[Management of Patients with COVID-19 - Recommendations from a Palliative Care Perspective]

[Non-invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure. Clinical Practice Guidelines - on behalf of the German Society of Pneumology and Ventilatory Medicine]

The guideline update outlines the advantages as well as the limitations of NIV in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in daily clinical practice and in different indications.Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has a high value in therapy of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, as it significantly reduces the length of ICU stay and hospitalization as well as mortality.Patients with cardiopulmonary edema and acute respiratory failure should be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and oxygen in addition to necessary cardiological interventions. This should be done already prehospital and in the emergency department.In case of other forms of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with only mild or moderately disturbed gas exchange (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg) there is no significant advantage or disadvantage compared to high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). In severe forms of ARDS NIV is associated with high rates of treatment failure and mortality, especially in cases with NIV-failure and delayed intubation.NIV should be used for preoxygenation before intubation. In patients at risk, NIV is recommended to reduce extubation failure. In the weaning process from invasive ventilation NIV essentially reduces the risk of reintubation in hypercapnic patients. NIV is regarded useful within palliative care for reduction of dyspnea and improving quality of life, but here in concurrence to HFNO, which is regarded as more comfortable. Meanwhile NIV is also recommended in prehospital setting, especially in hypercapnic respiratory failure and pulmonary edema.With appropriate monitoring in an intensive care unit NIV can also be successfully applied in pediatric patients with acute respiratory insufficiency.

Specialized palliative care for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis of the LEOSS registry

PURPOSE

Symptom control for patients who were severely ill or dying from COVID-19 was paramount while resources were strained and infection control measures were in place. We aimed to describe the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who received specialized palliative care (SPC) and the type of SPC provided in a larger cohort.

METHODS

From the multi-centre cohort study Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS), data of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection documented between July 2020 and October 2021 were analysed.

RESULTS

273/7292 patients (3.7%) received SPC. Those receiving SPC were older and suffered more often from comorbidities, but 59% presented with an estimated life expectancy > 1 year. Main symptoms were dyspnoea, delirium, and excessive tiredness. 224/273 patients (82%) died during the hospital stay compared to 789/7019 (11%) without SPC. Symptom control was provided most common (223/273; 95%), followed by family and psychological support (50% resp. 43%). Personal contact with friends or relatives before or during the dying phase was more often documented in patients receiving SPC compared to patients without SPC (52% vs. 30%).

CONCLUSION

In 3.7% of SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients, the burden of the acute infection triggered palliative care involvement. Besides complex symptom management, SPC professionals also focused on psychosocial and family issues and aimed to enable personal contacts of dying patients with their family. The data underpin the need for further involvement of SPC in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients but also in other severe chronic infectious diseases.

Palliative Care e-Learning for Physicians Caring for Critically Ill and Dying Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Evaluation with Self-Assessed Knowledge and Attitude

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the care of critically ill and dying patients in isolation wards, intensive care units (ICUs), and regular wards was severely impaired. In order to support physicians in communicative and palliative care skills, an e-learning tool was developed as part of the joint project "Palliative Care in Pandemic Times" (PallPan). This study investigates the feasibility of this e-learning tool. Secondly, we aim to analyze changes in knowledge and attitude upon completion of the e-learning tool. A 38-item questionnaire-based evaluation study with assessment of global and specific outcomes including ICU and non-ICU physicians was performed. In total, 24 questionnaires were included in the anonymous analysis. Feasibility was confirmed by a very high rate of overall satisfaction (94% approval), with relevance reaching 99% approval. Overall, we detected high gains in knowledge and noticeably lower gains on the attitude plane, with the highest gain in naming reasons for incorporating palliative care. The lowest learning gain on the attitude plane was observed when the participants were confronted with their own mortality. This study shows that e-learning is a feasible tool for gaining knowledge and even changing the attitudes of physicians caring for critically ill and dying patients in a self-assessment evaluation.

