ICU Bed Utilization During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in a Multistate Analysis-March to June 2020

COVID-19 vaccines: Immune correlates and clinical outcomes

Severe disease due to COVID-19 has declined dramatically as a result of widespread vaccination and natural immunity in the population. With the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants that largely escape vaccine-elicited neutralizing antibody responses, the efficacy of the original vaccines has waned and has required vaccine updating and boosting. Nevertheless, hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID-19 have remained low. In this review, we summarize current knowledge of immune responses that contribute to population immunity and the mechanisms how vaccines attenuate COVID-19 disease severity.

SOFA score performs worse than age for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19

The use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, originally developed to describe disease morbidity, is commonly used to predict in-hospital mortality. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many protocols for crisis standards of care used the SOFA score to select patients to be deprioritized due to a low likelihood of survival. A prior study found that age outperformed the SOFA score for mortality prediction in patients with COVID-19, but was limited to a small cohort of intensive care unit (ICU) patients and did not address whether their findings were unique to patients with COVID-19. Moreover, it is not known how well these measures perform across races. In this retrospective study, we compare the performance of age and SOFA score in predicting in-hospital mortality across two cohorts: a cohort of 2,648 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who were admitted to a large academic health system in the northeastern United States over a 4-month period in 2020 and a cohort of 75,601 patients admitted to one of 335 ICUs in the eICU database between 2014 and 2015. We used age and the maximum SOFA score as predictor variables in separate univariate logistic regression models for in-hospital mortality and calculated area under the receiver operator characteristic curves (AU-ROCs) and area under precision-recall curves (AU-PRCs) for each predictor in both cohorts. Among the COVID-19 cohort, age (AU-ROC 0.795, 95% CI 0.762, 0.828) had a significantly better discrimination than SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.679, 95% CI 0.638, 0.721) for mortality prediction. Conversely, age (AU-ROC 0.628 95% CI 0.608, 0.628) underperformed compared to SOFA score (AU-ROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.726, 0.745) in non-COVID-19 ICU patients in the eICU database. There was no difference between Black and White COVID-19 patients in performance of either age or SOFA Score. Our findings bring into question the utility of SOFA score-based resource allocation in COVID-19 crisis standards of care.

Clinical Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Critical Outcomes Among Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19-VISION Network, 10 States, June 2021-March 2023

BACKGROUND

The epidemiology of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to develop with emerging variants, expanding population-level immunity, and advances in clinical care. We describe changes in the clinical epidemiology of COVID-19 hospitalizations and risk factors for critical outcomes over time.

METHODS

We included adults aged ≥18 years from 10 states hospitalized with COVID-19 June 2021-March 2023. We evaluated changes in demographics, clinical characteristics, and critical outcomes (intensive care unit admission and/or death) and evaluated critical outcomes risk factors (risk ratios [RRs]), stratified by COVID-19 vaccination status.

RESULTS

A total of 60 488 COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were included in the analysis. Among those hospitalized, median age increased from 60 to 75 years, proportion vaccinated increased from 18.2% to 70.1%, and critical outcomes declined from 24.8% to 19.4% (all P < .001) between the Delta (June-December, 2021) and post-BA.4/BA.5 (September 2022-March 2023) periods. Hospitalization events with critical outcomes had a higher proportion of ≥4 categories of medical condition categories assessed (32.8%) compared to all hospitalizations (23.0%). Critical outcome risk factors were similar for unvaccinated and vaccinated populations; presence of ≥4 medical condition categories was most strongly associated with risk of critical outcomes regardless of vaccine status (unvaccinated: adjusted RR, 2.27 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.14-2.41]; vaccinated: adjusted RR, 1.73 [95% CI, 1.56-1.92]) across periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who experienced critical outcomes decreased with time, and median patient age increased with time. Multimorbidity was most strongly associated with critical outcomes.

How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect burn centres in German-speaking countries?

