The Maryland (USA) Critical Care Coordination Center (C4): From Pandemic to Permanence.

INTRODUCTION: The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic created overwhelming demand for critical care services within Maryland's (USA) hospital systems. As intensive care units (ICUs) became full, critically ill patients were boarded in hospital emergency departments (EDs), a practice associated with increased mortality and costs. Allocation of critical care resources during the pandemic requires thoughtful and proactive management strategies. While various methodologies exist for addressing the issue of ED overcrowding, few systems have implemented a state-wide response using a public safety-based platform. The objective of this report is to describe the implementation of a state-wide Emergency Medical Services (EMS)-based coordination center designed to ensure timely and equitable access to critical care. METHODS: The state of Maryland designed and implemented a novel, state-wide Critical Care Coordination Center (C4) staffed with intensivist physicians and paramedics purposed to ensure appropriate critical care resource management and patient transfer assistance. A narrative description of the C4 is provided. A retrospective cohort study design was used to present requests to the C4 as a case series report to describe the results of implementation. RESULTS: Providing a centralized asset with regional situational awareness of hospital capability and bed status played an integral role for directing the triage process of critically ill patients to appropriate facilities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 2,790 requests were received by the C4. The pairing of a paramedic with an intensivist physician resulted in the successful transfer of 67.4% of requests, while 27.8% were managed in place with medical direction. Overall, COVID-19 patients comprised 29.5% of the cohort. Data suggested increased C4 usage was predictive of state-wide ICU surges. The C4 usage volume resulted in the expansion to pediatric services to serve a broader age range. The C4 concept, which leverages the complimentary skills of EMS clinicians and intensivist physicians, is presented as a proposed public safety-based model for other regions to consider world-wide. CONCLUSION: The C4 has played an integral role in the State of Maryland's pledge to its citizens to deliver the right care to the right patient at the right time and can be considered as a model for adoption by other regions world-wide.

Time from Infiltrate on Chest Radiograph to Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19 Affects Mortality.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has been used to treat severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome; however, patient selection criteria have evolved throughout the pandemic. In this study, we sought to determine the association of patient mortality with time from positive COVID-19 test and infiltrate on chest radiograph (x-ray) to VV ECMO cannulation. We hypothesized that an increasing duration between a positive COVID-19 test or infiltrates on chest x-ray and cannulation would be associated with increased mortality. This is a single-center retrospective chart review of COVID-19 VV ECMO patients from March 1, 2020 to July 28, 2021. Unadjusted and adjusted multivariate analyses were performed to assess for mortality differences. A total of 93 patients were included in our study. Increased time, in days, from infiltrate on chest x-ray to cannulation was associated with increased mortality in both unadjusted (5-9, P = 0.002) and adjusted regression analyses (odds ratio [OR]: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.22-1.81, P < 0.01). Time from positive test to cannulation was not found to be significant between survivors and nonsurvivors (7.5-11, P = 0.06). Time from infiltrate on chest x-ray to cannulation for VV ECMO should be considered when assessing patient candidacy. Further larger cohort and prospective studies are required.

Decreased PRESET-Score corresponds with improved survival in COVID-19 veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: The PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy Score (PRESET-Score) predicts mortality while on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of our study was to assess the association between PRESET-Score and survival in a large COVID-19 VV ECMO cohort. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of COVID-19 VV ECMO patients from 15 March 2020, to 30 November 2021. Univariable and Multivariable analyses were performed to assess patient survival and score differences. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included in our analysis with a mean PRESET-Score of 6.74. Overall survival was 65.71%. The mean PRESET-Score was significantly lower in the survivor group (6.03 vs 8.11, p < 0.001). Patients with a PRESET-Score less than or equal to six had improved survival compared to those with a PRESET-Score greater than or equal to 8 (97.7% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.001). In a multivariable logistic regression, a lower PRESET-Score was also predictive of survival (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.75, 4.63, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that lower PRESET scores are associated with improved survival. The utilization of this validated, quantifiable, and objective scoring system to help identify COVID-19 patients with the greatest potential to benefit from VV-ECMO appears feasible. The incorporation of the PRESET-Score into institutional ECMO candidacy guidelines can help insure and improve access of this limited healthcare resource to all critically ill patients.

