Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

The use of non-invasive ventilation by emergency doctors in Johannesburg Academic Hospitals, South Africa - assessing knowledge, attitudes and practices

Introduction

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is an alternative ventilatory method to endotracheal intubation and invasive ventilation in patients presenting in acute respiratory failure. Appropriate and timely application of NIV has shown benefits over invasive ventilation. In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of NIV for varying pathologies in response to limited resources.Emergency department doctors' knowledge of NIV, as well as their attitude towards its use can have significant effects on the success of NIV. The aim of this study was to assess emergency doctors' use of NIV in the South African setting.

Methods

This was a multi-centre prospective cross-sectional study that was conducted across three academic emergency departments in Johannesburg, South Africa. Doctors of various grades were included in the study and their responses were analysed according to their level of experience and their job description.

Results

The mean knowledge score of the participants was shown to increase with an increase in job designation (p < 0.001). The doctors' attitude towards NIV was more positive in those with higher knowledge scores (p < 0.001). Participants with previous critical care experience versus those without was associated with a higher average knowledge score (77% vs. 69 %, p = 0.009) as was formal NIV training versus those without (77% vs. 69 %, p = 0.01). The COVID-19 pandemic increased confidence in the use of NIV in 61 % of participants. The majority (69 %) of participants did not use a checklist when administering NIV. Only 53 % used a guideline when initiating a patient on NIV and just 26 % used a locally produced protocol.

Conclusion

Increased clinical experience, critical care exposure and formal NIV training corresponded with higher knowledge scores. Formal NIV training programs, the implementation of a checklist and the development of locally produced protocols are recommended to improve knowledge, attitudes and NIV practice that is in-keeping with international standards.

COVID-19 Treatments: Then and Now

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has evolved over the past 3+ years, and strategies to prevent illness and treat infection have changed over time. As COVID-19 transitions from a pandemic to an endemic infection, widespread nonpharmaceutical interventions such as mask mandates and governmental policies requiring social distancing have given way to more selective strategies for risk mitigation. Monoclonal antibody therapies used for disease prevention and treatment lost utility owing to the emergence of resistant viral variants. Oral antiviral medications have become the mainstay of treatment in nonhospitalized individuals, whereas systemic corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy in those requiring supplemental oxygen. Emerging literature also supports the use of additional immune-modulating therapies in select admitted patients. Importantly, the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted both unprecedented research and development of medical interventions while also drawing attention to significant pitfalls in the global response. This review provides a comprehensive update in prevention and management of COVID-19.

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Use of threshold PEP with an adult non-rebreather oxygen mask plus prone positioning in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 infection during the collapse of the health system in a low-income country

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, Ecuador reported a collapse of the healthcare system, in which intensive care unit beds were lacking. Therefore, we sought to determine whether the use of threshold expiratory positive pressure with an adult non-rebreather oxygen mask plus prone positioning is useful for improving oxygenation. Twelve patients were included. Eight patients (66.7%) survived, while four patients (33.3%) died. Baseline arterial oxygen saturation (%) prior placement median (interquartile range) 85.5% (80%-89%) and arterial oxygen saturation (%) post placement of the device was median (interquartile range) (93%-96%) (P = 0.0001). Respiratory rate before placement was median (interquartile range) 38 (36-42) and post placement of the device was median (interquartile range) 24 (22-30) (P = 0.0005). The use of an adapted device might be useful for the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pneumonia, particularly when mechanical ventilators and high-flow oxygen systems are unavailable.

Trends in clinical characteristics and outcomes of all critically ill COVID-19 adult patients hospitalized in France between March 2020 and June 2021: a national database study

INTRODUCTION

Studies regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were mainly performed in the initial wave, but some small-scale data points to prognostic differences for patients in successive waves. We therefore aimed to study the impact of time on prognosis of ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients.

METHOD

We performed a national retrospective cohort study, including all adult patients hospitalized in French ICUs from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021, and identified three surge periods. Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, respectively.

RESULTS

105,979 critically ill ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients were allocated to the relevant three surge periods. In-hospital mortality for surges 1, 2, and 3 was, respectively, 24%, 27%, and 24%. Invasive mechanical ventilation was the highest level of respiratory support for 42%, 32%, and 31% (p < 0.001) over the whole period, with a decline in the use of vasopressors over time. Adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and modified Simplified Acute Physiology Score II at ICU admission, time period was associated with less invasive mechanical ventilation and a high risk of in-hospital death. Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower likelihood of invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [aSHR] = 0.64 [0.53-0.76]) and intra-hospital death (aSHR = 0.80, [0.68-0.95]).

CONCLUSION

In this large database of ICU patients admitted for COVID-19, we observed a decline in invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and RRT use over time but a high risk of in-hospital death. Vaccination was identified as protective against the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and in-hospital death.

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4.

RESULTS

A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice.

CONCLUSION

Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

A novel intubation prediction model for patients hospitalized with COVID-19: the OTO-COVID-19 scoring model

OBJECTIVE

The method for predicting the risk of intubation in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is yet to be standardized. This study aimed to introduce a new disease prognosis scoring model that may predict the intubation risk based on the symptoms, signs, and laboratory tests of patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of COVID-19.

METHOD

This cross-sectional retrospective study analyzed the intubation status of 733 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 diagnosis between March and December 2020 at Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Medicine, Turkey, based on 33 variables. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to select the variables that significantly affect intubation, which constitute the risk factors. The Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection algorithm, one of the data mining methods, was used to determine the threshold values of the important variables for intubation classification.

RESULTS

The following variables found were mostly associated with intubation: C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, age, lymphocyte count, and malignancy. The logistic function based on these variables correctly predicted 81.13% of intubated (sensitivity), 99.52% of nonintubated (specificity), and 96.86% of both intubated and nonintubated (accurate classification rate) patients. The scoring model revealed the following risk statuses for the intubated patients: very high risk, 75.47%; moderate risk, 20.75%; and very low risk, 3.77%.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of certain variables measured at admission, the OTO-COVID-19 scoring model may help clinicians identify patients at the risk of intubation and subsequently provide a prompt and effective treatment at the earliest.

Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Airway and resuscitation

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in millions of cases worldwide. As the pandemic has progressed, the understanding of this disease has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review provides emergency clinicians with a focused update of the resuscitation and airway management of COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Patients with COVID-19 and septic shock should be resuscitated with buffered/balanced crystalloids. If hypotension is present despite intravenous fluids, vasopressors including norepinephrine should be initiated. Stress dose steroids are recommended for patients with severe or refractory septic shock. Airway management is the mainstay of initial resuscitation in patients with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 and ARDS should be managed similarly to those ARDS patients without COVID-19. Clinicians should not delay intubation if indicated. In patients who are more clinically stable, physicians can consider a step-wise approach as patients' oxygenation needs escalate. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) are recommended over elective intubation. Prone positioning, even in awake patients, has been shown to lower intubation rates and improve oxygenation. Strategies consistent with ARDSnet can be implemented in this patient population, with a goal tidal volume of 4-8 mL/kg of predicted body weight and targeted plateau pressures <30 cm H₂O. Limited data support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NBMA), recruitment maneuvers, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

CONCLUSION

This review presents a concise update of the resuscitation strategies and airway management techniques in patients with COVID-19 for emergency medicine clinicians.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SIMEU position paper on non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19 pneumonia

The rapid worldwide spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has put health systems under pressure to a level never experienced before, putting intensive care units in a position to fail to meet an exponentially growing demand. The main clinical feature of the disease is a progressive arterial hypoxemia which rapidly leads to ARDS which makes the use of intensive care and mechanical ventilation almost inevitable. The difficulty of health systems to guarantee a corresponding supply of resources in intensive care, together with the uncertain results reported in the literature with respect to patients who undergo early conventional ventilation, make the search for alternative methods of oxygenation and ventilation and potentially preventive of the need for tracheal intubation, such as non-invasive respiratory support techniques particularly valuable. In this context, the Emergency Department, located between the area outside the hospital and hospital ward and ICU, assumes the role of a crucial junction, due to the possibility of applying these techniques at a sufficiently early stage and being able to rapidly evaluate their effectiveness. This position paper describes the indications for the use of non-invasive respiratory support techniques in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-related pneumonia, formulated by the Non-invasive Ventilation Faculty of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) on the base of what is available in the literature and on the authors' direct experience. Rationale, literature, tips & tricks, resources, risks and expected results, and patient interaction will be discussed for each one of the escalating non-invasive respiratory techniques: standard oxygen, HFNCO, CPAP, NIPPV, and awake self-repositioning. The final chapter describes our suggested approach to the failing patient.

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

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is primarily used to treat acute respiratory failure. However, it has broad applications to manage a range of other diseases successfully. The main advantage of NIV lies in its capability to provide the same physiological effects as invasive ventilation while avoiding the placement of an artificial airway and its associated life-threatening complications.

The war on the COVID-19 pandemic is far from over. The present narrative review aimed at identifying various aspects of NIV usage, in COVID-19 and other patients, such as the onset time, mode, setting, positioning, sedation, and types of interface. A search for articles published from May 2020 to April 2021 was conducted using MEDLINE, PMC central, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. Of the initially identified 5,450 articles, 73 studies and 24 guidelines on the use of NIV were included. The search was limited to studies involving human cases and English language articles. Despite several reported benefits of NIV, the evidence on the use of NIV in COVID-19 patients does not yet fully support its routine use.

Mechanical Ventilation for COVID-19 Patients

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is frequently needed in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. While NIV can be delivered in hospital wards and nonintensive care environments, intubated patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and support. Thus, the lack of ICU beds generated by the pandemic has often forced the use of NIV in severely hypoxemic patients treated outside the ICU. In this context, awake prone positioning has been widely adopted to ameliorate oxygenation during noninvasive respiratory support. Still, the incidence of NIV failure and the role of patient self-induced lung injury on hospital outcomes of COVID-19 subjects need to be elucidated. On the other hand, endotracheal intubation is indicated when gas exchange deterioration, muscular exhaustion, and/or neurological impairment ensue. Yet, the best timing for intubation in COVID-19 is still widely debated, as it is the safest use of neuromuscular blocking agents. Not differently from other types of acute respiratory distress syndrome, the aim of MV during COVID-19 is to provide adequate gas exchange while avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury. At the same time, the use of rescue therapies is advocated when standard care is unable to guarantee sufficient organ support. Nevertheless, the general shortage of health care resources experienced during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic might affect the utilization of high-cost, highly specialized, and long-term supports. In this article, we describe the state-of-the-art of NIV and MV setting and their usage for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients.

Mandating the COVID-19 Vaccine for U.S. Service Members: An Exploration of Ethical Arguments

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues across the globe, the advent of novel vaccines has created a possible path to prepandemic life for many. Still, many individuals, including those in the U.S. military, remain hesitant about getting vaccinated. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted full approval to the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (Comirnaty). Consistent with messaging from President Biden, the Department of Defense leadership has instructed the military to prepare for mandatory vaccination. While many have praised this declaration, others have raised concerns regarding the suppression of individual service member autonomy. This commentary explains the different ethical principles relevant to individual autonomy and how they are understood in a military context and then explores the ethical arguments both for and against mandating vaccination for all U.S. service members.

Effects of Safety Zone Implementation on Perceptions of Safety and Well-being When Caring for COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND

In March 2020, the caseload of patients positive for COVID-19 in hospitals began increasing rapidly, creating fear and anxiety among health care workers and concern about supplies of personal protective equipment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if implementing safety zones improves the perceptions of safety, well-being, workflow, and teamwork among hospital staff caring for patients during a pandemic.

METHODS

A safety zone process was implemented to designate levels of contamination risk and appropriate activities for certain areas. Zones were designated as hot (highest risk), warm (moderate risk), or cold (lowest risk). Caregivers working in the safety zones were invited to complete a survey regarding their perceptions of safety, caregiver well-being, workflow, and teamwork. Each question was asked twice to obtain caregiver opinions for the periods before and after implementation of the zones.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were seen in perceptions of caregiver safety (P < .001) and collaboration within a multidisciplinary staff (P < .001). Significant reductions in perceived staff fatigue (P = .03), perceived cross contamination (P < .001), anxiety (P < .001), and fear of exposure (P < .001) were also seen. Teamwork (P = .23) and workflow (P = .69) were not significantly affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety zone implementation improved caregivers' perceptions of their safety, their well-being, and collaboration within the multidisciplinary staff but did not improve their perceptions of teamwork or workflow.