The exponential growth of COVID-19 cases in early 2020 presented a massive challenge for healthcare systems and called for the adaptation of emergency care routines and intensive care capacities. We, therefore, analyzed a possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the general structure and emergency preparedness of burn centers in German-speaking countries through a cross-sectional descriptive survey questionnaire. The survey was conducted for the first time in January 2019 by Al-Shamsi et al. before the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was performed for a second time in November 2020 during the second wave of COVID-19 infections in German-speaking countries. We noticed a pronounced increase in the preparation for a great number of patients in need of intensive care including the enlargement of overall capacity when necessary. We also showed a notable decrease in the specific preparation for burn disasters and also reduced communication with first responders and other burn centers. To what extent these alterations were caused by the impact the pandemic had on healthcare systems could not be determined in this study and should be the subject of future research.

Disparities in Palliative Care Among Critically Ill Patients With and Without COVID-19 at the End of Life: A Population-Based Analysis

Background

The surge in critical illness and associated mortality brought by the coronavirus virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with staff shortages and restrictions of family visitation, may have adversely affected delivery of palliative measures, including at the end of life of affected patients. However, the population-level patterns of palliative care (PC) utilization among septic critically ill patients with and without COVID-19 during end-of-life hospitalizations are unknown.

Methods

A statewide dataset was used to identify patients aged ≥ 18 years with intensive care unit (ICU) admission and a diagnosis of sepsis in Texas, who died during hospital stay during April 1 to December 31, 2020. COVID-19 was defined by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code U07.1, and PC was identified by ICD-10 code Z51.5. Multivariable logistic models were fitted to estimate the association of COVID-19 with use of PC among ICU admissions. A similar approach was used for sensitivity analyses of strata with previously reported lower and higher than reference use of PC.

Results

There were 20,244 patients with sepsis admitted to ICU during terminal hospitalization, and 9,206 (45.5%) had COVID-19. The frequency of PC among patients with and without COVID-19 was 32.0% vs. 37.1%, respectively. On adjusted analysis, the odds of PC use remained lower among patients with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78 - 0.90), with similar findings on sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

PC was markedly less common among critically ill septic patients with COVID-19 during terminal hospitalization, compared to those without COVID-19. Further studies are needed to determine the factors underlying these findings in order to reduce disparities in use of PC.

COVID-19 Admission Rates and Changes in US Hospital Inpatient and Intensive Care Unit Occupancy

Importance

The COVID-19 pandemic had unprecedented effects on hospital occupancy, with consequences for hospital operations and patient care. Previous studies of occupancy during COVID-19 have been limited to small samples of hospitals.

Objective

To measure the association between COVID-19 admission rates and hospital occupancy in different US areas and at different time periods during 2020.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases (2019-2020) for patients in nonfederal acute care hospitals in 45 US states, including the District of Columbia. Data analysis was performed between September 1, 2022, and April 30, 2023.

Exposures

Each hospital and week in 2020 was categorized based on the number of COVID-19 admissions per 100 beds (<1 [low], 1-4.9, 5-9.9, 10-14.9, or ≥15 [high]).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were inpatient and intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy. We used regression analysis to estimate the average change in occupancy for each hospital-week in 2020 relative to the same hospital week in 2019.

Results

This study included 3960 hospitals and 54 355 916 admissions. Of the admissions in the 40 states used for race and ethnicity analyses, 15.7% were for Black patients, 12.9% were for Hispanic patients, 62.5% were for White patients, and 7.2% were for patients of other race or ethnicity; 1.7% of patients were missing these data. Weekly COVID-19 admission rates in 2020 were less than 4 per 100 beds for 63.9% of hospital-weeks and at least 10 in only 15.9% of hospital-weeks. Inpatient occupancy decreased by 12.7% (95% CI, 12.1% to 13.4%) during weeks with low COVID-19 admission rates and increased by 7.9% (95% CI, 6.8% to 9.0%) during weeks with high COVID-19 admission rates. Intensive care unit occupancy rates increased by 67.8% (95% CI, 60.5% to 75.3%) during weeks with high COVID-19 admissions. Increases in ICU occupancy were greatest when weighted to reflect the experience of Hispanic patients. Changes in occupancy were most pronounced early in the pandemic. During weeks with high COVID-19 admissions, occupancy decreased for many service lines, with occupancy by surgical patients declining by 43.1% (95% CI, 38.6% to 47.2%) early in the pandemic.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of US hospital discharges in 45 states in 2020, hospital occupancy decreased during weeks with low COVID-19 admissions and increased during weeks with high COVID-19 admissions, with the largest changes occurring early in the pandemic. These findings suggest that surges in COVID-19 strained ICUs and were associated with large decreases in the number of surgical patients. These occupancy fluctuations may have affected quality of care and hospital finances.

