Antimicrobial Stewardship during COVID-19 Outbreak: A Retrospective Analysis of Antibiotic Prescriptions in the ICU across COVID-19 Waves.

The demographics and outcomes of ICU patients admitted for a COVID-19 infection have been characterized in extensive reports, but little is known about antimicrobial stewardship for these patients. We designed this retrospective, observational study to investigate our hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted antimicrobial stewardship practices and likely affected the rate of antibiotic de-escalation (ADE), patient outcomes, infection recurrence, and multidrug-resistant bacteria acquisition. We reviewed the prescription of antibiotics in three ICUs during the pandemic from March 2020 to December 2021. All COVID-19 patients with suspected or proven bacterial superinfections who received antibiotic treatment were included. The primary outcome was the rate of ADE, and secondary outcomes included the rate of appropriate empirical treatment, mortality rates and a comparison with a control group of infected patients before the COVID-19 pandemic. We included 170 COVID-19 patients who received antibiotic treatment for a suspected or proven superinfection, of whom 141 received an empirical treatment. For the latter, antibiotic treatment was de-escalated in 47 (33.3%) patients, escalated in 5 (3.5%) patients, and continued in 89 (63.1%) patients. The empirical antibiotic treatment was appropriate for 87.2% of cases. ICU, hospital, and day 28 and day 90 mortality rates were not associated with the antibiotic treatment strategy. The ADE rate was 52.2% in the control group and 27.6% in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.001). Our data suggest that empirical antibiotic treatment was appropriate in most cases. The ADE rates were lower in the COVID-19 group than in the control group, suggesting that the stress associated with COVID-19 affected our practices.

Effects of a Chair Positioning Session on Awake Non-Intubated COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients: A Multicenter, Observational, and Pilot Study Using Lung Ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: LUS is a validated tool for the management of COVID-19 pneumonia. Chair positioning (CP) may have beneficial effects on oxygenation and lung aeration, and may be an easier alternative to PP. This study assessed the effects of a CP session on oxygenation and lung aeration (LA) changes in non-intubated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study was conducted in an ICU. We analyzed data from LUS exams and SpO2:FiO2 performed before/after a CP session in non-intubated COVID-19 patients. Patients were divided into groups of responders or non-responders in terms of oxygenation or LA. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included in the study; fourteen (44%) were oxygenation non-responders and eighteen (56%) were oxygenation responders, while thirteen (40.6%) and nineteen (59.4%) patients were classified as LA non-responders and responders, respectively. Changes in oxygenation and LA before/after a CP session were not correlated (r = -0.19, p = 0.3, 95% CI: -0.5-0.17). The reaeration scores did not differ between oxygenation responders and non-responders (1 (-0.75-3.75) vs. 4 (-1-6), p = 0.41). The LUS score was significantly correlated with SpO2:FiO2 before a CP session (r = 0.37, p = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03-0.64) but not after (r = 0.17, p = 0.35, 95% CI: -0.19-0.50). CONCLUSION: A CP session was associated with improved oxygenation and LA in more than half of the non-intubated COVID-19 patients.

The Evolution of Effort-Reward Imbalance in Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic in France-An Observational Study in More than 8000 Workers.

(1) Background: The effects of lockdown repetition on work-related stress, expressed through Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI), during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly documented. We investigated the effect of repetitive lockdowns on the ERI in French workers, its difference across occupations, and the change in its influencing factors across time. (2) Methods: Participants were included in a prospective cross-sectional observational study from 30 March 2020 to 28 May 2021. The primary outcome was the ERI score (visual analog scale). The ERI score of the population was examined via Generalized Estimating Equations. For each period, the factors influencing ERI were studied by multivariate linear regression. (3) Results: In 8121 participants, the ERI score decreased in the first 2 lockdowns (53.2 ± 0.3, p < 0.001; 50.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001) and after lockdown 2 (54.8 ± 0.8, p = 0.004) compared with the pre-pandemic period (59 ± 0.4). ERI was higher in medical than in paramedical professionals in the pre-pandemic and the first 2 lockdowns. Higher workloads were associated with better ERI scores. (4) Conclusions: In a large French sample, Effort-Reward Imbalance worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic until the end of the 2nd lockdown. Paramedical professionals experienced a higher burden of stress compared with medical professionals.

Mass Training In Situ During COVID-19 Pandemic: Enhancing Efficiency and Minimizing Sick Leaves.

INTRODUCTION: Avoiding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related infection in frontline healthcare workers is a major challenge. A massive training program was launched in our university hospital for anesthesia/intensive care unit and operating room staff, aiming at upskilling 2249 healthcare workers for COVID-19 patients' management. We hypothesized that such a massive training was feasible in a 2-week time frame and efficient in avoiding sick leaves. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study. Training focused on personal protective equipment donning/doffing and airway management in a COVID-19 simulated patient. The educational models used were in situ procedural and immersive simulation, peer-teaching, and rapid cycle deliberate practice. Self-learning organization principles were used for trainers' management. Ordinary disease quantity in full-time equivalent in March and April 2020 were compared with the same period in 2017, 2018, and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1668 healthcare workers were trained (74.2% of the target population) in 99 training sessions over 11 days. The median number of learners per session was 16 (interquartile range = 9-25). In the first 5 days, the median number of people trained per weekday was 311 (interquartile range = 124-385). Sick leaves did not increase in March to April 2020 compared with the same period in the 3 preceding years. CONCLUSIONS: Massive training for COVID-19 patient management in frontline healthcare workers is feasible in a very short time and efficient in limiting the rate of sick leave. This experience could be used in the anticipation of new COVID-19 waves or for rapidly preparing hospital staff for an unexpected major health crisis.