Early Initiation of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients

The optimal timing for initiating extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) after starting mechanical ventilation has yet to be clarified. We report herein the cases of two patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who were successfully managed with an early ECMO induction strategy. Case 1 involved a 64-year-old man admitted in respiratory distress with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19. On day 5 at hospital, he was intubated, but oxygenation remained unimproved despite mechanical ventilation treatment with high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (PaO₂/FiO₂ [P/F] ratio, 127; Respiratory ECMO Survival Prediction [RESP] score, 4). ECMO was initiated 4 hours after intubation, and stopped on day 16 at hospital. The patient was discharged from hospital on day 36. Case 2 involved a 49-year-old man who had been admitted 8 days prior. He was intubated on hospital on day 2. High PEEP mechanical ventilation did not improve oxygenation (P/F ratio, 93; RESP score, 7). ECMO was stopped on hospital on day 7 and he was discharged from hospital on day 21. The strategy of early initiation of ECMO in these two cases may have minimized the risk of ventilation-related lung injury and contributed to the achievement of favorable outcomes.

COVID-19 Critical Illness: A Data-Driven Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges in critical care medicine, including extreme demand for intensive care unit (ICU) resources and rapidly evolving understanding of a novel disease. Up to one-third of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 experience critical illness. The most common form of organ failure in COVID-19 critical illness is acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, which clinically presents as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in three-quarters of ICU patients. Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are being used with increasing frequency given their potential to reduce the need for intubation. Determining optimal patient selection for and timing of intubation remains a challenge. Management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 largely mirrors that of non-COVID-19 ARDS. Organ failure is common and portends a poor prognosis. Mortality rates have improved over the course of the pandemic, likely owing to increasing disease familiarity, data-driven pharmacologics, and improved adherence to evidence-based critical care.

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation

Introduction

The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project.

Methods

The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data.

Results

An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified.

Conclusions

In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Noninvasive respiratory support for COVID-19 patients: when, for whom, and how?

The significant mortality rate and prolonged ventilator days associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with severe COVID-19 have incited a debate surrounding the use of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) (i.e., HFNC, CPAP, NIV) as a potential treatment strategy. Central to this debate is the role of NIRS in preventing intubation in patients with mild respiratory disease and the potential beneficial effects on both patient outcome and resource utilization. However, there remains valid concern that use of NIRS may prolong time to intubation and lung protective ventilation in patients with more advanced disease, thereby worsening respiratory mechanics via self-inflicted lung injury. In addition, the risk of aerosolization with the use of NIRS has the potential to increase healthcare worker (HCW) exposure to the virus. We review the existing literature with a focus on rationale, patient selection and outcomes associated with the use of NIRS in COVID-19 and prior pandemics, as well as in patients with acute respiratory failure due to different etiologies (i.e., COPD, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, etc.) to understand the potential role of NIRS in COVID-19 patients. Based on this analysis we suggest an algorithm for NIRS in COVID-19 patients which includes indications and contraindications for use, monitoring recommendations, systems-based practices to reduce HCW exposure, and predictors of NIRS failure. We also discuss future research priorities for addressing unanswered questions regarding NIRS use in COVID-19 with the goal of improving patient outcomes.

Infection Risk Prediction Model for COVID-19 Based on an Analysis of the Settlement of Particles Generated during Dental Procedures in Dental Clinics

Background

The health emergency declaration owing to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has drawn attention toward nosocomial transmission. The transmission of the disease varies depending on the environmental conditions. Saliva is a recognized SARS-CoV-2 reservoir in infected individuals. Therefore, exposure to fluids during dental procedures leads to a high risk of contagion.

Objective

This study aimed to develop an infection risk prediction model for COVID-19 based on an analysis of the settlement of the aerosolized particles generated during dental procedures.

Materials and Methods

The settlement of aerosolized particles during dental aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed on phantoms was evaluated using colored saliva. The gravity-deposited particles were registered using a filter paper within the perimeter of the phantom head, and the settled particles were recorded in standardized photographs. Digital images were processed to analyze the stained area. A logistic regression model was built with the variables ventilation, distance from the mouth, instrument used, area of the mouth treated, and location within the perimeter area.

Results

The largest percentage of the areas stained by settled particles ranged from 1 to 5 µm. The maximum settlement range from the mouth of the phantom head was 320 cm, with a high-risk cutoff distance of 78 cm. Ventilation, distance, instrument used, area of the mouth being treated, and location within the perimeter showed association with the amount of settled particles. These variables were used for constructing a scale to determine the risk of exposure to settled particles in dentistry within an infection risk prediction model.

Conclusion

The greatest risk of particle settlement occurs at a distance up to 78 cm from the phantom mouth, with inadequate ventilation, and when working with a high-speed handpiece. The majority of the settled particles generated during the AGPs presented stained areas ranging from 1 to 5 µm. This model was useful for predicting the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in dental practice.

A Quantitative Study of Particle Dispersion due to Respiratory Support Modalities in PC-12 Aircraft: Prehospital Patient Transport

OBJECTIVE

It is unclear whether supplemental oxygen and noninvasive ventilation respiratory support devices increase the dispersion of potentially infectious bioaerosols in a pressurized air medical cabin. This study quantitatively compared particle dispersion from respiratory support modalities in an air medical cabin during flight.

METHODS

Dispersion was measured in a fixed wing air ambulance during flight with a breathing medical mannequin simulator exhaling nebulized saline from the lower respiratory tract with the following respiratory support modalities: a nasal cannula with a surgical mask, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) with a surgical mask, and noninvasive bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) ventilation.

RESULTS

Nasal cannula oxygen with a surgical mask was associated with the highest particle concentrations. In the absence of mask seal leaks, BiPAP was associated with 1 order of magnitude lower particle concentration compared with a nasal cannula with a surgical mask. Particle concentrations associated with HFNO with a surgical mask were lower than a nasal cannula with a surgical mask but higher than BiPAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Particle dispersion associated with the use of BiPAP and HFNO with a surgical mask is lower than nasal cannula oxygen with a surgical mask. These findings may assist air medical organizations with operational decisions where little data exist about respiratory particle dispersion.

