A population-based assessment of avoidable hospitalizations and resource use of non-vaccinated patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has precipitated a prolonged public health crisis. Numerous public health protections were widely implemented. The availability of effective and safe vaccines for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presented an opportunity to resolve this crisis; however, vaccine uptake was slow and inconsistent. This study evaluated the potential for preventable hospitalizations and avoidable resource use among eligible non-vaccinated persons hospitalized for COVID-19 had these persons been vaccinated. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study. The population-at-risk were persons aged ≥ 12 years in Alberta (mid-year 2021 population ~ 4.4 million). The primary exposure was vaccination status. The primary outcome was hospitalization with confirmed SARS-CoV-2, and secondary outcomes included avoidable hospitalizations, avoidable hospital bed-days, and the potential cost avoidance related to COVID-19. The study inception period was 27 September 2021 to 25 January 2022. Data on COVID-19 hospitalizations, vaccination status, health services, and costs were obtained from the Government of Alberta and from the Discharge Abstract Database. RESULTS: Hospitalizations occurred in 3835, 1907, and 481 persons who were non-vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and boosted (risk of hospitalization/100,000 population: 886, 92, and 43), respectively. For non-vaccinated persons compared with fully vaccinated and boosted persons, the risk ratios (95%CI) of hospitalization were 9.7 (7.9-11.8) and 20.6 (17.9-23.6), respectively. For non-vaccinated persons, estimates of avoidable hospitalizations and bed-days used were 3439 and 36,331 if fully vaccinated and 3764 and 40,185 if boosted. Estimates of cost avoidance for non-vaccinated persons were $101.46 million if fully vaccinated and $110.24 million if boosted. CONCLUSION: Eligible non-vaccinated persons with COVID-19 had tenfold and 21-fold higher risks of hospitalization relative to whether they had been fully vaccinated or boosted, resulting in considerable avoidable hospital bed-days and costs.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a précipité une crise de santé publique prolongée. De nombreuses mesures de protection de la santé publique ont été appliquées à grande échelle. La disponibilité de vaccins sûrs et efficaces contre le coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2) a présenté une occasion de résoudre la crise, mais l'acceptation de la vaccination a été lente et inégale. Dans cette étude, nous évaluons le potentiel d'hospitalisations évitables et d'utilisation évitable des ressources pour les personnes non vaccinées admissibles hospitalisées pour la COVID-19, si ces personnes avaient été vaccinées. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte populationnelle rétrospective. La population à risque était les personnes de ≥ 12 ans en Alberta (~ 4,4 millions au milieu de l'année 2021). Le principal risque était le statut vaccinal. Le principal résultat clinique était l'hospitalisation avec SRAS-CoV-2 confirmé, et les résultats cliniques secondaires étaient les hospitalisations évitables, les jours-lits à l'hôpital évitables et l'évitement potentiel des coûts liés à la COVID-19. La période initiale de l'étude s'est étendue du 27 septembre 2021 au 25 janvier 2022. Les données sur les hospitalisations pour la COVID-19, le statut vaccinal, les coûts et les services de santé provenaient du gouvernement de l'Alberta et de la Base de données sur les congés des patients. RéSULTATS: En tout, 3 835 personnes non vaccinées, 1 907 personnes ayant reçu tous leurs vaccins et 481 personnes ayant reçu des doses de rappel ont été hospitalisées (risque d'hospitalisation p. 100 000 personnes : 886, 92 et 43, respectivement). Pour les personnes non vaccinées, comparativement aux personnes ayant reçu tous leurs vaccins et/ou les doses de rappel, les risques relatifs d'hospitalisation (IC de 95%) étaient de 9,7 (7,9­11,8) et de 20,6 (17,9­23,6), respectivement. Selon nos estimations, les personnes non vaccinées auraient évité 3 439 hospitalisations et 36 331 jours-lits si elles avaient reçu tous leurs vaccins, et 3 764 hospitalisations et 40 185 jours-lits si elles avaient en plus reçu les doses de rappel. Nous avons aussi estimé que les personnes non vaccinées auraient évité des coûts de 101,46 millions de dollars si elles avaient reçu tous leurs vaccins et de 110,24 millions de dollars si elles avaient en plus reçu les doses de rappel. CONCLUSION: Les personnes non vaccinées admissibles ayant contracté la COVID-19 ont présenté un risque d'hospitalisation 10 fois plus élevé que si elles avaient reçu tous leurs vaccins et 21 fois plus élevé que si elles avaient en plus reçu les doses de rappel, ce qui représente des jours-lits à l'hôpital et des coûts évitables considérables.

