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].

Clinical characteristics, multiorgan dysfunction and outcomes of patients with COVID-19: a prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Characterizing the multiorgan manifestations and outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 will inform resource requirements to address the long-term burden of this disease. We conducted a descriptive analysis using prospectively collected data to describe the clinical characteristics and spectrum of organ dysfunction, and in-hospital and longer-term clinical outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic at a Canadian centre. METHODS: We conducted a prospective case series involving adult patients (aged ≥ 18 yr) with COVID-19 admitted to 1 of 2 hospitals in London, Ontario, from Mar. 17 to June 18, 2020, during the first wave of the pandemic. We recorded patients' baseline characteristics, physiologic parameters, measures of organ function and therapies administered during hospitalization among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in non-ICU settings, and compared the characteristics of hospital survivors and nonsurvivors. Finally, we recorded follow-up thoracic computed tomography (CT) and echocardiographic findings after hospital discharge. RESULTS: We enrolled 100 consecutive patients (47 women) hospitalized with COVID-19, including 32 patients who received ICU care and 68 who received treatment in non-ICU settings. Respiratory sequelae were common: 23.0% received high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula, 9.0% received noninvasive ventilation, 24.0% received invasive mechanical ventilation and 2.0% received venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Overall, 9.0% of patients had cerebrovascular events (3.0% ischemic stroke, 6.0% intracranial hemorrhage), and 6.0% had pulmonary embolism. After discharge, 11 of 19 patients had persistent abnormalities on CT thorax, and 6 of 15 had persistent cardiac dysfunction on echocardiography. INTERPRETATION: This study provides further evidence that COVID-19 is a multisystem disease involving neurologic, cardiac and thrombotic dysfunction, without evidence of hepatic dysfunction. Patients have persistent organ dysfunction after hospital discharge, underscoring the need for research on long-term outcomes of COVID-19 survivors.

Evidence-Based Considerations for the Design of an Open-Source Ventilator: A Systematic Review.

To inform the design of open-source ventilators, we performed a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to consolidate the evidence on mechanical ventilation strategies that result in improved patient-important outcomes for acute hypoxic respiratory failure. DATA SOURCES: We developed a search strategy to identify relevant CPGs from Ovid Medline, Ovid Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Mendeley, and Google scholar from 2010 to February 17, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Using a two-step screening process with two independent reviewers, we included CPGs that made recommendations on mechanical ventilation strategies of interest. Guidelines that reported at least one recommendation about mechanical ventilation in ICU patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure were included. DATA EXTRACTION: From the 13 eligible guidelines, we collected data on country, aim, patient population, impact on morbidity and mortality (effect size and CIs), recommendations, strength of Recommendation (as per Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations), and details of supporting evidence base. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified three ventilation strategies that confer a mortality and morbidity benefit for ventilated patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure: low-tidal volume ventilation, plateau pressures of less than 30 cm H2O, and higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). These moderate-to-strong recommendations were based on moderate-to-high certainty in evidence. We identified several other recommendations with no or minimal certainty in evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review of international CPGs identified no recommendations favoring specific mode of ventilation and three ventilation strategies that confer mortality and morbidity benefits, backed by moderate-to-strong evidence. Ventilator design teams must include the ability to consistently provide and measure low-tidal volume ventilation, plateau pressures of less than 30 cm H2O, and higher PEEP into their designs. Based on our findings, we provide the first public framework for open-source ventilator design.

