Co-infection and ICU-acquired infection in COIVD-19 ICU patients: a secondary analysis of the UNITE-COVID data set.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic presented major challenges for critical care facilities worldwide. Infections which develop alongside or subsequent to viral pneumonitis are a challenge under sporadic and pandemic conditions; however, data have suggested that patterns of these differ between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitides. This secondary analysis aimed to explore patterns of co-infection and intensive care unit-acquired infections (ICU-AI) and the relationship to use of corticosteroids in a large, international cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international, observational study, including adult patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to ICUs at the peak of wave one of COVID-19 (February 15th to May 15th, 2020). Data collected included investigator-assessed co-infection at ICU admission, infection acquired in ICU, infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) and antibiotic use. Frequencies were compared by Pearson's Chi-squared and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U test. Propensity score matching for variables associated with ICU-acquired infection was undertaken using R library MatchIT using the "full" matching method. RESULTS: Data were available from 4994 patients. Bacterial co-infection at admission was detected in 716 patients (14%), whilst 85% of patients received antibiotics at that stage. ICU-AI developed in 2715 (54%). The most common ICU-AI was bacterial pneumonia (44% of infections), whilst 9% of patients developed fungal pneumonia; 25% of infections involved MDRO. Patients developing infections in ICU had greater antimicrobial exposure than those without such infections. Incident density (ICU-AI per 1000 ICU days) was in considerable excess of reports from pre-pandemic surveillance. Corticosteroid use was heterogenous between ICUs. In univariate analysis, 58% of patients receiving corticosteroids and 43% of those not receiving steroids developed ICU-AI. Adjusting for potential confounders in the propensity-matched cohort, 71% of patients receiving corticosteroids developed ICU-AI vs 52% of those not receiving corticosteroids. Duration of corticosteroid therapy was also associated with development of ICU-AI and infection with an MDRO. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 in the first wave, co-infection at admission to ICU was relatively rare but antibiotic use was in substantial excess to that indication. ICU-AI were common and were significantly associated with use of corticosteroids. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021).

Clinical and organizational factors associated with mortality during the peak of first COVID-19 wave: the global UNITE-COVID study.

PURPOSE: To accommodate the unprecedented number of critically ill patients with pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) expansion of the capacity of intensive care unit (ICU) to clinical areas not previously used for critical care was necessary. We describe the global burden of COVID-19 admissions and the clinical and organizational characteristics associated with outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Multicenter, international, point prevalence study, including adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. RESULTS: 4994 patients from 280 ICUs in 46 countries were included. Included ICUs increased their total capacity from 4931 to 7630 beds, deploying personnel from other areas. Overall, 1986 (39.8%) patients were admitted to surge capacity beds. Invasive ventilation at admission was present in 2325 (46.5%) patients and was required during ICU stay in 85.8% of patients. 60-day mortality was 33.9% (IQR across units: 20%-50%) and ICU mortality 32.7%. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and acute kidney injury (AKI) were associated with increased mortality. These associations were also confirmed specifically in mechanically ventilated patients. Admission to surge capacity beds was not associated with mortality, even after controlling for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: ICUs responded to the increase in COVID-19 patients by increasing bed availability and staff, admitting up to 40% of patients in surge capacity beds. Although mortality in this population was high, admission to a surge capacity bed was not associated with increased mortality. Older age, invasive mechanical ventilation, and AKI were identified as the strongest predictors of mortality.

Variation in communication and family visiting policies in intensive care within and between countries during the Covid-19 pandemic: The COVISIT international survey.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) introduced restrictions to in-person family visiting to safeguard patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey (March-July 2021) investigating ICU visiting practices before the pandemic, at peak COVID-19 ICU admissions, and at the time of survey response. We sought data on visiting policies and communication modes including use of virtual visiting (videoconferencing). RESULTS: We obtained 667 valid responses representing ICUs in all continents. Before the pandemic, 20% (106/525) had unrestricted visiting hours; 6% (30/525) did not allow in-person visiting. At peak, 84% (558/667) did not allow in-person visiting for patients with COVID-19; 66% for patients without COVID-19. This proportion had decreased to 55% (369/667) at time of survey reporting. A government mandate to restrict hospital visiting was reported by 53% (354/646). Most ICUs (55%, 353/615) used regular telephone updates; 50% (306/667) used telephone for formal meetings and discussions regarding prognosis or end-of-life. Virtual visiting was available in 63% (418/667) at time of survey. CONCLUSIONS: Highly restrictive visiting policies were introduced at the initial pandemic peaks, were subsequently liberalized, but without returning to pre-pandemic practices. Telephone became the primary communication mode in most ICUs, supplemented with virtual visits.

Prediction of cardiac surgery associated - acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI) by healthcare professionals and urine cell cycle arrest AKI biomarkers [TIMP-2]*[IGFBP7]: A single center prospective study (the PREDICTAKI trial).