Epidemiology and Outcomes of AKI Treated With Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy: The Multicenter CRRTnet Study.

Rationale & Objective: Continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) is the predominant form of acute kidney replacement therapy used for critically ill adult patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). Given the variability in CKRT practice, a contemporary understanding of its epidemiology is necessary to improve care delivery. Study Design: Multicenter, prospective living registry. Setting & Population: 1,106 critically ill adults with AKI requiring CKRT from December 2013 to January 2021 across 5 academic centers and 6 intensive care units. Patients with pre-existing kidney failure and those with coronavirus 2 infection were excluded. Exposure: CKRT for more than 24 hours. Outcomes: Hospital mortality, kidney recovery, and health care resource utilization. Analytical Approach: Data were collected according to preselected timepoints at intensive care unit admission and CKRT initiation and analyzed descriptively. Results: Patients' characteristics, contributors to AKI, and CKRT indications differed among centers. Mean (standard deviation) age was 59.3 (13.9) years, 39.7% of patients were women, and median [IQR] APACHE-II (acute physiologic assessment and chronic health evaluation) score was 30 [25-34]. Overall, 41.1% of patients survived to hospital discharge. Patients that died were older (mean age 61 vs. 56.8, P < 0.001), had greater comorbidity (median Charlson score 3 [1-4] vs. 2 [1-3], P < 0.001), and higher acuity of illness (median APACHE-II score 30 [25-35] vs. 29 [24-33], P = 0.003). The most common condition predisposing to AKI was sepsis (42.6%), and the most common CKRT indications were oliguria/anuria (56.2%) and fluid overload (53.9%). Standardized mortality ratios were similar among centers. Limitations: The generalizability of these results to CKRT practices in nonacademic centers or low-and middle-income countries is limited. Conclusions: In this registry, sepsis was the major contributor to AKI and fluid management was collectively the most common CKRT indication. Significant heterogeneity in patient- and CKRT-specific characteristics was found in current practice. These data highlight the need for establishing benchmarks of CKRT delivery, performance, and patient outcomes. Data from this registry could assist with the design of such studies.

Intrapulmonary and Intracardiac Shunts in Adult COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ICU Patients Using Echocardiography and Contrast Bubble Studies (COVID-Shunt Study): A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have suggested intrapulmonary shunts may contribute to hypoxemia in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with worse associated outcomes. We evaluated the presence of right-to-left (R-L) shunts in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS patients using a comprehensive hypoxemia workup for shunt etiology and associations with mortality. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Four tertiary hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated, ICU patients admitted with COVID-19 or non-COVID (November 16, 2020, to September 1, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Agitated-saline bubble studies with transthoracic echocardiography/transcranial Doppler ± transesophageal echocardiography assessed for R-L shunts presence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were shunt frequency and association with hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used for adjustment. The study enrolled 226 patients (182 COVID-19 vs 42 non-COVID). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 47-67 yr) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 30 (IQR, 21-36). In COVID-19 patients, the frequency of R-L shunt was 31 of 182 COVID patients (17.0%) versus 10 of 44 non-COVID patients (22.7%), with no difference detected in shunt rates (risk difference [RD], -5.7%; 95% CI, -18.4 to 7.0; p = 0.38). In the COVID-19 group, hospital mortality was higher for those with R-L shunt compared with those without (54.8% vs 35.8%; RD, 19.0%; 95% CI, 0.1-37.9; p = 0.05). This did not persist at 90-day mortality nor after adjustment with regression. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased R-L shunt rates in COVID-19 compared with non-COVID controls. R-L shunt was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients, but this did not persist at 90-day mortality or after adjusting using logistic regression.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) excess mortality outcomes associated with pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and aim: With the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times. Methods: We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Of 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons (n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06-0.06% p < 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-1.70, p < 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07-1.30, p < 0.00001). There was "very low" certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42020201256].

