All survivors discontinued ventilator use.

Conclusions

Mortality was remarkably low in our single institutional study. Three survivors received mechanical ventilation for more than 3 weeks. Trends of clinically significant laboratory markers reflected the clinical course of COVID-19.

Microvascular flow alterations in critically ill COVID-19 patients: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Data on microcirculatory pattern of COVID-19 critically ill patients are scarce. The objective was to compare sublingual microcirculation parameters of critically ill patients according to the severity of the disease.

METHODS

The study is a single-center prospective study with critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted in ICU. Sublingual microcirculation was assessed by IDF microscopy within 48 hours of ICU admission. Microcirculatory flow index (MFI), proportion of perfused vessel (PPV), total vessel density (TVD), De Backer score (DBS), perfused vessel density (PVD) and heterogeneity index (HI) were assessed. Patients were divided in 2 groups (severe and critical) according to the World health organization definition.

FINDINGS

From 19th of March to 7th of April 2020, 43 patients were included. Fourteen patients (33%) were in the severe group and twenty-nine patients (67%) in the critical group. Patients in the critical group were all mechanically ventilated. The critical group had significantly higher values of MFI, DBS and PVD in comparison to severe group (respectively, PaCO2: 49 [44-45] vs 36 [33-37] mmHg; p<0,0001, MFI: 2.8 ± 0.2 vs 2.5 ± 0.3; p = 0.001, DBS: 12.7 ± 2.6 vs 10.8 ± 2.0 vessels mm-2; p = 0.033, PVD: 12.5 ± 3.0 vs 10.1 ± 2.4 mm.mm-2; p = 0.020). PPV, HI and TVD were similar between groups Correlation was found between microcirculatory parameters and PaCO2 levels.

CONCLUSION

Critical COVID-19 patients under mechanical ventilation seem to have higher red blood cell velocity than severe non-ventilated patients.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Expert Recommendations from The Korean Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Since the first reported case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December 2019, the numbers of confirmed cases and deaths have continued to increase exponentially despite multi-factorial efforts. Although various attempts have been made to improve the level of evidence for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment over the past 10 years, most experts still hesitate to take an active position on whether to apply ECMO in COVID-19 patients. Several ECMO management guidelines have been published recently, but they reflect some important differences from the Korean medical system and aspects of real-world medical practice in Korea. We aimed to find evidence on the efficacy of ECMO for COVID-19 patients by reviewing the published literature and to propose expert recommendations by analyzing the Korean COVID-19 ECMO registry data.

Administration of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of COVID-19: A review of available evidence

Since December 31, 2019, unknown causes of pneumonia have been reported in Wuhan, China. This special pneumonia associated with a novel coronavirus was named 2019-nCoV by the World Health Organization (WHO) in January 2020. From the beginning of this infectious disease, clinicians and researchers have been endeavoring to discover an effective and suitable treatment for affected patients. To date, there is no definitive and specific treatments for coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) infection while drugs introduced are still in the clinical trial phase. Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) is a biological product prepared from the serum and an optional treatment for patients with antibody deficiencies. In many countries, much attention has been paid to the use of IVIG in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Due to the therapeutic importance of IVIG in virus infections, in the current study, we reviewed the possible effect of IVIG in viral infections and potential evidence of IVIG therapy in patients with COVID-19 virus.