Personal, professional, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital workers: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the personal, professional, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital workers and their perceptions about mitigating strategies. DESIGN: Cross-sectional web-based survey consisting of (1) a survey of the personal and professional impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and potential mitigation strategies, and (2) two validated psychological instruments (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10] and Impact of Events Scale Revised [IES-R]). Regression analyses were conducted to identify the predictors of workplace stress, psychological distress, and post-traumatic stress. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Hospital workers employed at 4 teaching and 8 non-teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Among 1875 respondents (84% female, 49% frontline workers), 72% feared falling ill, 64% felt their job placed them at great risk of COVID-19 exposure, and 48% felt little control over the risk of infection. Respondents perceived that others avoided them (61%), reported increased workplace stress (80%), workload (66%) and responsibilities (59%), and 44% considered leaving their job. The psychological questionnaires revealed that 25% had at least some psychological distress on the K10, 50% had IES-R scores suggesting clinical concern for post-traumatic stress, and 38% fulfilled criteria for at least one psychological diagnosis. Female gender and feeling at increased risk due to PPE predicted all adverse psychological outcomes. Respondents favoured clear hospital communication (59%), knowing their voice is heard (55%), expressions of appreciation from leadership (55%), having COVID-19 protocols (52%), and food and beverages provided by the hospital (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital work during the COVID-19 pandemic has had important personal, professional, and psychological impacts. Respondents identified opportunities to better address information, training, and support needs.

Administration of Parenteral Vitamin C in Patients With Severe Infection: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe infections are characterized by inflammation and oxidative damage. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) administration may attenuate oxidative damage and, in turn, reduce vascular endothelial injury in pulmonary and systemic vasculature. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a protocol for a living systematic review that will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parenteral vitamin C administration in adults with severe infections, including those with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 30, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating parenteral vitamin C versus no parenteral vitamin C in hospitalized adults with severe infection. Eligible studies will include at least 1 arm involving any dose of parenteral vitamin C alone or in combination with other cointerventions and at least 1 arm not involving parenteral vitamin C. The primary outcomes of interest will include in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation via a modified Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be conducted independently and in pairs. We will perform random effects modeling for meta-analyses, in which study weights will be generated by using the inverse variance method. We will assess certainty in effect estimates by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses will be updated iteratively as new trial evidence becomes available. RESULTS: Among the 1386 citations identified as of March 30, 2021, a total of 17 eligible randomized controlled trials have been identified as of September 2021. We are in the process of updating the search strategy and associated data analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results will be of importance to critical care physicians and hospitalists who manage severe infection and COVID-19 in daily practice, and they may directly inform international clinical guidance. Although our systematic review will incorporate the most recent trial evidence, ongoing trials may change our confidence in the estimates of effects, thereby necessitating iterative updates in the form of a living review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209187; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209187. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/33989.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

PURPOSE: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE: Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons réalisé deux comptes rendus sur commande de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé pour guider l'utilisation de canules nasales à haut débit (CNHD) chez les patients ayant contracté le coronavirus (COVID-19). Nous avons synthétisé les données probantes concernant leur efficacité et leur innocuité (compte rendu 1), ainsi que les risques de dispersion des gouttelettes, de génération d'aérosols, et de transmission associée d'éléments viraux (compte rendu 2). SOURCE: Des recherches de littérature ont été réalisées dans les bases de données Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ainsi que dans les bases de données chinoises et medRxiv. Compte rendu 1 : nous avons synthétisé les résultats d'études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) comparant les CNHD à une oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez des patients en état critique atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Compte rendu 2 : nous avons résumé sous forme narrative les constatations d'études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes, la génération d'aérosols ou la transmission infectieuse associées aux CNHD. Pour les deux comptes rendus, des réviseurs appariés ont réalisé la sélection des études, l'extraction des données et l'évaluation du risque de biais de manière indépendante. Nous avons évalué la certitude des données probantes en nous fondant sur la méthodologie GRADE. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Aucune étude éligible n'incluait de patients atteints de COVID-19. Compte rendu 1 : 12 ERC (n = 1989 patients) ont fourni des données probantes de certitude faible selon lesquelles les CNHD réduiraient la ventilation invasive (risque relatif [RR], 0,85; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,74 à 0,99) et l'intensification de l'oxygénothérapie (RR, 0,71; IC 95 %, 0,51 à 0,98) chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire. Les résultats n'ont pas démontré de différences en matière de mortalité (certitude modérée), ni de durée du séjour hospitalier ou à l'unité des soins intensifs (certitude modérée et faible, respectivement). Compte rendu 2 : quatre études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes et trois évaluant la génération et la dispersion d'aérosols ont fourni des données probantes de très faible certitude. Deux études de simulation et une étude croisée ont donné des résultats mitigés quant à l'effet des CNHD sur la dispersion des gouttelettes. Bien que deux études de simulation n'aient rapporté aucune augmentation associée concernant la dispersion d'aérosols, l'une a rapporté que des taux de débit plus élevés étaient associés à des régions à densité d'aérosols élevée plus grandes. CONCLUSION: Les canules nasales à haut débit pourraient réduire la nécessité de recourir à la ventilation invasive et l'escalade des traitements par rapport à l'oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 souffrant d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Cet avantage doit être soupesé contre le risque inconnu de transmission atmosphérique.