Effects of the COVID-19 early pandemic on delivery outcomes among women with and without COVID-19 at birth

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic may influence delivery outcomes through direct effects of infection or indirect effects of disruptions in prenatal care. We examined early pandemic-related changes in birth outcomes for pregnant women with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis at delivery.

METHODS

We compared four delivery outcomes-preterm delivery (PTD), severe maternal morbidity (SMM), stillbirth, and cesarean birth-between 2017 and 2019 (prepandemic) and between April and December 2020 (early-pandemic) using interrupted time series models on 11.8 million deliveries, stratified by COVID-19 infection status at birth with entropy weighting for historical controls, from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project across 43 states and the District of Columbia.

RESULTS

Relative to 2017-2019, women without COVID-19 at delivery in 2020 had lower odds of PTD (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.92-0.94) and SMM (OR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.85-0.91) but increased odds of stillbirth (OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.01-1.08). Absolute effects were small across race/ethnicity groups. Deliveries with COVID-19 had an excess of each outcome, by factors of 1.07-1.46 for outcomes except SMM at 4.21. The effect for SMM was more pronounced for Asian/Pacific Islander non-Hispanic (API; OR = 10.51; 95% CI = 5.49-20.14) and Hispanic (OR = 5.09; 95% CI = 4.29-6.03) pregnant women than for White non-Hispanic (OR = 3.28; 95% CI = 2.65-4.06) women.

DISCUSSION

Decreasing rates of PTD and SMM and increasing rates of stillbirth among deliveries without COVID-19 were small but suggest indirect effects of the pandemic on maternal outcomes. Among pregnant women with COVID-19 at delivery, adverse effects, particularly SMM for API and Hispanic women, underscore the importance of addressing health disparities.

Flow-Sizing Critical Care Resources

OBJECTIVES

To describe the factors affecting critical care capacity and how critical care organizations (CCOs) within academic centers in the U.S. flow-size critical care resources under normal operations, strain, and surge conditions.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, federal agency and American Hospital Association reports, and previous CCO survey results were reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies and reports of critical care bed capacity and utilization within CCOs and in the United States were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

The Academic Leaders in the Critical Care Medicine Task Force established regular conference calls to reach a consensus on the approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care services.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care is outlined. The vertical (relation to institutional resources, e.g., space allocation, equipment, personnel redistribution) and horizontal (interdepartmental, e.g., emergency department, operating room, inpatient floors) integration of critical care delivery (ICUs, rapid response) for healthcare organizations and the methods by which CCOs flow-size critical care during normal operations, strain, and surge conditions are described. The advantages, barriers, and recommendations for the rapid and efficient scaling of critical care operations via a CCO structure are explained. Comprehensive guidance and resources for the development of "flow-sizing" capability by a CCO within a healthcare organization are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified and summarized the fundamental principles affecting critical care capacity. The taskforce highlighted the advantages of the CCO governance model to achieve rapid and cost-effective "flow-sizing" of critical care services and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this capability. The relevance of a comprehensive approach to "flow-sizing" has become particularly relevant in the wake of the latest COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the growing risks of another extreme epidemic, planning for adequate capacity to confront the next critical care crisis is urgent.