Wellness and Coping of Physicians Who Worked in ICUs During the Pandemic: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional North American Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments. SETTING: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States. SUBJECTS: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.

Avoidable intensive care unit resource use and costs of unvaccinated patients with COVID-19: a historical population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been proven effective at preventing poor outcomes from COVID-19; however, voluntary vaccination rates have been suboptimal. We assessed the potential avoidable intensive care unit (ICU) resource use and associated costs had unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 been fully vaccinated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of persons aged 12 yr or greater in Alberta (2021 population ~ 4.4 million) admitted to any ICU with COVID-19 from 6 September 2021 to 4 January 2022. We used publicly available aggregate data on COVID-19 infections, vaccination status, and health services use. Intensive care unit admissions, bed-days, lengths of stay, and costs were estimated for patients with COVID-19 and stratified by vaccination status. RESULTS: In total, 1,053 patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 were unvaccinated, 42 were partially vaccinated, and 173 were fully vaccinated (cumulative incidence 230.6, 30.8, and 5.5 patients/100,000 population, respectively). Cumulative incidence rate ratios of ICU admission were 42.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.7 to 44.9) for unvaccinated patients and 5.6 (95% CI, 4.1 to 7.6) for partially vaccinated patients when compared with fully vaccinated patients. During the study period, 1,028 avoidable ICU admissions and 13,015 bed-days were recorded for unvaccinated patients and the total avoidable costs were CAD 61.3 million. The largest opportunity to avoid ICU bed-days and costs was in unvaccinated patients aged 50 to 69 yr. CONCLUSIONS: Unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had substantially greater rates of ICU admissions, ICU bed-days, and ICU-related costs than vaccinated patients did. This increased resource use would have been potentially avoidable had these unvaccinated patients been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les vaccins contre le SRAS-CoV-2 se sont avérés efficaces pour prévenir les devenirs défavorables associés à la COVID-19; toutefois, les taux de vaccination volontaire ont été sous-optimaux. Nous avons évalué l'utilisation potentiellement évitable des ressources des unités de soins intensifs (USI) et les coûts associés si les patients non vaccinés ou partiellement vaccinés qui ont dû être hospitalisés pour la COVID-19 avaient été complètement vaccinés. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte rétrospective basée sur la population de personnes âgées de 12 ans ou plus en Alberta (population de 2021 ~ 4,4 millions) admises dans une unité de soins intensifs et atteintes de COVID-19 du 6 septembre 2021 au 4 janvier 2022. Nous avons utilisé des données agrégées accessibles au public sur les infections à la COVID-19, le statut vaccinal et l'utilisation des services de santé. Les admissions aux soins intensifs, les journées-patients, les durées de séjour et les coûts ont été estimés pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 et stratifiés selon le statut vaccinal. RéSULTATS: Au total, 1053 patients admis à l'USI souffrant de la COVID-19 n'étaient pas vaccinés, 42 étaient partiellement vaccinés et 173 étaient complètement vaccinés (incidence cumulative 230,6, 30,8 et 5,5 patients / 100 000 habitants, respectivement). Les taux d'incidence cumulés des admissions aux soins intensifs étaient de 42,2 (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 39,7 à 44,9) pour les patients non vaccinés et de 5,6 (IC 95 %, 4,1 à 7,6) pour les patients partiellement vaccinés par rapport aux patients entièrement vaccinés. Au cours de la période à l'étude, 1028 admissions évitables aux soins intensifs et 13 015 journées-patients ont été enregistrées pour les patients non vaccinés, et les coûts totaux évitables étaient de 61,3 millions de dollars canadiens. L'économie potentielle la plus importante en matière de journées-patients et de coûts en soins intensifs touchait les patients non vaccinés âgés de 50 à 69 ans. CONCLUSION: Les patients non vaccinés atteints de COVID-19 ont affiché des taux beaucoup plus élevés d'admissions à l'USI, de journées-patients à l'USI et de coûts liés à l'USI que les patients vaccinés. Cette utilisation accrue des ressources aurait été potentiellement évitable si ces patients non vaccinés avaient été vaccinés contre le SRAS-CoV-2.