Inpatient generalist palliative care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic - experiences, challenges and potential solutions from the perspective of health care workers

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has presented major challenges to the health system. Despite high acute case numbers, patients without Covid-19 still need to be cared for. Due to the severity of the disease and a possible stressful overall situation, patients with palliative care needs also require comprehensive care during pandemic times. In addition to specialized palliative care facilities, this also takes place in non palliative care wards. In order to ensure this general palliative care also in pandemic times, the experience of the staff should be used. The aim of this paper is to examine challenges and possible solutions for general palliative care inpatients in relation to the care of seriously ill and dying patients and their relatives.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured focus groups were conducted online for the study. Participants were staff from intensive care or isolation wards or from units where vulnerable patients (e.g. with cognitive impairment) are cared for. The focus groups were recorded and subsequently transcribed. The data material was analysed with the content structuring content analysis according to Kuckartz.

RESULTS

Five focus groups with four to eight health care professionals with various backgrounds were conducted. Fifteen main categories with two to eight subcategories were identified. Based on frequency and the importance expressed by the focus groups, six categories were extracted as central aspects: visiting regulations, communication with relatives, hygiene measures, cooperation, determination of the patients will and the possibility to say good bye.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic situation produced several challenges needing specific solutions in order to manage the care of seriously ill and dying patients. Especially visiting needs regulation to prevent social isolation and dying alone. Finding alternative communication ways as well as interprofessional and interdisciplinary cooperation is a precondition for individualised care of seriously ill and dying patients and their relatives. Measures preventing infections should be transparently communicated in hospitals.

National strategy for palliative care of severely ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics (PallPan) in Germany - study protocol of a mixed-methods project

Background

In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, general and specialist Palliative Care (PC) plays an essential role in health care, contributing to symptom control, psycho-social support, and providing support in complex decision making. Numbers of COVID-19 related deaths have recently increased demanding more palliative care input. Also, the pandemic impacts on palliative care for non-COVID-19 patients. Strategies on the care for seriously ill and dying people in pandemic times are lacking. Therefore, the program ‘Palliative care in Pandemics’ (PallPan) aims to develop and consent a national pandemic plan for the care of seriously ill and dying adults and their informal carers in pandemics including (a) guidance for generalist and specialist palliative care of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infections on the micro, meso and macro level, (b) collection and development of information material for an online platform, and (c) identification of variables and research questions on palliative care in pandemics for the national pandemic cohort network (NAPKON).

Methods

Mixed-methods project including ten work packages conducting (online) surveys and qualitative interviews to explore and describe i) experiences and burden of patients (with/without SARS-CoV-2 infection) and their relatives, ii) experiences, challenges and potential solutions of health care professionals, stakeholders and decision makers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The work package results inform the development of a consensus-based guidance. In addition, best practice examples and relevant literature will be collected and variables for data collection identified.

Discussion

For a future “pandemic preparedness” national and international recommendations and concepts for the care of severely ill and dying people are necessary considering both generalist and specialist palliative care in the home care and inpatient setting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00898-w.

COVID-19 und Palliativversorgung

Die Palliativversorgung kann in der „severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2“(SARS-CoV-2)-Pandemie mit ihrem Fachwissen, ihren Fähigkeiten und Haltungen sowohl zur Therapiezielfindung als auch zur Entscheidungsfindung bei knappen Ressourcen beitragen. Sie liefert Empfehlungen zur Kontrolle der Symptome Luftnot, Unruhe und Angst und bietet Konzepte, wie die Kommunikation mit Patienten und Angehörigen trotz der pandemiebedingten Einschränkungen gelingen kann. In dem Projekt „Nationale Strategie für Palliativversorgung in Pandemiezeiten“ (PallPan) wurden auf der Grundlage von 16 Teilstudien insgesamt 32 Handlungsempfehlungen für Patienten, Angehörige/Pflegende, Mitarbeitende und Entscheidungsträger im Gesundheitswesen vorgelegt. Dazu gehören auch Hilfestellungen zur „Trauer in besonderen Zeiten“.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

[S2k Guideline - Recommendations for Inpatient Therapy of Patients with COVID-19]