Automation of Lung Ultrasound Interpretation via Deep Learning for the Classification of Normal versus Abnormal Lung Parenchyma: A Multicenter Study.

Lung ultrasound (LUS) is an accurate thoracic imaging technique distinguished by its handheld size, low-cost, and lack of radiation. User dependence and poor access to training have limited the impact and dissemination of LUS outside of acute care hospital environments. Automated interpretation of LUS using deep learning can overcome these barriers by increasing accuracy while allowing point-of-care use by non-experts. In this multicenter study, we seek to automate the clinically vital distinction between A line (normal parenchyma) and B line (abnormal parenchyma) on LUS by training a customized neural network using 272,891 labelled LUS images. After external validation on 23,393 frames, pragmatic clinical application at the clip level was performed on 1162 videos. The trained classifier demonstrated an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.96 (±0.02) through 10-fold cross-validation on local frames and an AUC of 0.93 on the external validation dataset. Clip-level inference yielded sensitivities and specificities of 90% and 92% (local) and 83% and 82% (external), respectively, for detecting the B line pattern. This study demonstrates accurate deep-learning-enabled LUS interpretation between normal and abnormal lung parenchyma on ultrasound frames while rendering diagnostically important sensitivity and specificity at the video clip level.

Frugal Innovation: Enabling Mechanical Ventilation During Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Resource-Limited Settings.

ICUs worldwide are facing resource shortages including increased need for provision of invasive mechanical ventilation during the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Fearing shortage of ventilators, many private companies and public institutions have focused on building new inexpensive, open-source ventilators. However, designing and building new ventilators is not sufficient for addressing invasive mechanical ventilation needs in resource-limited settings. In this commentary, we highlight additional interdependent constraints that should be considered and provide a framework for addressing these constraints to ensure that the increasing stockpile of open-source ventilators are easily deployable and sustainable for use in resource-limited settings.

Risk of dispersion or aerosol generation and infection transmission with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detection of COVID-19: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2-related disease, referred to as COVID-19, has emerged as a global pandemic since December 2019. While there is growing recognition regarding possible airborne transmission, particularly in the setting of aerosol-generating procedures and treatments, whether nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 generate aerosols remains unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 3 November 2020. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Medical Journal Network, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 29 March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All comparative and non-comparative studies that evaluated dispersion or aerosolisation of viable airborne organisms, or transmission of infection associated with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing. RESULTS: Of 7702 citations, only one study was deemed eligible. Using a dedicated sampling room with negative pressure isolation room, personal protective equipment including N95 or higher masks, strict sterilisation protocols, structured training with standardised collection methods and a structured collection and delivery system, a tertiary care hospital proved a 0% healthcare worker infection rate among eight nurses conducting over 11 000 nasopharyngeal swabs. No studies examining transmissibility with other safety protocols, nor any studies quantifying the risk of aerosol generation with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2, were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited to no published data regarding aerosol generation and risk of transmission with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Field experiments to quantify this risk are warranted. Vigilance in adhering to current standards for infection control is suggested.