Guidelines for the prevention and management of children and adolescents with COVID-19

Children are the future of the world, but their health and future are facing great uncertainty because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In order to improve the management of children with COVID-19, an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts developed a rapid advice guideline at the beginning of the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. After publishing the first version of the rapid advice guideline, the panel has updated the guideline by including additional stakeholders in the panel and a comprehensive search of the latest evidence. All recommendations were supported by systematic reviews and graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Expert judgment was used to develop good practice statements supplementary to the graded evidence-based recommendations. The updated guideline comprises nine recommendations and one good practice statement. It focuses on the key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.

CONCLUSION

This updated evidence-based guideline intends to provide clinicians, pediatricians, patients and other stakeholders with evidence-based recommendations for the prevention and management of COVID-19 in children and adolescents. Larger studies with longer follow-up to determine the effectiveness and safety of systemic glucocorticoids, IVIG, noninvasive ventilation, and the vaccines for COVID-19 in children and adolescents are encouraged.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Several clinical practice guidelines for children with COVID-19 have been developed, but only few of them have been recently updated. • We developed an evidence-based guideline at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak and have now updated it based on the results of a comprehensive search of the latest evidence.

WHAT IS NEW

• The updated guideline provides key recommendations pertinent to the following issues: identification of prognostic factors for death or pediatric intensive care unit admission; the use of remdesivir, systemic glucocorticoids and antipyretics, intravenous immunoglobulin for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure; breastfeeding; vaccination; and the management of pediatric mental health.

Hidden hazards of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hospitals: A systematic review

Despite their considerable prevalence, dynamics of hospital-associated COVID-19 are still not well understood. We assessed the nature and extent of air- and surface-borne SARS-CoV-2 contamination in hospitals to identify hazards of viral dispersal and enable more precise targeting of infection prevention and control. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Medrxiv, and Biorxiv were searched for relevant articles until June 1, 2021. In total, 51 observational cross-sectional studies comprising 6258 samples were included. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in one in six air and surface samples throughout the hospital and up to 7.62 m away from the nearest patients. The highest detection rates and viral concentrations were reported from patient areas. The most frequently and heavily contaminated types of surfaces comprised air outlets and hospital floors. Viable virus was recovered from the air and fomites. Among size-fractionated air samples, only fine aerosols contained viable virus. Aerosol-generating procedures significantly increased (OR_air  = 2.56 (1.46-4.51); OR_surface  = 1.95 (1.27-2.99)), whereas patient masking significantly decreased air- and surface-borne SARS-CoV-2 contamination (OR_air  = 0.41 (0.25-0.70); OR_surface  = 0.45 (0.34-0.61)). The nature and extent of hospital contamination indicate that SARS-CoV-2 is likely dispersed conjointly through several transmission routes, including short- and long-range aerosol, droplet, and fomite transmission.

Noninvasive ventilation in patients with COVID-19 from the perspective of the risk of contamination: a narrative review

INTRODUCTION

noninvasive ventilation (NIV) can be a useful resource to treat acute respiratory failure (ARF), which occurs in patients with COVID-19. However, it is important to consider that there are still no clinical studies that have verified the safety of its use in increase of contamination.

AREAS COVERED

Given the potential benefits and simultaneous concerns over the use of NIV in patients with COVID-19, further inquiry is necessary to reach a clinical consensus and provide recommendations for safe use, avoiding contamination. In this context, this narrative review, which included articles published in the Embase, SciELO, PEDro, PubMed and Cochrane up to August 2021, is focused to evaluate available studies related to interfaces, types of circuits, recommended filters, cares for the environment and protective factors for NIV use in patients with COVID-19.

EXPERT OPINION

The studies analyzed recommend that the use of NIV can be safe: 1) with equipment that allows the use of the helmet as a safer interface; 2) with double circuit and antimicrobial filter in the expiratory branch; 3) in an environment that allows negative pressure, reducing the dispersion of aerosol particles in the environment; 4) the health team must use the recommended PPE to avoid contamination.

Effect of Intubation Timing on the Outcome of Patients With Severe Respiratory Distress Secondary to COVID-19 Pneumonia

Background

The optimal timing of intubation for critically ill patients with severe respiratory illness remains controversial among healthcare providers. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised even more questions about when to implement this life-saving therapy. While one group of providers prefers early intubation for patients with respiratory distress because these patients may deteriorate rapidly without it, other providers believe that intubation should be delayed or avoided because of its associated risks including worse outcomes.

Research question

Our objective was to assess whether the timing of intubation in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia was associated with differences in mortality or other outcomes.

Study design and methods

This was a single-center retrospective observational cohort study. We analyzed outcomes of patients who were intubated secondary to COVID-19 pneumonia between March 13, 2020, and December 12, 2020, at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan. Patients were categorized into two groups: early intubated (intubated within 24 hours of the onset of severe respiratory distress) and late intubated (intubated after 24 hours of the onset of severe respiratory distress). Demographics, comorbidities, respiratory rate oxygenation (ROX) index, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and treatment received were compared between groups. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and discharge disposition. Post hoc and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 110 patients were included: 55 early intubated and 55 late intubated. We did not observe a significant difference in overall mortality between the early intubated (43%) and the late intubated groups (53%) (p = 0.34). There was no statistically significant difference in patients' baseline characteristics including SOFA scores (the early intubation group had a mean score of 7.5 compared to 6.7 in the late intubation group). Based on the ROX index, the early intubation group had significantly more patients with a reduced risk of intubation (45%) than the late group (27%) (p = 0.029). The early intubation group was treated with a high-flow nasal cannula at a significantly lower rate (47%) than the late intubation group (83%) (p < 0.001). Significant differences in patient baseline characteristics, treatment received, and other outcomes were not observed. Post hoc analysis adjusting for SOFA score between 0 and 9 revealed significantly higher mortality in the late intubation group (49%) than in the early intubation group (26%) (p = 0.03). Patients in the 0 to 9 SOFA group who were intubated later had 2.7 times the odds of dying during hospital admission compared to patients who were intubated early (CI, 1.09-6.67).

Interpretation

The timing of intubation for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly associated with overall mortality or other patient outcomes. However, within the subgroup of patients with SOFA scores of 9 or lower at the time of intubation, patients intubated after 24 hours of the onset of respiratory distress had a higher risk of death than those who were intubated within 24 hours of respiratory distress. Thus, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who are not at a high level of organ dysfunction may benefit from early mechanical ventilation.

