Assessment of a COVID-19 vaccination protocol for unhoused patients in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an emergency department (ED)-based Coronavirus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination protocol in a population of unhoused patients. METHODS: On June 10, 2021, a best practice alert (BPA) was implemented that fired when an ED provider opened the charts of unhoused patients and prompted the provider to order COVID-19 vaccination for eligible patients. We downloaded electronic medical record data of patients who received a COVID-19 vaccine in the ED between June 10, 2021 and August 26, 2021. The outcomes of interest were the number of unhoused, and the total number of patients vaccinated for COVID-19 during the study period. Data were described with simple descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 25,871 patient encounters in 19,992 unique patients (mean 1.3 visits/patient) in the emergency department during the study period. There were 1,474 (6% of total ED population) visits in 1,085 unique patients who were unhoused (mean 1.4 visits/patient). The BPA fired in 1,046 unhoused patient encounters (71% of PEH encounters) and was accepted in 79 (8%). Forty-three unhoused patients were vaccinated as a result of the BPA (4% of BPA fires) and 18 unhoused patients were vaccinated without BPA prompting. An additional 76 domiciled patients were vaccinated in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an ED-based COVID-19 vaccination program is feasible, however, only a small number of patients underwent COVID-19 vaccination. Further studies are needed to explore the utility of using the ED as a setting for COVID-19 vaccination.

Evaluation of Procalcitonin's Utility to Predict Concomitant Bacterial Pneumonia in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

Background: Historically, procalcitonin(PCT) has been used as a predictor of bacterial infection and to guide antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients. The purpose of this study was to determine PCT's diagnostic utility in predicting secondary bacterial pneumonia in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in COVID-19 adults admitted to the ICU between March 2020, and March 2021. All included patients had a PCT level within 72 h of presentation and serum creatinine of <1.5mg/dL. A PCT threshold of 0.5ng/mL was used to compare patients with high( ≥ 0.5ng/mL) versus low(< 0.5ng/mL) PCT. Bacterial pneumonia was defined by positive respiratory culture. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was utilized to evaluate PCT as a diagnostic test for bacterial pneumonia, with an area under the curve(AUC) threshold of 0.7 to signify an accurate diagnostic test. A multivariable model was constructed to identify variables associated with in-hospital mortality. Results: There were 165 patients included: 127 low PCT versus 38 high PCT. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics, vital signs, severity of disease, or outcomes among low versus high PCT groups (all p > 0.05). While there was no difference in bacterial pneumonia in low versus high groups (34(26.8%) versus 12(31.6%), p = 0.562), more patients in the high PCT group had bacteremia (19(15%) versus 11(28.9%), p = 0.050). Sensitivity was 26.1% and specificity was 78.2% for PCT to predict bacterial pneumonia coinfection in ICU patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. ROC yielded an AUC 0.54 (p = 0.415). After adjusting for LDH>350U/L and creatinine in multivariable regression, PCT did not enhance performance of the regression model. Conclusions: PCT offers little to no predictive utility in diagnosing concomitant bacterial pneumonia in critically ill patients with COVID-19 nor in predicting increased severity of disease or worse outcomes including mortality.

Corticosteroid use in ARDS and its application to evolving therapeutics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review.

Data regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti-inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non-COVID-19 and COVID-19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow-up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS studies. The two non-COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation-free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.

Descriptive analysis of the unwarranted continuation of antipsychotics for the management of ICU delirium during transitions of care: A multicenter evaluation across New Jersey.

PURPOSE: Nearly half of intensive care unit (ICU) patients will develop delirium. Antipsychotics are used routinely for the management of ICU delirium despite limited reliable data supporting this approach. The unwarranted continuation of antipsychotics initiated for ICU delirium is an emerging transitions of care concern, especially considering the adverse event profile of these agents. We sought to evaluate the magnitude of this issue across 6 centers in New Jersey and describe risk factors for continuation. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study examined adult ICU patients who developed ICU delirium from June 2016 to June 2018. Patients were included in the study if they received at least 3 doses of antipsychotics while in the ICU with presence of either a clinical diagnosis of delirium or a positive Confusion Assessment Method score. Patients were excluded if they were on an antipsychotic before ICU admission. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients included and initiated on antipsychotics for ICU delirium, 157 (52.3%) were continued on therapy upon transfer from the ICU to another level of inpatient care. The number of patients continued on newly initiated antipsychotics further increased to 183 (61%) upon discharge from the hospital. CONCLUSION: The continuation of antipsychotics for the management of delirium during transitions of care was a common practice across ICUs in New Jersey. Several risk factors for continuation of antipsychotics were identified. Efforts to reduce unnecessary continuation of antipsychotics at transitions of care are warranted.

Analgesia and Sedation Strategies in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with COVID-19.

Evidence-based management of analgesia and sedation in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome remains limited. Non-guideline recommended analgesic and sedative medication regimens and deeper sedation targets have been employed for patients with COVID-19 due to exaggerated analgesia and sedation requirements with extended durations of mechanical ventilation. This, coupled with a desire to minimize nurse entry into COVID-19 patient rooms, marked obesity, altered end-organ function, and evolving medication shortages, presents numerous short- and long-term challenges. Alternative analgesic and sedative agents and regimens may pose safety risks and require judicious bedside management for appropriate use. The purpose of this commentary is to provide considerations and solutions for designing safe and effective analgesia and sedation strategies for adult patients with considerable ventilator dyssynchrony and sedation requirements, such as COVID-19.