Introducing helmet non-invasive ventilation during COVID-19 pandemic: Early experience of two centres.

Purpose: The helmet is a novel interface for delivering non-invasive ventilation (NIV). We conducted a case series to characterize introduction of the helmet interface in both COVID and non-COVID patients at two-centres. Methods: We enrolled all patients with respiratory failure admitted to the Juravinski Hospital (Hamilton, Canada) and St. Joseph's Health Center (Syracuse, New York) between November 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021 who used the helmet interface (Intersurgical StarMed) as part of this introduction into clinical practice. We collected patient demographics, reason for respiratory failure, NIV settings, device-related complications and outcomes. We report respiratory therapist's initial experiences with the helmet using descriptive results. Results: We included 16 patients with a mean age of 64.3 ± 10.9 years. The most common etiology for respiratory failure was pneumonia (81.3%). The median duration of NIV during the ICU admission was 67.5 (15.3, 80.8) hours, with a mean maximum PS of 13.9 ± 6.6 cm H2O and a mean maximum PEEP of 10.4 ± 5.1 cm H20. Three patients (18.7%) did not tolerate the helmet. Ten (62.5%) patients ultimately required intubation, and 7 (43.4%) patients died while in the ICU. The most common reason for intubation was worsening hypoxia (70%). No adverse events related to the helmet were recorded. Conclusion: Over the 8-month period of this study, we found that the helmet was well tolerated in over 80% of patients, although, more than half ultimately required intubation. Randomized controlled trials with this device are required to fully assess the efficacy of this interface.

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].

Multistudy Research Operations in the ICU: An Interprofessional Pandemic-Informed Approach

OBJECTIVES: Proliferation of COVID-19 research underscored the need for improved awareness among investigators, research staff and bedside clinicians of the operational details of clinical studies. The objective was to describe the genesis, goals, participation, procedures, and outcomes of two research operations committees in an academic ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Two-phase, single-center multistudy cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated ICU in Hamilton, ON, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult patients in the ICU, medical stepdown unit, or COVID-19 ward. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An interprofessional COVID Collaborative was convened at the pandemic onset within our department, to proactively coordinate studies, help navigate multiple authentic consent encounters by different research staff, and determine which studies would be suitable for coenrollment. From March 2020 to May 2021, five non-COVID trials continued, two were paused then restarted, and five were launched. Over 15 months, 161 patients were involved in 215 trial enrollments, 110 (51.1%) of which were into a COVID treatment trial. The overall informed consent rate (proportion agreed of those eligible and approached including a priori and deferred consent models) was 83% (215/259). The informed consent rate was lower for COVID-19 trials (110/142, 77.5%) than other trials (105/117, 89.7%;p = 0.01). Patients with COVID-19 were significantly more likely to be coenrolled in two or more studies (29/77, 37.7%) compared with other patients (13/84, 15.5%;p = 0.002). Review items for each new study were collated, refined, and evolved into a modifiable checklist template to set up each study for success. The COVID Collaborative expanded to a more formal Department of Critical Care Research Operations Committee in June 2021, supporting sustainable research operations during and beyond the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Structured coordination and increased communication about research operations among diverse research stakeholders cultivated a sense of shared purpose and enhanced the integrity of clinical research operations.

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).

In COVID-19, escalated- vs. prophylactic-dose anticoagulation does not reduce mortality and increases major bleeding.

SOURCE CITATION: Ortega-Paz L, Galli M, Capodanno D, et al. Safety and efficacy of different prophylactic anticoagulation dosing regimens in critically and non-critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2021. [Epub ahead of print.] 34519777.

Adherence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pharmacologic Treatments of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 to Trustworthy Standards: A Systematic Review.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid and urgent guidance for clinicians to manage COVID-19 among patients and prevent transmission. Objective: To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria. Evidence Review: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 14, 2020, and a search of related articles to February 28, 2021, that included CPGs developed by societies or by government or nongovernment organizations that reported pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed CPG quality using the 15-item National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument. Findings: Thirty-two CPGs were included in the review. Of these, 25 (78.1%) were developed by professional societies and emanated from a single World Health Organization (WHO) region. Overall, the CPGs were of low quality. Only 7 CPGs (21.9%) reported funding sources, and 12 (37.5%) reported conflicts of interest. Only 5 CPGs (15.6%) included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized the evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 of 32 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 of 32 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of the recommendations (5 of 32 [15.6%]). External review, patient or public perspectives, or a process for updating were rare. High-quality CPGs included a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborations involving investigators from 2 or more WHO regions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this review, few COVID-19 CPGs met NAM standards for trustworthy guidelines. Approaches that prioritize engagement of a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborators from at least 2 WHO regions may lead to the production of fewer, high-quality CPGs that are poised for updates as new evidence emerges. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021245239.

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.

Corticosteroids in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Corticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS. METHODS: The protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality. RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course. CONCLUSION: The use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.

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.

The efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 prophylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.