New-Onset Atrial Arrhythmias Are Independently Associated With In-Hospital Mortality in Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if atrial arrhythmias are associated with in-hospital mortality in veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Quaternary care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with respiratory failure requiring VV-ECMO for >24 hours between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None, observational study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred nineteen VV-ECMO patients were included. Patients were stratified by absence or presence of clinically significant atrial arrhythmias during the VV-ECMO run. Atrial arrhythmias were defined as either atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter that occurred during VV-ECMO and required pharmacologic or electrical intervention. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included a composite of thrombotic events, which included ischemic stroke and on-pump arterial thrombosis. Other objectives of this analysis included characterization of atrial arrhythmia incidence, risk factors, and management. A total of 67 patients (30.5%) experienced new-onset atrial arrhythmias post-ECMO cannulation. Age, male sex, and norepinephrine use were independently associated with atrial arrhythmia development. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the atrial arrhythmia group (38.8% v 19.1%; p = 0.003). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, atrial arrhythmias during VV-ECMO were independently associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.55; p = 0.03), after controlling for Respiratory Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Survival Prediction score, acute renal failure, total norepinephrine dose, and total cannulation time. CONCLUSIONS: New-onset atrial arrhythmias are a frequent complication during VV-ECMO and are independently associated with excessive in-hospital mortality. Thus, their presence may serve as an important prognostic tool in this patient population.

COVID-19 outcomes of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory failure vs historical cohort of non-COVID-19 viral infections.

INTRODUCTION: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has become a support modality for patients with acute respiratory failure refractory to standard therapies. VV ECMO has been increasingly used during the current COVID-19 pandemic for patients with refractory respiratory failure. The object of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of VV ECMO in patients with COVID-19 compared to patients with non-COVID-19 viral infections. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients supported with VV ECMO between 8/2014 and 8/2020 whose etiology of illness was a viral pulmonary infection. The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of ECMO course, ventilator duration, hospital length of stay, incidence of adverse events through ECMO course. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were included (35 COVID-19 vs 54 non-COVID-19). Forty (74%) of the non-COVID-19 patients had influenza virus. Prior to cannulation, COVID-19 patients had longer ventilator duration (3 vs 1 day, p = .003), higher PaCO2 (64 vs 53 mmHg, p = .012), and white blood cell count (14 vs 9 ×103/µL, p = .004). Overall in-hospital mortality was 33.7% (n = 30). COVID-19 patients had a higher mortality (49% vs. 24%, p = .017) when compared to non-COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 survivors had longer median time on ECMO than non-COVID-19 survivors (24.4 vs 16.5 days p = .03) but had a similar hospital length of stay (HLOS) (41 vs 48 Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenationdays p = .33). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients supported with VV ECMO have a higher mortality than non-COVID-19 patients. While COVID-19 survivors had significantly longer VV ECMO runs than non-COVID-19 survivors, HLOS was similar. This data add to a growing body of literature supporting the use of ECMO for potentially reversible causes of respiratory failure.

Body mass index does not impact survival in COVID-19 patients requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: With the increased demand for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) during the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines for patient candidacy have often limited this modality for patients with a body mass index (BMI) less than 40 kg/m2. We hypothesize that COVID-19 VV ECMO patients with at least class III obesity (BMI ≥ 40) have decreased in-hospital mortality when compared to non-COVID-19 and non-class III obese COVID-19 VV ECMO populations. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of COVID-19 VV ECMO patients from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2021. Our institution used BMI ≥ 40 as part of a multi-disciplinary VV ECMO candidate screening process in COVID-19 patients. BMI criteria were not considered for exclusion criteria in non-COVID-19 patients. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess in-hospital mortality differences. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were included in our analysis: The COVID-19 group had a lower survival rate that was not statistically significant (65.7% vs.74.9%, p = .07). The median BMI between BMI ≥ 40 COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients was not different (44.5 vs 45.5, p = .2). There was no difference in survival between the groups (73.3% vs. 78.5%, p = .58), nor was there a difference in survival between the COVID-19 BMI ≥ 40 and BMI < 40 patients (73.3, 62.7, p= .29). Multivariable logistic regression with the outcome of in-hospital mortality was performed and BMI was not found to be significant (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89, 1.01; p = .92). CONCLUSION: BMI ≥ 40 was not an independent risk factor for decreased in-hospital survival in this cohort of VV ECMO patients at a high-volume center. BMI should not be the sole factor when deciding VV ECMO candidacy in patients with COVID-19.

The Role of a Statewide Critical Care Coordination Center in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic-and Beyond.