Addressing the challenges of AI-based telemedicine: Best practices and lessons learned

Telemedicine is the use of technology to provide healthcare services and information remotely, without requiring physical proximity between patients and healthcare providers. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated the rapid growth of telemedicine worldwide. Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into telemedicine has the potential to enhance and expand its capabilities in addressing various healthcare needs, such as patient monitoring, healthcare information technology (IT), intelligent diagnosis, and assistance. Despite the potential benefits, implementing AI in telemedicine presents challenges that can be overcome with physician-guided implementation. AI can assist physicians in decision-making, improve healthcare delivery, and automate administrative tasks. To ensure optimal effectiveness, AI-powered telemedicine should comply with existing clinical practices and adhere to a framework adaptable to various technologies. It should also consider technical and scientific factors, including trustworthiness, reproducibility, usability, availability, and cost. Education and training are crucial for the appropriate use of new healthcare technologies such as AI-enabled telemedicine. This article examines the benefits and limitations of AI-based telemedicine in various medical domains and underscores the importance of physician-guided implementation, compliance with existing clinical practices, and appropriate education and training for healthcare providers.

Adaptation and Uncertainty: A Qualitative Examination of Provider Experiences With Prone Positioning for Intubated Patients With COVID-19 ARDS

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning was widely adopted for use in patients with ARDS from COVID-19. However, proning was also delivered in ways that differed from historical evidence and practice. In implementation research, these changes are referred to as adaptations, and they occur constantly as evidence-based interventions are used in real-world practice. Adaptations can alter the delivered intervention, impacting patient and implementation outcomes.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How have clinicians adapted prone positioning to COVID-19 ARDS, and what uncertainties remain regarding optimal proning use?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with ICU clinicians from two hospitals in Baltimore, MD, from February to July 2021. We interviewed physicians (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), respiratory therapists (RTs), advanced practice providers (APPs), and physical therapists (PTs) involved with proning mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. We used thematic analysis of interviews to classify proning adaptations and clinician uncertainties about best practice for prone positioning.

RESULTS

Forty ICU clinicians (12 MDs, 4 APPs, 12 RNs, 7 RTs, and 5 PTs) were interviewed. Clinicians described several adaptations to the practice of prone positioning, including earlier proning initiation, extended duration of proning sessions, and less use of concomitant neuromuscular blockade. Clinicians expressed uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of initiation and duration of prone positioning. This uncertainty was viewed as a driver of practice variation. Although prescribers intended to use less deep sedation and paralysis in proned patients compared with historical evidence and practice, this raised concerns regarding patient comfort and safety amongst RNs and RTs.

INTERPRETATION

Prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 ARDS has been adapted from historically described practice. Understanding the impact of these adaptations on patient and implementation outcomes and addressing clinician uncertainties are priority areas for future research to optimize the use of prone positioning.

The SQuID protocol (subcutaneous insulin in diabetic ketoacidosis): Impacts on ED operational metrics

BACKGROUND

Studies using fast-acting subcutaneous (SQ) insulin analogs in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) have demonstrated efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, allowing treatment of mild-to-moderate (MTM)-severity DKA patients in non-intensive care unit (ICU) settings. However, emergency department (ED)-based studies are few, with limited exploration of impacts on operational metrics.

METHODS

We implemented the SQuID (Subcutaneous Insulin in Diabetic Ketoacidosis) protocol for adults with MTM-severity DKA in an urban academic ED, collecting data from August 1, 2021, to February 28, 2022. We examined fidelity (frequency of required q2h glucose checks), safety (proportion of patients administered rescue dextrose for hypoglycemia), and ED length of stay (EDLOS) for the SQuID cohort compared to patients (non-ICU) treated with a traditional insulin infusion. We also examined ICU admission rate among MTM-severity DKA patients after introduction of SQuID to two historical control periods (pre-intervention and pre-COVID). We used Mann-Whitney U to test for differences in EDLOS distributions, bootstrapped (n = 1000) confidence intervals (CIs) for EDLOS median differences, and the two-sample z-test for differences in ICU admissions.