Factors influencing nurses' behavioral intention toward caring for COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate nurses' behavioral intention toward caring for COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation, as well as the factors affecting their intention.

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation have many care needs and pose more challenges for nurses, which might adversely affect nurses' intention toward caring behavior.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted by using simple random sampling to recruit 598 nurses from five tertiary hospitals in Sichuan Province, China. The participants responded to an online questionnaire that included questions on demographic characteristics; the Attitude, Subjective Norms, and Behavioral Intention of Nurses toward Mechanically Ventilated Patients (ASIMP) questionnaire; the Nursing Professional Identity Scale (NPIS); and the Compassion Fatigue-Short Scale (CF-Short Scale). ANOVA, Spearman correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression were performed to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The mean total behavioral intention score was 179.46 (± 14.83) out of a total score of 189.00, which represented a high level of intention toward caring for patients on mechanical ventilation. Multiple linear regression revealed that subjective norms (β = 0.390, P<0.001), perceived behavioral control (β = 0.149, P<0.001), professional identity (β = 0.101, P = 0.009), and compassion fatigue (β = 0.088 P = 0.024) were significant predictors of nurses' behavioral intention.

CONCLUSIONS

Most nurses have a positive behavioral intention to care for COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. The findings in this study provide some insight for developing effective and tailored strategies to promote nurses' behavioral intention toward caring for ventilated patients under the pandemic situation.

Regional Anaesthetic Techniques and Their Implications During the COVID Pandemic

The current pandemic has highlighted the need to protect both patients and medical staff. The increased use of regional anaesthesia as a primary anaesthetic modality for operations and other invasive procedures has limited the number of aerosol-generating procedures performed during general anaesthesia. Its use is further characterized by decreases in postoperative pain and length of hospitalization. This article provides an overview of regional anaesthetic techniques (peripheral nerve locks, epidural and spinal anaesthesia) and their uses during the COVID pandemic.

Genomic epidemiology reveals multiple introductions of SARS-CoV-2 followed by community and nosocomial spread, Germany, February to May 2020

Background

In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, viral genomes are available at unprecedented speed, but spatio-temporal bias in genome sequence sampling precludes phylogeographical inference without additional contextual data.

Aim

We applied genomic epidemiology to trace SARS-CoV-2 spread on an international, national and local level, to illustrate how transmission chains can be resolved to the level of a single event and single person using integrated sequence data and spatio-temporal metadata.

Methods

We investigated 289 COVID-19 cases at a university hospital in Munich, Germany, between 29 February and 27 May 2020. Using the ARTIC protocol, we obtained near full-length viral genomes from 174 SARS-CoV-2-positive respiratory samples. Phylogenetic analyses using the Auspice software were employed in combination with anamnestic reporting of travel history, interpersonal interactions and perceived high-risk exposures among patients and healthcare workers to characterise cluster outbreaks and establish likely scenarios and timelines of transmission.

Results

We identified multiple independent introductions in the Munich Metropolitan Region during the first weeks of the first pandemic wave, mainly by travellers returning from popular skiing areas in the Alps. In these early weeks, the rate of presumable hospital-acquired infections among patients and in particular healthcare workers was high (9.6% and 54%, respectively) and we illustrated how transmission chains can be dissected at high resolution combining virus sequences and spatio-temporal networks of human interactions.

Conclusions

Early spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Europe was catalysed by superspreading events and regional hotspots during the winter holiday season. Genomic epidemiology can be employed to trace viral spread and inform effective containment strategies.

Clinical recommendations for in-hospital airway management during aerosol-transmitting procedures in the setting of a viral pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), can lead to severe pneumonia and multiorgan failure. While most of the infected patients develop no or only mild symptoms, some need respiratory support or even invasive ventilation. The exact route of transmission is currently under investigation. While droplet exposure and direct contact seem to be the most significant ways of transmitting the disease, aerosol transmission appears to be possible under circumstances favored by high viral load. Despite the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), this situation potentially puts healthcare workers at risk of infection, especially if they are involved in airway management. Various recommendations and international guidelines aim to protect healthcare workers, although evidence-based research confirming the benefits of these approaches is still scarce. In this article, we summarize the current literature and recommendations for airway management of COVID-19 patients.

Methodological challenges for living systematic reviews conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic: A concept paper

Background

A living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging review type that makes use of continual updating. In the COVID-19 pandemic, we were confronted with a shifting epidemiological landscape, clinical uncertainties and evolving evidence. These unexpected challenges compelled us to amend standard LSR methodology.

Objective and outline

Our primary objective is to discuss some challenges faced when conducting LSRs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide methodological guidance for others doing similar work. Based on our experience and lessons learned from two Cochrane LSRs and challenges identified in several non-Cochrane LSRs, we highlight methodological considerations, particularly with regards to the study design, interventions and comparators, changes in outcome measure, and the search strategy. We discuss when to update, or rather when not to update the review, and the importance of transparency when reporting changes.

Lessons learned and conclusion

We learned that a LSR is a very suitable review type for the pandemic context, even in the face of new methodological and clinical challenges. Our experience showed that the decision for updating a LSR depends not only on the evolving disease or emerging evidence, but also on the individual review question and the review teams’ resources.