OBJECTIVE: Public health emergencies, like the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, can cause unprecedented demand for critical care services. We describe statewide implementation of a critical care coordination center designed to optimize ICU utilization. To describe a centralized critical care coordination center designed to ensure appropriate intensive care resource allocation. DESIGN: A descriptive case series of consecutive critically ill adult patients. SETTING: ICUs, emergency departments, freestanding medical facilities in the state of Maryland and adjacent states, serving a population of over 6,045,000 across a land area of 9,776 sq mi (25,314 km2). PATIENTS: Adults requiring intensive care. INTERVENTIONS: Consultation with a critical care physician and emergency medical services clinician. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Number of consults, number of patient movements to higher levels of critical care, and number of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation referrals for both patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. Over a 6-month period, critical care coordination center provided 1,006 critical care consultations and directed 578 patient transfers for 58 hospitals in the state of Maryland and adjoining region. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation referrals were requested for 58 patients. Four-hundred twenty-eight patients (42.5%) were managed with consultation only and did not require transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care coordination center, staffed 24/7 by a critical care physician and emergency medical service clinician, may improve critical care resource use and patient flow. This serves as a model for a tiered regionalized system to ensure that the demand for critical care services may be met during a pandemic and beyond.

Aspirin Use Is Associated With Decreased Mechanical Ventilation, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk in critically ill patients. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: A retrospective, observational cohort study of adult patients admitted with COVID-19 to multiple hospitals in the United States between March 2020 and July 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was the need for mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were ICU admission and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for study outcomes were calculated using Cox-proportional hazards models after adjustment for the effects of demographics and comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Four hundred twelve patients were included in the study. Three hundred fourteen patients (76.3%) did not receive aspirin, while 98 patients (23.7%) received aspirin within 24 hours of admission or 7 days before admission. Aspirin use had a crude association with less mechanical ventilation (35.7% aspirin versus 48.4% nonaspirin, P = .03) and ICU admission (38.8% aspirin versus 51.0% nonaspirin, P = .04), but no crude association with in-hospital mortality (26.5% aspirin versus 23.2% nonaspirin, P = .51). After adjusting for 8 confounding variables, aspirin use was independently associated with decreased risk of mechanical ventilation (adjusted HR, 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.85, P = .007), ICU admission (adjusted HR, 0.57, 95% CI, 0.38-0.85, P = .005), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted HR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.31-0.90, P = .02). There were no differences in major bleeding (P = .69) or overt thrombosis (P = .82) between aspirin users and nonaspirin users. CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin use may be associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial is needed to assess whether a causal relationship exists between aspirin use and reduced lung injury and mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS): A Review and Focus on Considerations for COVID-19.

ABSTRACT: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a support modality for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who have failed conventional treatments including low tidal volume ventilation, prone positioning, and neuromuscular blockade. In addition, ECLS can be used for hemodynamic support for patients with cardiogenic shock or following cardiac arrest. Injured patients may also require ECLS support for ARDS and other indications. We review the use of ECLS for ARDS patients, trauma patients, cardiogenic shock patients, and post-cardiac arrest patients. We then describe how these principles are applied in the management of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Indications, predictors, procedural considerations, and post-cannulation management strategies are discussed.

COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities Intensive Care Unit.

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential need for physicians to provide critical care services, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has collaborated with the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) to develop the COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities (CAESAR) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) workgroup. CAESAR-ICU is designed and written for the practicing general anesthesiologist and should serve as a primer to enable an anesthesiologist to provide limited bedside critical care services.

Multi-Layered Air Defense Model to Protect Shared Air in Critical Infrastructure Sectors

From the Introduction: America's ability to survive the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic depends on our ability to protect the health of our citizens while we simultaneously sustain the critical infrastructure sectors that support our economy, and ultimately, the American way of life. The current debate between 'lives' and 'livelihood' is a false choice for the American public. If America, as a world leader, chooses to balance these challenges effectively, then through science and evidence best practices, both considerations can be served responsibly, consistently, and methodically across our sectors of critical infrastructure. In the process, the nation can emerge from the pandemic stronger and more resilient to threats from future natural or man-made infectious diseases. Until the risk of spreading infection can be mitigated, an unintended but very real side effect of our actions is the paralysis of our economy and the threat to our nation's ability to sensibly sustain and reopen critical infrastructure sectors. However, like all threats, COVID-19 presents a unique opportunity to manage the dilemma of the current pandemic, and actually build a stronger, more resilient nation going forward.COVID-19 (Disease);Disaster recovery;Critical infrastructure;Air defenses

COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities Intensive Care Unit

In response to the rapidly evolving coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential need for physicians to provide critical care services, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has collaborated with the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF) to develop the COVID-Activated Emergency Scaling of Anesthesiology Responsibilities (CAESAR) Intensive Care Unit (ICU) workgroup. CAESAR-ICU is designed and written for the practicing general anesthesiologist and should serve as a primer to enable an anesthesiologist to provide limited bedside critical care services.