Psychophysiologic Symptom Relief Therapy (PSRT) for Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19.

Objective: To determine if psychophysiologic symptom relief therapy (PSRT) will reduce symptom burden in patients suffering from post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) who had mild/moderate acute COVID-19 disease without objective evidence of organ injury. Patients and Methods: Twenty-three adults under the age of 60 with PASC for at least 12 weeks following COVID-19 infection were enrolled in an interventional cohort study conducted via virtual platform between May 18, 2021 and August 7, 2022. Participants received PSRT during a 13 week (approximately 44 hour) course. Participants were administered validated questionnaires at baseline and at 4, 8, and 13 weeks. The primary outcome was change in somatic symptoms from baseline, measured using the Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8), at 13 weeks. Results: The median duration of symptoms prior to joining the study was 267 days (IQR: 144, 460). The mean SSS-8 score of the cohort decreased from baseline by 8.5 (95% CI: 5.7-11.4), 9.4 (95% CI: 6.9-11.9), and 10.9 (95% CI: 8.3-13.5) at 4, 8, and 13 weeks respectively (all p<.001). Participants also experienced statistically significant improvements across other secondary outcomes including changes in dyspnea, fatigue, and pain (all p<.001). Conclusion: PSRT may effectively decrease symptom burden in patients suffering from PASC without evidence of organ injury. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04854772).

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation for cardiac arrest when patients are in the prone position: A systematic review.

AIM: To perform a systematic review of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and/or defibrillation in the prone position compared to turning the patient supine prior to starting CPR and/or defibrillation. METHODS: The search included PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL Plus, and medRxiv on December 9, 2020. The population included adults and children in any setting with cardiac arrest while in the prone position. The outcomes included arterial blood pressure and end-tidal capnography during CPR, time to start CPR and defibrillation, return of spontaneous circulation, survival and survival with favorable neurologic outcome to discharge, 30 days or longer. ROBINS-I was performed to assess risk of bias for observational studies. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 29 case reports (32 individual cases), two prospective observational studies, and two simulation studies. The observational studies enrolled 17 patients who were declared dead in the supine position and reported higher mean systolic blood pressure from CPR in prone position (72 mmHg vs 48 mmHg, p < 0.005; 79 ± 20 mmHg vs 55 ± 20 mmHg, p = 0.028). One simulation study reported a faster time to defibrillation in the prone position. Return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge or 30 days were reported in adult and paediatric case reports. Critical risk of bias limited our ability to perform pooled analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a limited number of observational studies and case reports comparing prone versus supine CPR and/or defibrillation. Prone CPR may be a reasonable option if immediate supination is difficult or poses unacceptable risks to the patient.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in special circumstances.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation prioritises treatment for cardiac arrests from a primary cardiac cause, which make up the majority of treated cardiac arrests. Early chest compressions and, when indicated, a defibrillation shock from a bystander give the best chance of survival with a good neurological status. Cardiac arrest can also be caused by special circumstances, such as asphyxia, trauma, pulmonary embolism, accidental hypothermia, anaphylaxis, or COVID-19, and during pregnancy or perioperatively. Cardiac arrests in these circumstances represent an increasing proportion of all treated cardiac arrests, often have a preventable cause, and require additional interventions to correct a reversible cause during resuscitation. The evidence for treating these conditions is mostly of low or very low certainty and further studies are needed. Irrespective of the cause, treatments for cardiac arrest are time sensitive and most effective when given early-every minute counts.

Comparison between Patients Hospitalized with Influenza and COVID-19 at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Widespread reports suggest the characteristics and disease course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza differ, yet detailed comparisons of their clinical manifestations are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients during the pandemic with those of influenza patients in previous influenza seasons at the same hospital DESIGN: Admission rates, clinical measurements, and clinical outcomes from confirmed COVID-19 cases between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were compared with those from confirmed influenza cases in the previous five influenza seasons (8 months each) beginning September 1, 2014. SETTING: Large tertiary care teaching hospital in Boston, MA PARTICIPANTS: Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and influenza inpatients MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics and medical history, mortality, incidence and duration of mechanical ventilation, incidences of vasopressor support and renal replacement therapy, and hospital and intensive care admissions. RESULTS: Data was abstracted from medical records of 1052 influenza patients and 582 COVID-19 patients. An average of 210 hospital admissions for influenza occurred per 8-month season compared to 582 COVID-19 admissions over 2 months. The median weekly number of COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation was 17 (IQR: 4, 34) compared to a weekly median of 1 (IQR: 0, 2) influenza patient (p=0.001). COVID-19 patients were significantly more likely to require mechanical ventilation (31% vs 8%) and had significantly higher mortality (20% vs. 3%; p<0.001 for all). Relatively more COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation lacked pre-existing conditions compared with mechanically ventilated influenza patients (25% vs 4%, p<0.001). Pneumonia/ARDS secondary to the virus was the predominant cause of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients (94%) as opposed to influenza (56%). LIMITATION: This is a single-center study which could limit generalization. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 resulted in more weekly hospitalizations, higher morbidity, and higher mortality than influenza at the same hospital.