RESULTS

We identified 177 MTM-severity DKA patients in the study period (78 SQuID, 99 traditional cohort) and 163 preintervention and 161 pre-COVID historical control patients. Fidelity to the SQuID pathway was good, with glucose checks exceeding the q2-h requirement. We found no difference in the proportion of rescue dextrose administration compared to the traditional pathway. We observed significant reductions in median EDLOS for the SQuID cohort compared to the traditional cohort during the study period (-3.0, 95% CI -8.5 to -1.4), the preintervention period (-1.4, 95% CI -3.1 to -0.1), and the pre-COVID control period (-3.6, 95% CI -7.5 to -1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center study at an academic ED, treatment of patients with MTM-severity DKA with a SQ insulin protocol was effective, demonstrated equivalent safety, and reduced ED length of stay.

The Cost of Mental Health Comorbid Conditions in Burn Patients: A Single-site Experience

Many burn survivors suffer from psychiatric sequelae long after their physical injuries have healed. This may even be more pronounced in individuals who have a history of mental health disorders prior to admission. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical outcomes of patients with previously diagnosed mental health disorders who were admitted to our Burn Center. This was a single-site, retrospective review using our institutional Burn Center registry. All adult patients (18 years or older) admitted to our Burn Center between January 1, 2014 and June 30, 2021 with burn injury or inhalation injury were included in this study. Variables of interest included demographics and burn mechanism. Outcomes of interests were length of stay, cost of hospitalization, and mortality. A P-value of < .05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses. There were 4958 patients included in this study, with 35% of these patients having a previous diagnosis of mental health disorders. Patients with mental health disorders were younger, with larger burns, P < .05. They had significantly longer lengths of stay and significantly higher costs (P < .00001). Mortality for those with a mental health disorder history was 2% and 3% for those without (P = .04). Patients with pre-existing mental health disorders had decreased odds of mortality. However, they do have extended lengths of stay, which may exhaust current sparse staff and burn bed resources.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome; A Review of Recent Updates and a Glance into the Future

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a rapidly progressive form of respiratory failure that accounts for 10% of admissions to the ICU and is associated with approximately 40% mortality in severe cases. Despite significant mortality and healthcare burden, the mainstay of management remains supportive care. The recent pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 has re-ignited a worldwide interest in exploring the pathophysiology of ARDS, looking for innovative ideas to treat this disease. Recently, many trials have been published utilizing different pharmacotherapy targets; however, the long-term benefits of these agents remain unknown. Metabolomics profiling and stem cell transplantation offer strong enthusiasm and may completely change the outlook of ARDS management in the near future.

Effect of Ward-Based High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) Oxygen Therapy on Critical Care Utilization During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospitals expanded critical care capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic by treating COVID-19 patients with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) in non-traditional settings, including general internal medicine (GIM) wards. The impact of this practice on intensive care unit (ICU) capacity is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe how our hospital operationalized the use of HFNC on GIM wards, assess its impact on ICU capacity, and examine the characteristics and outcomes of treated patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of all patients treated with HFNC on GIM wards at a Canadian tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients admitted with COVID-19 and treated with HFNC on GIM wards from December 28, 2020, to June 13, 2021, were included.

MAIN MEASURES

We combined administrative data on critical care occupancy daily with chart-abstracted data for included patients to establish the total number of patients receiving ICU-level care at our hospital per day. We also collected data on demographics, medical comorbidities, illness severity, COVID-19 treatments, HFNC care processes, and patient outcomes.

KEY RESULTS

We treated 124 patients with HFNC on the GIM wards (median age 66 years; 48% female). Patients were treated with HFNC for a median of 5 days (IQR 3 to 8); collectively, they received HFNC for a total of 740 hospital days, 71% of which were on GIM wards. At peak ICU capacity strain (144%), delivering HFNC on GIM wards added 20% to overall ICU capacity by managing up to 14 patients per day. Patients required a median maximal fraction of inspired oxygen of 80% (IQR 60 to 95). There were 18 deaths (15%) and 85 patients (69%) required critical care admission; of those, 40 (47%) required mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate training and resources, treatment of COVID-19 patients with HFNC on GIM wards appears to be a feasible strategy to increase critical care capacity.