SARS-CoV-2 and the role of airborne transmission: a systematic review

Background: Airborne transmission is the spread of an infectious agent caused by the dissemination of droplet nuclei (aerosols) that remain infectious when suspended in the air. We carried out a systematic review to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence from studies of the role of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Methods: We searched LitCovid, MedRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database from 1 February to 20 December 2020 and included studies on airborne transmission. Data were dual extracted and we assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool. Results: We included 67 primary studies and 22 reviews on airborne SARS-CoV-2. Of the 67 primary studies, 53 (79%) reported data on RT-PCR from air samples, 12 (18%) report cycle threshold values and 18 (127%) copies per sample volume. All primary studies were observational and of low quality. The research often lacked standard methods, standard sampling sizes and reporting items. We found 36 descriptions of different air samplers deployed. Of the 42 studies conducted in-hospital that reported binary RT-PCR tests, 24 (57%) reported positive results for SARs-CoV-2 (142 positives out of 1,403 samples: average 10.1%, range 0% to 100%). There was no pattern between the type of hospital setting (ICU versus non-ICU) and RT-PCR positivity. Seventeen studies reported potential air transmission in the outdoors or in the community, of which seven performed RT-PCR sampling, and two studies reported weak positive RNA samples for 2 or more genes (5 of 125 samples positive: average 4.0%). Ten studies attempted viral culture with no serial passage. Conclusion:  SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected intermittently in the air in various settings. Standardized guidelines for conducting and reporting research on airborne transmission are needed. The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions from being drawn about airborne transmission.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence survey among health care providers in a Belgian public multiple-site hospital

Although the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is lasting for more than 1 year, the exposition risks of health-care providers are still unclear. Available evidence is conflicting. We investigated the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the staff of a large public hospital with multiple sites in the Antwerp region of Belgium. Risk factors for infection were identified by means of a questionnaire and human resource data. We performed hospital-wide serology tests in the weeks following the first epidemic wave (16 March to the end of May 2020) and combined the results with the answers from an individual questionnaire. Overall seroprevalence was 7.6%. We found higher seroprevalences in nurses [10.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.9-11.2] than in physicians 6.4% (95% CI 4.6-8.7), paramedical 6.0% (95% CI 4.3-8.0) and administrative staff (2.9%; 95% CI 1.8-4.5). Staff who indicated contact with a confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) colleague had a higher seroprevalence (12.0%; 95% CI 10.7-13.4) than staff who did not (4.2%; 95% CI 3.5-5.0). The same findings were present for contacts in the private setting. Working in general COVID-19 wards, but not in emergency departments or intensive care units, was also a significant risk factor. Since our analysis points in the direction of active SARS-CoV-2 transmission within hospitals, we argue for implementing a stringent hospital-wide testing and contact-tracing policy with special attention to the health care workers employed in general COVID-19 departments. Additional studies are needed to establish the transmission dynamics.

Airway management in the adult patient with COVID-19: High flow nasal oxygen or not? A summary of evidence and local expert opinion

The use of high flow nasal oxygen in the care of COVID-19-positive adult patients remains an area of contention. Early guidelines have discouraged the use of high flow nasal oxygen therapy in this setting due to the risk of viral spread to healthcare workers. However, there is the need to balance the relative risks of increased aerosol generation and virus transmission to healthcare workers against the role high flow nasal oxygen has in reducing hypoxaemia when managing the airway in high-risk patients during intubation or sedation procedures. The authors of this article undertook a narrative review to present results from several recent papers. Surrogate outcome studies suggest that the risk of high flow nasal oxygen in dispersing aerosol-sized particles is probably not as great as first perceived. Smoke laser-visualisation experiments and particle counter studies suggest that the generation and dispersion of bio-aerosols via high flow nasal oxygen with flow rates up to 60 l/min is similar to standard oxygen therapies. The risk appears to be similar to oxygen supplementation via a Hudson mask at 15 l/min and significantly less than low flow nasal prong oxygen 1-5 l/min, nasal continuous positive airway pressure with ill-fitting masks, bilevel positive airway pressure, or from a coughing patient. However, given the limited safety data, we recommend a cautious approach. For intubation in the COVID-positive or suspected COVID-positive patient we support the use of high flow nasal oxygen to extend time to desaturation in the at-risk groups, which include the morbidly obese, those with predicted difficult airways and patients with significant hypoxaemia, ensuring well-fitted high flow nasal oxygen prongs with staff wearing full personal protective equipment. For sedation cases, we support the use of high flow nasal oxygen when there is an elevated risk of hypoxaemia (e.g. bariatric endoscopy or prone-positioned procedures), but recommend securing the airway with a cuffed endotracheal tube for the longer duration procedures when theatre staff remain in close proximity to the upper airway, or considering the use of a surgical mask to reduce the risk of exhaled particle dispersion.

Adaptive Manufacturing for Healthcare During the COVID-19 Emergency and Beyond

During the COVID-19 pandemic, global health services have faced unprecedented demands. Many key workers in health and social care have experienced crippling shortages of personal protective equipment, and clinical engineers in hospitals have been severely stretched due to insufficient supplies of medical devices and equipment. Many engineers who normally work in other sectors have been redeployed to address the crisis, and they have rapidly improvised solutions to some of the challenges that emerged, using a combination of low-tech and cutting-edge methods. Much publicity has been given to efforts to design new ventilator systems and the production of 3D-printed face shields, but many other devices and systems have been developed or explored. This paper presents a description of efforts to reverse engineer or redesign critical parts, specifically a manifold for an anaesthesia station, a leak port, plasticware for COVID-19 testing, and a syringe pump lock box. The insights obtained from these projects were used to develop a product lifecycle management system based on Aras Innovator, which could with further work be deployed to facilitate future rapid response manufacturing of bespoke hardware for healthcare. The lessons learned could inform plans to exploit distributed manufacturing to secure back-up supply chains for future emergency situations. If applied generally, the concept of distributed manufacturing could give rise to "21st century cottage industries" or "nanofactories," where high-tech goods are produced locally in small batches.

Compassionate Removal of Heated High-Flow Nasal Cannula for End of Life: Case Series and Protocol Development

Patients often receive burdensome care at the end of life in the form of interventions that may need to be removed. Heated high-flow oxygen delivered through a nasal cannula (HHFNC) is one such intervention that can be delivered in the hospital yet is rarely available outside of this setting. During the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, health care systems continue to face the possibility of rationing critical life-sustaining equipment that may include HHFNC. We present a clinical protocol designed for weaning HHFNC to allow a natural death and ensuring adequate symptom management throughout the process. This was a retrospective chart review of 8 patients seen by an inpatient palliative care service of an academic tertiary referral hospital who underwent terminal weaning of HHFNC using a structured protocol to manage dyspnea. Eight patients with diverse medical diagnoses, including COVID-19 pneumonia, underwent terminal weaning of HHFNC according to the clinical protocol with 4 down-titrations of approximately 25% for both fraction of inspired oxygen and liter flow with preemptive boluses of opioid and benzodiazepine. Clinical documentation supported good symptom control throughout the weaning process. This case series provides preliminary evidence that the clinical protocol proposed has the ability to ensure comfort through terminal weaning of HHFNC.

COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection

Scientists across disciplines, policymakers, and journalists have voiced frustration at the unprecedented polarization and misinformation around coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several false dichotomies have been used to polarize debates while oversimplifying complex issues. In this comprehensive narrative review, we deconstruct six common COVID-19 false dichotomies, address the evidence on these topics, identify insights relevant to effective pandemic responses, and highlight knowledge gaps and uncertainties. The topics of this review are: 1) Health and lives vs. economy and livelihoods, 2) Indefinite lockdown vs. unlimited reopening, 3) Symptomatic vs. asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, 4) Droplet vs. aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, 5) Masks for all vs. no masking, and 6) SARS-CoV-2 reinfection vs. no reinfection. We discuss the importance of multidisciplinary integration (health, social, and physical sciences), multilayered approaches to reducing risk ("Emmentaler cheese model"), harm reduction, smart masking, relaxation of interventions, and context-sensitive policymaking for COVID-19 response plans. We also address the challenges in understanding the broad clinical presentation of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. These key issues of science and public health policy have been presented as false dichotomies during the pandemic. However, they are hardly binary, simple, or uniform, and therefore should not be framed as polar extremes. We urge a nuanced understanding of the science and caution against black-or-white messaging, all-or-nothing guidance, and one-size-fits-all approaches. There is a need for meaningful public health communication and science-informed policies that recognize shades of gray, uncertainties, local context, and social determinants of health.

Prognostic Factors and Predictors of In-Hospital Mortality Among COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: An Aid for Triage, Counseling, and Resource Allocation

BACKGROUND

 The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains today a global health pandemic. Those with severe infection are at risk of rapid clinical deterioration; as a result, intensive care unit (ICU) admission is not uncommon in such patients. A number of determinants have been identified as predictors of poor prognosis and in-hospital mortality, ranging from demographic characteristics, laboratory and/or radiological findings.

AIM

To identify determinants of in-hospital mortality and examine the accuracy of seven early warning scores in predicting in-hospital mortality.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted in Kuwait from July 2020 to March 2021, and participants were adult patients with a positive test on the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 and who met the criteria for ICU admission. Data collected included: demographics, clinical status on hospital arrival, laboratory test results, and ICU course. Furthermore, we calculated seven early warning scores for each of our patients.

RESULTS

A total of 133 patients were admitted to our COVID-19 ICU with a median age of 59 years. Arrival to ICU on mechanical ventilation (MV), developing in-hospital complications, having chronic kidney disease (CKD), having a high white blood count (WBC), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), lactate, or urea levels were found to be significant predictors of in-hospital mortality. Furthermore, the 4C mortality score for COVID-19, VACO index for COVID-19 mortality, and the PRIEST COVID-19 clinical severity score proved to be the most superior in predicting in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Identifying high-risk patients and those with a poor prognosis allows for efficient triaging and the delivery of high-standard care while minimizing the strain on the healthcare system.

COVID-19 in Turkey: A tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a serious epidemic in our country and all over the world since December 2019 and has become a global health problem. The disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been named as coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19).

METHODS

We report on the epidemiological and clinical features of 37 children diagnosed with COVID-19.

RESULTS

The median age was of the children was 10 years and 57.1% were male. In addition, 78.3% of the children had a history of contact with adult patients who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, and 27.0% had coexisting medical conditions. We found that 40.5% of our patients had mild infection, while 32.4% had moderate infection, and 27.1% had developed severe or critical illness. The most common abnormal laboratory findings in our patients were decreased lymphocytes (45.9%) and increased D-dimer values (43.2%), while abnormal radiological findings were detected in 56.7% of the children. In addition, 64.8% of the children had received azithromycin, 59.4% had received oseltamivir, and hydroxychloroquine was used in combination with azithromycin in 35.1% of the children. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation was required in 27.0% of the children.

CONCLUSIONS

Although COVID-19 infection is usually mild in children, severe illness can be seen in children with comorbidities, or even in children who were previously healthy.

Viable virus aerosol propagation by positive airway pressure circuit leak and mitigation with a ventilated patient hood

INTRODUCTION

Nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been a major feature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests patients can auto-emit aerosols containing viable viruses; these aerosols could be further propagated when patients undergo certain treatments, including continuous positive airway pressure (PAP) therapy. Our aim was to assess 1) the degree of viable virus propagated from PAP circuit mask leak and 2) the efficacy of a ventilated plastic canopy to mitigate virus propagation.

METHODS

Bacteriophage phiX174 (10⁸ copies·mL^-1) was nebulised into a custom PAP circuit. Mask leak was systematically varied at the mask interface. Plates containing Escherichia coli host quantified viable virus (via plaque forming unit) settling on surfaces around the room. The efficacy of a low-cost ventilated headboard created from a tarpaulin hood and a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was tested.

RESULTS

Mask leak was associated with virus contamination in a dose-dependent manner (χ²=58.24, df=4, p<0.001). Moderate mask leak (≥21 L·min^-1) was associated with virus counts equivalent to using PAP with a vented mask. The highest frequency of viruses was detected on surfaces <1 m away; however, viable viruses were recorded up to 3.86 m from the source. A plastic hood with HEPA filtration significantly reduced viable viruses on all plates. HEPA exchange rates ≥170 m³·h^-1 eradicated all evidence of virus contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

Mask leak from PAP may be a major source of environmental contamination and nosocomial spread of infectious respiratory diseases. Subclinical mask leak levels should be treated as an infectious risk. Low-cost patient hoods with HEPA filtration are an effective countermeasure.

Early Intubation and Increased Coronavirus Disease 2019 Mortality: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

There has been controversy about the timing and indications for intubation and mechanical ventilation in novel coronavirus disease 2019. This study assessed the effect of early intubation and mechanical ventilation on all-cause, inhospital mortality for coronavirus disease 2019 patients.

Design:

Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Setting:

Eleven municipal hospitals in New York City from March 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020.

Patients:

Adult patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 in the emergency department were subsequently admitted. Patients with do-not-intubate orders at admission were excluded.

Interventions:

Intubation within 48 hours of triage and intubation at any point during hospital stay.