Avoidable intensive care unit resource use and costs of unvaccinated patients with COVID-19: a historical population-based cohort study Utilisation et coûts évitables des ressources des unités de soins intensifs pour les patients non vaccinés atteints de COVID-19 : une étude de cohorte historique basée sur la population

Purpose SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been proven effective at preventing poor outcomes from COVID-19;however, voluntary vaccination rates have been suboptimal. We assessed the potential avoidable intensive care unit (ICU) resource use and associated costs had unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 been fully vaccinated. Methods We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of persons aged 12 yr or greater in Alberta (2021 population ~ 4.4 million) admitted to any ICU with COVID-19 from 6 September 2021 to 4 January 2022. We used publicly available aggregate data on COVID-19 infections, vaccination status, and health services use. Intensive care unit admissions, bed-days, lengths of stay, and costs were estimated for patients with COVID-19 and stratified by vaccination status. Results In total, 1,053 patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 were unvaccinated, 42 were partially vaccinated, and 173 were fully vaccinated (cumulative incidence 230.6, 30.8, and 5.5 patients/100,000 population, respectively). Cumulative incidence rate ratios of ICU admission were 42.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.7 to 44.9) for unvaccinated patients and 5.6 (95% CI, 4.1 to 7.6) for partially vaccinated patients when compared with fully vaccinated patients. During the study period, 1,028 avoidable ICU admissions and 13,015 bed-days were recorded for unvaccinated patients and the total avoidable costs were CAD 61.3 million. The largest opportunity to avoid ICU bed-days and costs was in unvaccinated patients aged 50 to 69 yr. Conclusions Unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 had substantially greater rates of ICU admissions, ICU bed-days, and ICU-related costs than vaccinated patients did. This increased resource use would have been potentially avoidable had these unvaccinated patients been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-022-02299-w.

Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting.

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Non-COVID outcomes associated with the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, healthcare providers struggle to manage both COVID-19 and non-COVID patients while still providing high-quality care. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with non-COVID illness and on healthcare systems compared to non-pandemic epochs. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/CENTRAL/CINAHL (inception to December 31, 2020). All study types with COVID-pandemic time period (after December 31, 2019) with comparative non-pandemic time periods (prior to December 31, 2019). Data regarding study characteristics/case-mix/interventions/comparators/ outcomes (primary: mortality; secondary: morbidity/hospitalizations/disruptions-to-care. Paired reviewers conducted screening and abstraction, with conflicts resolved by discussion. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with evidence rating using GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 11,581 citations, 167 studies met eligibility. Our meta-analysis showed an increased mortality of 16% during the COVID pandemic for non-COVID illness compared with 11% mortality during the pre-pandemic period (RR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.28-1.50; absolute risk difference: 5% [95% CI: 4-6%], p<0.00001, very low certainty evidence). Twenty-eight studies (17%) reported significant changes in morbidity (where 93% reported increases), while 30 studies (18%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Thirty-nine studies (23%) reported significant changes in hospitalizations (97% reporting decreases), while 111 studies (66%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Sixty-two studies (37%) reported significant disruptions in standards-to-care (73% reporting increases), while 62 studies (37%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in mortality during the COVID pandemic compared to pre-pandemic times for non-COVID illnesses. When significant changes were reported, there was increased morbidity, decreased hospitalizations and increased disruptions in standards-of-care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020201256 (Sept 2, 2020).