Predicting COVID-19 prognosis in the ICU remained challenging: external validation in a multinational regional cohort

OBJECTIVES

Many prediction models for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been developed. External validation is mandatory before implementation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We selected and validated prognostic models in the Euregio Intensive Care COVID (EICC) cohort.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In this multinational cohort study, routine data from COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within the Euregio Meuse-Rhine were collected from March to August 2020. COVID-19 models were selected based on model type, predictors, outcomes, and reporting. Furthermore, general ICU scores were assessed. Discrimination was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and calibration by calibration-in-the-large and calibration plots. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results.

RESULTS

551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, 29% were female, and ICU mortality was 36%. Nine out of 238 published models were externally validated. Pooled AUCs were between 0.53 and 0.70 and calibration-in-the-large between -9% and 6%. Calibration plots showed generally poor but, for the 4C Mortality score and Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (SEIMC) score, moderate calibration.

CONCLUSION

Of the nine prognostic models that were externally validated in the EICC cohort, only two showed reasonable discrimination and moderate calibration. For future pandemics, better models based on routine data are needed to support admission decision-making.

Factors Associated with Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 Receiving Prolonged Ventilatory Support

Background: Since its emergence in early 2020, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pneumonia has caused a global strain on intensive care unit (ICU) resources with many intubated patients requiring prolonged ventilatory support. Outcomes for patients with COVID-19 who receive prolonged intubation (>21 days) and possible predictors of mortality in this group are not well established. Patients and Methods: Data were prospectively collected from adult patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation from March 2020 through December 2021 across a system of 11 hospitals. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Factors associated with mortality were evaluated using univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results: Six hundred six patients were placed on mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia during the study period, with in-hospital mortality of 40.3% (n = 244). Increased age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.09), increased creatinine (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82), and receiving corticosteroids (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.20-5.98) were associated with mortality. Intubations lasting longer than 21 days (n = 140) had a lower in-hospital mortality of 25.7% (n = 36; p < 0.001). Increasing Elixhauser comorbidity index (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.19) and receiving corticosteroids (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.06-3.47) were associated with need for prolonged ventilation. In this group, increased age (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08) and non-English speaking (OR, 3.74; 95% CI, 1.13-12.3) were associated with mortality. Conclusions: In-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia occurs primarily in the first 21 days after intubation, possibly related to the early active inflammatory process. In patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased age and being non-English speaking were associated with mortality.

Association between treatment failure and hospitalization after receipt of neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 outpatients

BACKGROUND

Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and mortality among early symptomatic COVID-19 patients in clinical trials and real-world data. While resistance to some mAbs has since emerged among new variants, characteristics associated with treatment failure of mAbs remain unknown.

METHODS

This multicenter, observational cohort study included patients with COVID-19 who received mAb treatment between November 20, 2020, and December 9, 2021. We utilized electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. The primary outcome was mAb treatment failure, defined as hospitalization or death within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

RESULTS

COVID-19 mAb was administered to 7406 patients. Hospitalization within 28 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test occurred in 258 (3.5%) of all patients who received mAb treatment. Ten patients (0.1%) died within 28 days, and all but one were hospitalized prior to death. Characteristics associated with treatment failure included having two or more comorbidities excluding obesity and immunocompromised status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.52-5.56), lack of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.01-3.77), non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.20-3.82), obesity (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.36-2.34), one comorbidity (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11-2.57), age ≥ 65 years (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13-2.35), and male sex (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.02). Immunocompromised status (none, mild, or moderate/severe), pandemic phase, and type of mAb received were not associated with treatment failure (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbidities, lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, obesity, age ≥ 65 years, and male sex are associated with treatment failure of mAbs.