Since December 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - Corona Virus-2) has been spreading rapidly in the sense of a global pandemic. This poses significant challenges for clinicians and hospitals and is placing unprecedented strain on the healthcare systems of many countries. The majority of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) present with only mild symptoms such as cough and fever. However, about 6 % require hospitalization. Early clarification of whether inpatient and, if necessary, intensive care treatment is medically appropriate and desired by the patient is of particular importance in the pandemic. Acute hypoxemic respiratory insufficiency with dyspnea and high respiratory rate (> 30/min) usually leads to admission to the intensive care unit. Often, bilateral pulmonary infiltrates/consolidations or even pulmonary emboli are already found on imaging. As the disease progresses, some of these patients develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Mortality reduction of available drug therapy in severe COVID-19 disease has only been demonstrated for dexamethasone in randomized controlled trials. The main goal of supportive therapy is to ensure adequate oxygenation. In this regard, invasive ventilation and repeated prone positioning are important elements in the treatment of severely hypoxemic COVID-19 patients. Strict adherence to basic hygiene, including hand hygiene, and the correct wearing of adequate personal protective equipment are essential when handling patients. Medically necessary actions on patients that could result in aerosol formation should be performed with extreme care and preparation.

[Recommendations for the support of suffering, severely ill, dying or grieving persons in the corona pandemic from a palliative care perspective : Recommendations of the German Society for Palliative Medicine (DGP), the German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive and Emergency Medicine (DIVI), the Federal Association for Grief Counseling (BVT), the Working Group for Psycho-oncology in the German Cancer Society, the German Association for Social Work in the Healthcare System (DVSG) and the German Association for Systemic Therapy, Counseling and Family Therapy (DGSF)]

The corona pandemic has led to a number of restrictions and prohibitions, which in turn place large psychosocial or spiritual burdens on patients with COVID-19, their families and relatives and the treating personnel in the healthcare system. Patients with COVID-19 are not allowed to receive visitors and many hospitals and nursing homes have completely banned visitors. Many support services have been reduced or stopped completely. Necessary treatment interventions for other patients with critical and life-limiting diseases have been delayed or suspended in order to free resources for the expected COVID-19 patients; however, these people need to feel social connectedness with their relatives. Palliative care patients should be exempted from any ban on visitors. Families should be able to visit dying patients even on intensive care units or isolation wards, using adequate protective equipment. Alternative options, such as video telephone calls or via social media should be explored for patients in isolation. Families should also be enabled to say goodbye to the deceased with adequate protective equipment or should be offered alternative real or virtual options for remembrance and commemoration. Health care professionals coping with the exceptional stress should be continuously supported. This requires clear communication and leadership structures, communication training, psychosocial support, but most of all optimal framework conditions for the clinical work.

Position Paper for the State-of-the-Art Application of Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19

Against the background of the pandemic caused by infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the German Respiratory Society has appointed experts to develop therapy strategies for COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Here we present key position statements including observations about the pathophysiology of (ARF). In terms of the pathophysiology of pulmonary infection with SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 can be divided into 3 phases. Pulmonary damage in advanced COVID-19 often differs from the known changes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Two types (type L and type H) are differentiated, corresponding to early- and late-stage lung damage. This differentiation should be taken into consideration in the respiratory support of ARF. The assessment of the extent of ARF should be based on arterial or capillary blood gas analysis under room air conditions, and it needs to include the calculation of oxygen supply (measured from the variables of oxygen saturation, hemoglobin level, the corrected values of Hüfner's factor, and cardiac output). Aerosols can cause transmission of infectious, virus-laden particles. Open systems or vented systems can increase the release of respirable particles. Procedures in which the invasive ventilation system must be opened and endotracheal intubation carried out are associated with an increased risk of infection. Personal protective equipment (PPE) should have top priority because fear of contagion should not be a primary reason for intubation. Based on the current knowledge, inhalation therapy, nasal high-flow therapy (NHF), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be performed without an increased risk of infection to staff if PPE is provided. A significant proportion of patients with ARF present with relevant hypoxemia, which often cannot be fully corrected, even with a high inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) under NHF. In this situation, the oxygen therapy can be escalated to CPAP or NIV when the criteria for endotracheal intubation are not met. In ARF, NIV should be carried out in an intensive care unit or a comparable setting by experienced staff. Under CPAP/NIV, a patient can deteriorate rapidly. For this reason, continuous monitoring and readiness for intubation are to be ensured at all times. If the ARF progresses under CPAP/NIV, intubation should be implemented without delay in patients who do not have a "do not intubate" order.