The major worldwide stress of healthcare professionals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic - the international COVISTRESS survey.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has initiated an upheaval in society and has been the cause of considerable stress during this period. Healthcare professionals have been on the front line during this health crisis, particularly paramedical staff. The aim of this study was to assess the high level of stress of healthcare workers during the first wave of the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The COVISTRESS international study is a questionnaire disseminated online collecting demographic and stress-related data over the globe, during the pandemic. Stress levels were evaluated using non-calibrated visual analog scale, from 0 (no stress) to 100 (maximal stress). RESULTS: Among the 13,537 individuals from 44 countries who completed the survey from January to June 2020, we included 10,051 workers (including 1379 healthcare workers, 631 medical doctors and 748 paramedical staff). The stress levels during the first wave of the pandemic were 57.8 ± 33 in the whole cohort, 65.3 ± 29.1 in medical doctors, and 73.6 ± 27.7 in paramedical staff. Healthcare professionals and especially paramedical staff had the highest levels of stress (p < 0.001 vs non-healthcare workers). Across all occupational categories, women had systematically significantly higher levels of work-related stress than men (p < 0.001). There was a negative correlation between age and stress level (r = -0.098, p < 0.001). Healthcare professionals demonstrated an increased risk of very-high stress levels (>80) compared to other workers (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.87-2.41). Paramedical staff risk for very-high levels of stress was higher than doctors' (1.88, 1.50-2.34). The risk of high levels of stress also increased in women (1.83, 1.61-2.09; p < 0.001 vs. men) and in people aged <50 (1.45, 1.26-1.66; p < 0.001 vs. aged >50). CONCLUSIONS: The first wave of the pandemic was a major stressful event for healthcare workers, especially paramedical staff. Among individuals, women were the most at risk while age was a protective factor.

Management of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in intensive care unit: An observational retrospective study comparing two bundles.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of two therapeutic bundles of management in SARS-CoV2 ICU patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our retrospective, observational study was performed in a university ICU from March to June 2020 (first wave) and from September 2020 to January 2021 (second wave). In first wave, patients received bundle 1 including early invasive ventilation, hydroxychloroquine, cefotaxime and azithromycin. In second wave, bundle 2 included non-invasive oxygenation support and dexamethasone. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay, ICU supportive therapies, viral clearance and antimicrobial resistance emergence. RESULTS: 129 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were admitted to our ICU. Thirty-five were treated according to bundle 1 and 76 to bundle 2. In-hospital mortality was similar in the two groups (23%, p = 1). The hospital (p = 0.003) and ICU (p = 0.01) length of stay and ventilator-free days at 28 days (p = 0.03) were significantly reduced in bundle 2. Increasing age, vasopressor use and PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 125 were associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of our study, changes in therapeutic bundles for SARS-Cov-2 ICU patients might have no effect on in-hospital mortality but were associated with less exposure to mechanical ventilation and reduced hospital length of stay.

Brain MRI Findings in Severe COVID-19: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Background Brain MRI parenchymal signal abnormalities have been associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Purpose To describe the neuroimaging findings (excluding ischemic infarcts) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study of patients evaluated from March 23, 2020, to April 27, 2020, at 16 hospitals. Inclusion criteria were (a) positive nasopharyngeal or lower respiratory tract reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction assays, (b) severe COVID-19 infection defined as a requirement for hospitalization and oxygen therapy, (c) neurologic manifestations, and (d) abnormal brain MRI findings. Exclusion criteria were patients with missing or noncontributory data regarding brain MRI or brain MRI showing ischemic infarcts, cerebral venous thrombosis, or chronic lesions unrelated to the current event. Categorical data were compared using the Fisher exact test. Quantitative data were compared using the Student t test or Wilcoxon test. P < .05 represented a significant difference. Results Thirty men (81%) and seven women (19%) met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 61 years ± 12 (standard deviation) (age range, 8-78 years). The most common neurologic manifestations were alteration of consciousness (27 of 37, 73%), abnormal wakefulness when sedation was stopped (15 of 37, 41%), confusion (12 of 37, 32%), and agitation (seven of 37, 19%). The most frequent MRI findings were signal abnormalities located in the medial temporal lobe in 16 of 37 patients (43%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%, 59%), nonconfluent multifocal white matter hyperintense lesions seen with fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and diffusion-weighted sequences with variable enhancement, with associated hemorrhagic lesions in 11 of 37 patients (30%; 95% CI: 15%, 45%), and extensive and isolated white matter microhemorrhages in nine of 37 patients (24%; 95% CI: 10%, 38%). A majority of patients (20 of 37, 54%) had intracerebral hemorrhagic lesions with a more severe clinical presentation and a higher admission rate in intensive care units (20 of 20 patients [100%] vs 12 of 17 patients without hemorrhage [71%], P = .01) and development of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (20 of 20 patients [100%] vs 11 of 17 patients [65%], P = .005). Only one patient had SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid. Conclusion Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and without ischemic infarcts had a wide range of neurologic manifestations that were associated with abnormal brain MRI scans. Eight distinctive neuroradiologic patterns were described. © RSNA, 2020.