PURPOSE: Cardiac surgery associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI) is a contributor to adverse outcomes. Preventive measures reduce AKI incidence in high risk patients, identified by biomarkers [TIMP-2]*[IGFBP7] (Nephrocheck®). This study investigate clinical AKI risk assessment by healthcare professionals and the added value of the biomarker result. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients were prospectively included. Healthcare professionals predicted CSA-AKI, with and without biomarker result knowledge. Predicted outcomes were AKI based on creatinine, AKI stage 3 on urine output, anuria and use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT). RESULTS: One-hundred patients were included. Consultant and ICU residents were best in AKI prediction, respectively AUROC 0.769 (95% CI, 0.672-0.850) and 0.702 (95% CI, 0.599-0.791). AUROC of NephroCheck® was 0.541 (95% CI, 0.438-0.642). AKI 3 occurred in only 4 patients; there was no anuria or use of KRT. ICU nurses and ICU residents had an AUROC for prediction of AKI 3 of respectively 0.867 (95% CI, 0.780-0.929) and 0.809 (95% CI, 0.716-0.883); for NephroCheck® this was 0.838 (95% CI, 0.750-0.904). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals performed poor or fair in predicting CSA-AKI and knowledge of Nephrocheck® result did not improved prediction. No conclusions could be made for prediction of severe AKI, due to limited number of events.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Antimicrobial stewardship in the ICU in COVID-19 times: the known unknowns.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been concern about the concomitant rise of antimicrobial resistance. While bacterial co-infections seem rare in COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital wards and intensive care units (ICUs), an increase in empirical antibiotic use has been described. In the ICU setting, where antibiotics are already abundantly-and often inappropriately-prescribed, the need for an ICU-specific antimicrobial stewardship programme is widely advocated. Apart from essentially warning against the use of antibacterial drugs for the treatment of a viral infection, other aspects of ICU antimicrobial stewardship need to be considered in view of the clinical course and characteristics of COVID-19. First, the distinction between infectious and non-infectious (inflammatory) causes of respiratory deterioration during an ICU stay is difficult, and the much-debated relevance of fungal and viral co-infections adds to the complexity of empirical antimicrobial prescribing. Biomarkers such as procalcitonin for the decision to start antibacterial therapy for ICU nosocomial infections seem to be more promising in COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 patients. In COVID-19 patients, cytomegalovirus reactivation is an important factor to consider when assessing patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 as it may have a role in modulating the patient immune response. The diagnosis of COVID-19-associated invasive aspergillosis is challenging because of the lack of sensitivity and specificity of the available tests. Furthermore, altered pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties need to be taken into account when prescribing antimicrobial therapy. Future research should now further explore the 'known unknowns', ideally with robust prospective study designs.

Symptoms of burnout in intensive care unit specialists facing the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented healthcare crisis with a high prevalence of psychological distress in healthcare providers. We sought to document the prevalence of burnout syndrome amongst intensivists facing the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey among intensivists part of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Symptoms of severe burnout, anxiety and depression were collected. Factors independently associated with severe burnout were assessed using Cox model. RESULTS: Response rate was 20% (1001 completed questionnaires were returned, 45 years [39-53], 34% women, from 85 countries, 12 regions, 50% university-affiliated hospitals). The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety and depression or severe burnout was 46.5%, 30.2%, and 51%, respectively, and varied significantly across regions. Rating of the relationship between intensivists and other ICU stakeholders differed significantly according to the presence of anxiety, depression, or burnout. Similar figures were reported for their rating of the ethical climate or the quality of the decision-making. Factors independently associated with anxiety were female gender (HR 1.85 [1.33-2.55]), working in a university-affiliated hospital (HR 0.58 [0.42-0.80]), living in a city of > 1 million inhabitants (HR 1.40 [1.01-1.94]), and clinician's rating of the ethical climate (HR 0.83 [0.77-0.90]). Independent determinants of depression included female gender (HR 1.63 [1.15-2.31]) and clinician's rating of the ethical climate (HR 0.84 [0.78-0.92]). Factors independently associated with symptoms of severe burnout included age (HR 0.98/year [0.97-0.99]) and clinician's rating of the ethical climate (HR 0.76 [0.69-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an overwhelming psychological impact on intensivists. Follow-up, and management are warranted to assess long-term psychological outcomes and alleviate the psychological burden of the pandemic on frontline personnel.

International variation in the management of severe COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to support the management of severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: To document this variation in practices, we performed an online survey (April 30-May 25, 2020) on behalf of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). A case vignette was sent to ESICM members. Questions investigated practices for a previously healthy 39-year-old patient presenting with severe hypoxemia from COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: A total of 1132 ICU specialists (response rate 20%) from 85 countries (12 regions) responded to the survey. The survey provides information on the heterogeneity in patient's management, more particularly regarding the timing of ICU admission, the first line oxygenation strategy, optimization of management, and ventilatory settings in case of refractory hypoxemia. Practices related to antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory therapies are also investigated. CONCLUSIONS: There are important practice variations in the management of severe COVID-19 patients, including differences at regional and individual levels. Large outcome studies based on multinational registries are warranted.

Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey.

PURPOSE: To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHOD: A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. RESULTS: We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.