Association Between Pandemic Coronavirus Disease 2019 Public Health Measures and Reduction in Critical Care Utilization Across ICUs in Alberta, Canada.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has disrupted critical care services across the world. In anticipation of surges in the need for critical care services, governments implemented "lockdown" measures to preserve and create added critical care capacity. Herein, we describe the impact of lockdown measures on the utilization of critical care services and patient outcomes compared with nonlockdown epochs in a large integrated health region. DESIGN: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seventeen adult ICUs across 14 acute care hospitals in Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: All adult (age ≥ 15 yr) patients admitted to any study ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main exposure was ICU admission during "lockdown" occurring between March 16, 2020, and June 30, 2020. This period was compared with two nonpandemic control periods: "year prior" (March 16, 2019, to June 30, 2019) and "pre lockdown" immediately prior (November 30, 2019, to March 15, 2020). The primary outcome was the number of ICU admissions. Secondary outcomes included the following: daily measures of ICU utilization, ICU duration of stay, avoidable delay in ICU discharge, and occupancy; and patient outcomes. Mixed multilevel negative binomial regression and interrupted time series regression were used to compare rates of ICU admissions between periods. Multivariable regressions were used to compare patient outcomes between periods. During the lockdown, there were 3,649 ICU admissions (34.1 [8.0] ICU admissions/d), compared with 4,125 (38.6 [9.3]) during the prelockdown period and 3,919 (36.6 [8.7]) during the year prior. Mean bed occupancy declined significantly during the lockdown compared with the nonpandemic periods (78.7%, 95.9%, and 96.4%; p < 0.001). Avoidable ICU discharge delay also decreased significantly (42.0%, 53.2%, and 58.3%; p < 0.001). During the lockdown, patients were younger, had fewer comorbid diseases, had higher acuity, and were more likely to be medical admissions compared with the nonpandemic periods. Adjusted ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were significantly lower during the lockdown compared with nonpandemic periods. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown resulted in substantial changes to ICU utilization, including a reduction in admissions, occupancy, patient lengths of stay, and mortality.

A Modified Delphi Process to Prioritize Experiences and Guidance Related to ICU Restricted Visitation Policies During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

To create evidence-based consensus statements for restricted ICU visitation policies to support critically ill patients, families, and healthcare professionals during current and future pandemics. DESIGN: Three rounds of a remote modified Delphi consensus process. SETTING: Online survey and virtual polling from February 2, 2021, to April 8, 2021. SUBJECTS: Stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, decision-makers) admitted to or working in Canadian ICUs during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During Round 1, key stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate experiences (1-not significant, 9-significant impact on patients, families, healthcare professionals, or patient- and family-centered care) and strategies (1-not essential, 9-essential recommendation for inclusion in the development of restricted visitation policies) and used a free-text box to capture experiences/strategies we may have missed. Consensus was achieved if the median score was 7-9 or 1-3. During Round 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale to re-rate experiences/strategies that did not meet consensus during Round 1 (median score of 4-6) and rate new items identified in Round 1. During Rounds 2 and 3, participants ranked items that reached consensus by order of importance (relative to other related items and experiences) using a weighted ranking system (0-100 points). Participants prioritized 11 experiences (e.g., variability of family's comfort with technology, healthcare professional moral distress) and developed 21 consensus statements (e.g., communicate policy changes to the hospital staff before the public, permit visitors at end-of-life regardless of coronavirus disease 2019 status, creating a clear definition for end-of-life) regarding restricted visitation policies. CONCLUSIONS: We have formulated evidence-informed consensus statements regarding restricted visitation policies informed by diverse stakeholders, which could enhance patient- and family-centered care during a pandemic.

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

Impact of restricted visitation policies in hospitals on patients, family members and healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Flexible visitation policies in hospitals are an important component of care that contributes to reduced stress and increased satisfaction among patients and their family members. Early evidence suggests restricted visitation policies enacted in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic are having unintended consequences on patients, family members and healthcare providers. There is a need for a comprehensive summary of the impacts of restricted visitation policies on key stakeholders and approaches to mitigate that impact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review as per the Arksey-O'Malley 5-stage scoping review method and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search relevant electronic databases (eg, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO), grey literature and preprint repositories. We will include all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding protocols) as well as reports, opinions and editorials, to identify the broad impact of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members or healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches taken or proposed to mitigate this impact. Two reviewers will calibrate the screening criteria and data abstraction form and will independently screen studies and abstract the data. Narrative synthesis with thematic analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable as this review will be conducted on published literature only. This scoping review will identify, describe and categorise impacts of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members and healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches that have been taken to mitigate impact. We will provide a comprehensive synthesis by developing a framework of restricted visitation policies and associated impacts. Our results will inform the development of consensus statements on restricted visitation policies to be implemented in future pandemics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221662.