Measurements and Main Results:

Data from 7,597 coronavirus disease 2019 patients were included; of these, 1,628 (21%) were intubated overall and 807 (11%) were intubated within 48 hours of triage. After controlling for available confounders, intubation rates for coronavirus disease 2019 patients varied significantly across hospitals and decreased steadily as the pandemic progressed. After nearest neighbor propensity score matching, intubation within 48 hours of triage was associated with higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.30 [1.15–1.48]; p < 0.0001), as was intubation at any time point (hazard ratio, 1.62 [1.45–1.80]; p < 0.0001). Among intubated patients, intubation within 48 hours of triage was not significantly associated with differences in mortality (hazard ratio, 1.09 [0.94–1.26]; p = 0.26). These results remained robust to multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS:

Intubation within 48 hours of triage, as well as at any time point in the hospital course, was associated with increased mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients in this observational study.

Noninvasive Ventilatory Support of Patients with COVID-19 outside the Intensive Care Units (WARd-COVID)

Rationale: Treatment with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is frequent. Shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds led clinicians to deliver NIV also outside ICUs. Data about the use of NIV in COVID-19 is limited.

Objectives: To describe the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 treated with NIV outside the ICUs. To investigate the factors associated with NIV failure (need for intubation or death).

Methods: In this prospective, single-day observational study, we enrolled adult patients with COVID-19 who were treated with NIV outside the ICU from 31 hospitals in Lombardy, Italy.

Results: We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, ventilatory management, and patient outcomes. Of 8,753 patients with COVID-19 present in the hospitals on the study day, 909 (10%) were receiving NIV outside the ICU. A majority of patients (778/909; 85%) patients were treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was delivered by helmet in 617 (68%) patients. NIV failed in 300 patients (37.6%), whereas 498 (62.4%) patients were discharged alive without intubation. Overall mortality was 25%. NIV failure occurred in 152/284 (53%) patients with an arterial oxygen pressure (Pa_O2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (Fi_O2) ratio <150 mm Hg. Higher C-reactive protein and lower Pa_O2/Fi_O2 and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.

Conclusions: The use of NIV outside the ICUs was common in COVID-19, with a predominant use of helmet CPAP, with a rate of success >60% and close to 75% in full-treatment patients. C-reactive protein, Pa_O2/Fi_O2, and platelet counts were independently associated with increased risk of NIV failure.

Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04382235).

COVID-19 treatment combinations and associations with mortality in a large multi-site healthcare system

INTRODUCTION

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, mortality associated with the disease declined in the United States. The standard of care for pharmacological interventions evolved during this period as new and repurposed treatments were used alone and in combination. Though these medications have been studied individually, data are limited regarding the relative impact of different medication combinations. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the association of COVID-19-related mortality and observed medication combinations and to determine whether changes in medication-related practice patterns and measured patient characteristics, alone, explain the decline in mortality seen early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a multi-hospital healthcare system exploring the association of mortality and combinations of remdesivir, corticosteroids, anticoagulants, tocilizumab, and hydroxychloroquine. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of mortality for both the overall population and the population stratified by intensive care and non-intensive care unit admissions. A separate model was created to control for the change in unmeasured variables over time.

RESULTS

For all patients, four treatment combinations were associated with lower mortality: Anticoagulation Only (OR 0.24, p < 0.0001), Anticoagulation and Remdesivir (OR 0.25, p = 0.0031), Anticoagulation and Corticosteroids (OR 0.53, p = 0.0263), and Anticoagulation, Corticosteroids and Remdesivir (OR 0.42, p = 0.026). For non-intensive care unit patients, the same combinations were significantly associated with lower mortality. For patients admitted to the intensive care unit, Anticoagulation Only was the sole treatment category associated with decreased mortality. When adjusted for demographics, clinical characteristics, and all treatment combinations there was an absolute decrease in the mortality rate by 2.5% between early and late periods of the study. However, when including an additional control for changes in unmeasured variables overtime, the absolute mortality rate decreased by 5.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that anticoagulation was the most significant treatment for the reduction of COVID-related mortality. Anticoagulation Only was the sole treatment category associated with a significant decrease in mortality for both intensive care and non-intensive care patients. Treatment combinations that additionally included corticosteroids and/or remdesivir were also associated with decreased mortality, though only in the non-intensive care stratum. Further, we found that factors other than measured changes in demographics, clinical characteristics or pharmacological interventions accounted for an additional decrease in the COVID-19-related mortality rate over time.

Barotrauma during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19: a balance between risks and benefits

Ventilatory support is vital for the management of severe forms of COVID-19. Non-invasive ventilation is often used in patients who do not meet criteria for intubation or when invasive ventilation is not available, especially in a pandemic when resources are limited. Despite non-invasive ventilation providing effective respiratory support for some forms of acute respiratory failure, data about its effectiveness in patients with viral-related pneumonia are inconclusive. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection causes life-threatening respiratory failure, weakening the lung parenchyma and increasing the risk of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma results from positive pressure ventilation leading to elevated transalveolar pressure, and in turn to alveolar rupture and leakage of air into the extra-alveolar tissue. This article reviews the literature regarding the use of non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other epidemic or pandemic viral infections and the related risk of barotrauma.

Invasive and noninvasive ventilation strategies for acute respiratory failure in children with coronavirus disease 2019

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 presents as symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease in susceptible patients. Severe pediatric COVID-19 disease is rare, limiting potential data accumulation on associated respiratory failure in children. Pediatric intensivists and pulmonologists managing COVID-19 patients look to adult guidelines and pediatric-specific consensus statements to guide management. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature and recommended strategies for the escalation of noninvasive and invasive respiratory support for acute respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 disease in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are no prospective studies comparing COVID-19 treatment strategies in children. Adult and pediatric ventilation management interim guidance is based on evidence-based guidelines in non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome, with considerations of (1) noninvasive positive pressure ventilation versus high-flow nasal cannula and (2) high versus lower positive end expiratory pressure strategies related to lung compliance and potential lung recruitability.

SUMMARY

Management of acute respiratory failure from COVID-19 requires individualized titration of noninvasive and invasive ventilation modalities with consideration of preserved or compromised pulmonary compliance. Research regarding best practices in the management of pediatric severe COVID-19 with respiratory failure is lacking and is acutely needed as the pandemic surges and vaccination of the pediatric population will be delayed compared to adults.