Expedited upskilling of intermediate care nurses to provide critical care during the COVID-19 pandemic

AIM

Describe the strategy, efficacy and preferred mechanisms of training used to rapidly upskill intermediate care nursing staff to provide critical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

METHODS

The strategy used from March through December 2020 to upskill nurses in an intermediate care unit to administer critical care upon rapid conversion of the intermediate care unit to an intensive care unit for coronavirus disease 2019 is described. Training and education included paired staffing models, interdisciplinary education, skills days and self-directed learning. Nurses engaged in this upskilling process were surveyed to evaluate their confidence in new critical care competencies and educational preferences.

RESULTS

Of 38 intermediate care nurses, 35 completed training and began independent intensive care practice. Nursing confidence in critical care competencies increased steadily. Nurses demonstrated the greatest preference for peer education models, particularly those incorporating the hospital's pre-existing medical intensive care nurses.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS

No patient or public contributions were made to this manuscript.

Evaluating Primary Endpoints for COVID-19 Therapeutic Trials to Assess Recovery

Rationale: Uncertainty regarding the natural history of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to difficulty in efficacy endpoint selection for therapeutic trials. Capturing outcomes that occur after hospital discharge may improve assessment of clinical recovery among hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Objectives: Evaluate 90-day clinical course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, comparing three distinct definitions of recovery. Methods: We used pooled data from three clinical trials of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies to compare: 1) the hospital discharge approach; 2) the TICO (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19) trials sustained recovery approach; and 3) a comprehensive approach. At the time of enrollment, all patients were hospitalized in a non-ICU setting without organ failure or major extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. We defined discordance as a difference between time to recovery. Measurements and Main Results: Discordance between the hospital discharge and comprehensive approaches occurred in 170 (20%) of 850 enrolled participants, including 126 hospital readmissions and 24 deaths after initial hospital discharge. Discordant participants were older (median age, 68 vs. 59 years; P < 0.001) and more had a comorbidity (84% vs. 70%; P < 0.001). Of 170 discordant participants, 106 (62%) had postdischarge events captured by the TICO approach. Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 20% had clinically significant postdischarge events within 90 days after randomization in patients who would be considered "recovered" using the hospital discharge approach. Using the TICO approach balances length of follow-up with practical limitations. However, clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics should use follow-up times up to 90 days to assess clinical recovery more accurately.

Comparison of Use of Neoadjuvant Systemic Treatment for Breast Cancer and Short-term Outcomes Before vs During the COVID-19 Era in Ontario, Canada

IMPORTANCE

In response to an increase in COVID-19 infection rates in Ontario, several systemic treatment (ST) regimens delivered in the adjuvant setting for breast cancer were temporarily permitted for neoadjuvant-intent to defer nonurgent breast cancer surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the use and compare short-term outcomes of neoadjuvant-intent vs adjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. Patients with cancer starting selected ST regimens in the COVID-19 era (March 11, 2020, to September 30, 2020) were compared to those in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 11, 2019, to March 10, 2020). Patients were diagnosed with breast cancer within 6 months of starting systemic therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Estimates were calculated for the use of neoadjuvant vs adjuvant ST, the likelihood of receiving a surgical procedure, the rate of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, COVID-19 infections, and all-cause mortality between treatment groups over time.

RESULTS

Among a total of 10 920 patients included, 7990 (73.2%) started treatment in the pre-COVID-19 era and 7344 (67.3%) received adjuvant ST; the mean (SD) age was 61.6 (13.1) years. Neoadjuvant-intent ST was more common in the COVID-19 era (1404 of 2930 patients [47.9%]) than the pre-COVID-19 era (2172 of 7990 patients [27.2%]), with an odds ratio of 2.46 (95% CI, 2.26-2.69; P < .001). This trend was consistent across a range of ST regimens, but differed according to patient age and geography. The likelihood of receiving surgery following neoadjuvant-intent chemotherapy was similar in the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (log-rank P = .06). However, patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant-intent hormonal therapy were significantly more likely to receive surgery in the COVID-19 era (log-rank P < .001). After adjustment, there were no significant changes in the rate of emergency department visits over time between patients receiving neoadjuvant ST, adjuvant ST, or ST only during the ST treatment period or postoperative period. Hospital admissions decreased in the COVID-19 era for patients who received neoadjuvant ST compared with adjuvant ST or ST alone (P for interaction = .01 for both) in either setting.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, patients were more likely to start neoadjuvant ST in the COVID-19 era, which varied across the province and by indication. There was limited evidence to suggest any substantial impact on short-term outcomes.