An environmental scan of visitation policies in Canadian intensive care units during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: In response to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals in Canada enacted temporary visitor restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and preserve personal protective equipment supplies. This study describes the extent, variation, and fluctuation of Canadian adult intensive care unit (ICU) visitation policies before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of Canadian hospital visitation policies throughout the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a two-phased study analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: We collected 257 documents with reference to visitation policies (preCOVID, 101 [39%]; midCOVID, 71 [28%]; and lateCOVID, 85 [33%]). Of these 257 documents, 38 (15%) were ICU-specific and 70 (27%) referenced the ICU. Most policies during the midCOVID/lateCOVID pandemic period allowed no visitors with specific exceptions (e.g., end-of-life). Framework analysis revealed five overarching themes: 1) reasons for restricted visitation policies; 2) visitation policies and expectations; 3) exceptions to visitation policy; 4) patient and family-centred care; and 5) communication and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian hospitals had public-facing visitor restriction policies with specific exception categories, most commonly for patients at end-of-life, patients requiring assistance, or COVID-19 positive patients (varying from not allowed to case-by-case). Further studies are needed to understand the consistency with which visitation policies were operationalized and how they may have impacted patient- and family-centred care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: En réponse à la propagation rapide du SRAS-CoV-2, les hôpitaux du Canada ont adopté des restrictions temporaires pour les visites afin de limiter la propagation de la COVID-19 et de préserver les stocks d'équipements de protection individuelle. Cette étude décrit l'ampleur, les variations et fluctuations des politiques canadiennes concernant les visites aux unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes avant et pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de milieu des politiques hospitalières canadiennes concernant les visites tout au long de la première vague de la pandémie. Nous avons mené une étude en deux phases analysant des données quantitatives et qualitatives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recueilli 257 documents faisant référence aux politiques de visites (pré-COVID, 101 [39 %]; mid-COVID, 71 [28 %]; et COVID-tardif, 85 [33 %]). Sur ces 257 documents, 38 (15 %) étaient spécifiques aux USI et 70 (27 %) faisaient référence aux USI. La plupart des politiques au cours de la période pandémique mid-COVID/COVID-tardif ne permettaient aucune visite sauf exception spécifique (p. ex., fin de vie). L'analyse du cadre a révélé cinq thèmes généraux : 1) les raisons des restrictions des politiques de visites; 2) les politiques et attentes en matière de visites; 3) les exceptions aux politiques de visites; 4) les soins aux patients et centrés sur la famille; et 5) la communication et la transparence. CONCLUSION: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la plupart des hôpitaux canadiens avaient des politiques de restriction des visites s'appliquant au public avec des catégories d'exception spécifiques, le plus souvent pour les patients en fin de vie, les patients nécessitant de l'aide ou les patients COVID-positifs (variant d'une interdiction au cas par cas). D'autres études sont nécessaires pour comprendre l'uniformité avec laquelle les politiques de visites ont été mises en œuvre et comment elles ont pu avoir une incidence sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Starting Kidney Replacement Therapy in Critically III Patients with Acute Kidney Injury.

Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a core organ support in critical care settings. In patients suitable for escalation in support, who develop acute kidney injury (AKI) complications and urgent indications, there is consensus that KRT should be promptly initiated. In the absence of such urgent indications, the optimal timing has been less certain. Current clinical practice guidelines do not present strong recommendations for when to start KRT for patients with AKI in the absence of life-threatening and urgent indications. This article discusses how best to provide KRT to critically ill patients with severe AKI.

Epidemiology, clinical characteristics and treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19): a protocol for a living systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: In December 2019, the first cases of COVID-19 associated with SARS-CoV-2 viral infection were described in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. Since then, it has spread rapidly affecting 188 countries and was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020. Preliminary reports suggest up to 30% of patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and case fatality rate estimate is 2.3%-7.2%. The primary reason for ICU admission is hypoxaemic respiratory failure, while factors associated with ICU admission include increased age, presence of comorbidities and cytokine storm. Case series and retrospective trials initially assessed proposed treatments with randomised controlled trials now reporting early outcomes. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify epidemiological factors, treatments and complications that predict mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our comprehensive search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian. We will search electronic databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Wiley Cochrane Library. The search strategy combines concepts from COVID-19, validated COVID-19 search filters and geographical locations of large outbreaks. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. Clinically homogenous epidemiological characteristics, interventions and complications will be pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Within the framework of a living systematic review, the search and data analysis will be updated every 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review will synthesise literature on risk factors and interventions associated with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Results will be presented at national and international conferences and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. The pooled analysis can provide guidance to inform clinical guidelines for care of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Iterative updates will be made public through open access. Research ethics approval is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176672.

Prone positioning for ARDS patients-tips for preparation and use during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) will develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning is an important non-pharmacologic strategy that should be considered for all invasively ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS (including those with COVID-19). Prone positioning offers several physiologic and clinical benefits, including improving hypoxemia, matching ventilation with perfusion, reducing regional hyperinflation, and improving survival. To safely offer prone positioning, appropriate training, simulation, and health system planning should be undertaken. In this review, we offer ten tips, based on the Alberta provincial prone positioning strategy during COVID-19, to safely implement and improve the appropriate use of prone positioning. We provide special considerations for its use during the COVID-19 pandemic or future respiratory pandemics.

RéSUMé: De nombreux patients atteints de la maladie du coronavirus (COVID-19) développeront un syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA, ARDS en anglais). Le positionnement ventral est une importante stratégie non pharmacologique qui devrait être envisagée pour tous les patients ventilés de manière invasive et souffrant d'un SDRA modéré à grave (y compris ceux atteints de la COVID-19). Le positionnement ventral offre plusieurs avantages physiologiques et cliniques, notamment l'amélioration de l'hypoxémie, une adéquation de la ventilation avec la perfusion, la réduction de l'hyperinflation régionale et l'amélioration de la survie. Pour offrir un positionnement ventral en toute sécurité, une formation, des simulations et une planification des ressources appropriées devraient être entreprises. Dans le cadre de ce compte rendu, nous proposons dix conseils, fondés sur la stratégie provinciale de positionnement ventral de l'Alberta au cours de la COVID-19, afin de mettre en œuvre et d'améliorer en toute sécurité l'utilisation appropriée du positionnement ventral. Nous décrivons des considérations particulières pour son utilisation pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 ou les futures pandémies respiratoires.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Severe COVID-19 Induced Acute Kidney Injury.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and outcome of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced kidney injury have been variably described. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, correlates and outcomes of critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 671 critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 19 hospitals in China between January 1 to February 29, 2020. Data were captured on demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, acute physiology, laboratory parameters, interventions, and outcomes. The primary exposure was ICU admission for confirmed COVID-19 related critically illness. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with AKI, organ dysfunction, treatment intensity, and health services use. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 671 severe COVID-19 patients (median [IQR] 65 [56-73] years; male sex 65% (n = 434); hypertension 43% (n = 287) and APACHE II score 10 [7-14]), 39% developed AKI. Patients with AKI were older, had greater markers of inflammation and coagulation activation, and had greater acuity and organ dysfunction as presentation. Despite similar treatment with antivirals, patients with AKI had lower viral conversion negative rates than those without AKI. The 28-day mortality was much higher in AKI patients than patients without AKI (72% vs. 42%), and there was an increase in 28-day mortality according to the severity of AKI. Non-survivors were less likely to receive antiviral therapy [132 (70%) vs. 65 (88%)] compared with survivors and have lower viral negative conversion rate [17 (9%) vs. 47 (64%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Acute kidney injury was quite common in severe COVID-19 pneumonia, which associated with higher mortality.