A customized early warning score enhanced emergency department patient flow process and clinical outcomes in a COVID‐19 pandemic

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Epidemiology of Organ Failure Before and During COVID-19 Pandemic Surge Conditions

BACKGROUND

Understanding the distribution of organ failure before and during the COVID-19 pandemic surge can provide a deeper understanding of how the pandemic strained health care systems and affected outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the distribution of organ failure in 3 New York City hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adult admissions across hospitals from February 1, 2020, through May 31, 2020, was conducted. The cohort was stratified into those admitted before March 17, 2020 (prepandemic) and those admitted on or after that date (SARS-CoV-2-positive and non-SARS-CoV-2). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were computed every 2 hours for each admission.

RESULTS

A total of 1 794 975 scores were computed for 20 704 admissions. Before and during the pandemic, renal failure was the most common type of organ failure at admission and respiratory failure was the most common type of hospital-onset organ failure. The SARS-CoV-2-positive group showed a 231% increase in respiratory failure compared with the prepandemic group. More than 65% of hospital-onset organ failure in the prepandemic group and 83% of hospital-onset respiratory failure in the SARS-CoV-2-positive group occurred outside intensive care units. The SARS-CoV-2-positive group showed a 341% increase in multiorgan failure compared with the prepandemic group. Compared with the prepandemic and non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, SARS-CoV-2-positive patients had significantly higher mortality for the same admission and maximum organ failure score.

CONCLUSION

Most hospital-onset organ failure began outside intensive care units, with a marked increase in multiorgan failure during pandemic surge conditions and greater hospital mortality for the severity of organ failure.

A systematic review of de-escalation strategies for redeployed staff and repurposed facilities in COVID-19 intensive care units (ICUs) during the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Intensive care units (ICUs) experienced a surge in patient cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand was managed by redeploying healthcare workers (HCWs) and restructuring facilities. The rate of ICU admissions has subsided in many regions, with the redeployed workforce and facilities returning to usual functions. Previous literature has focused on the escalation of ICUs, limited research exists on de-escalation. This study aimed to identify the supportive and operational strategies used for the flexible de-escalation of ICUs in the context of COVID-19.

METHODS

The systematic review was developed by searching eight databases in April and November 2021. Papers discussing the return of redeployed staff and facilities and the training, wellbeing, and operational strategies were included. Excluded papers were non-English and unrelated to ICU de-escalation. Quality was assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) and authority, accuracy, coverage, objectivity, date, and significance (AACODS) checklist, findings were developed using narrative synthesis and thematic analysis.

FINDINGS

Fifteen papers were included from six countries covering wellbeing and training themes encompassing; time off, psychological follow-up, gratitude, identification of training needs, missed training catch-up, and continuation of ICU and disaster management training. Operational themes included management of rotas, retainment of staff, division of ICU facilities, leadership changes, traffic light systems, and preparation for re-expansion.

INTERPRETATION

The review provided an overview of the landscape of de-escalation strategies that have taken place in six countries. Limited empirical evidence was available that evaluated the effectiveness of such strategies. Empirical and evaluative research from a larger array of countries is needed to be able to make global recommendations on ICU de-escalation practices.

Leveraging antimicrobial stewardship programs in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) but offered new opportunities. This review summarizes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ASPs, review the contributions ASPs have made in the pandemic response, and highlight the potential role of ASPs in future pandemics.