Hospital Variation in Management and Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of "guideline-based care" for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of "guideline-based care" for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in "guideline-based care." A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.4) for receipt of "guideline-based care" compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47-62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use "guideline-based care" quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received "guideline-based care" for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Variation in Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation Among Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4-4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).

Hospital Variation in Management and Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of “guideline-based care” for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of “guideline-based care” for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in “guideline-based care.” A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1–3.4) for receipt of “guideline-based care” compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47–62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use “guideline-based care” quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7;95% CI, 0.3–1.9;p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received “guideline-based care” for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance, California, USA, May 10, 2020-June 12, 2021.

State and local health departments established the California Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and Respiratory Virus Sentinel Surveillance System to conduct enhanced surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens at sentinel outpatient testing sites in 10 counties throughout California, USA. We describe results obtained during May 10, 2020‒June 12, 2021, and compare persons with positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR results by using Poisson regression. We detected SARS-CoV-2 in 1,696 (19.6%) of 8,662 specimens. Among 7,851 specimens tested by respiratory panel, rhinovirus/enterovirus was detected in 906 (11.5%) specimens and other respiratory pathogens in 136 (1.7%) specimens. We also detected 23 co-infections with SARS-CoV-2 and another pathogen. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was associated with male participants, an age of 35-49 years, Latino race/ethnicity, obesity, and work in transportation occupations. Sentinel surveillance can provide useful virologic and epidemiologic data to supplement other disease monitoring activities and might become increasingly useful as routine testing decreases.

Variation in Use of Repurposed Medications Among Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. From The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registry Investigator Group.

IMPORTANCE: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40-4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23-6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.

Predictors to forgo resuscitative effort during Covid-19 critical illness at the height of the pandemic : A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early in the Covid-19 pandemic, there was uncertainty regarding critical illness prognosis and challenges to traditional face-to-face family meetings. Ethnic minority populations have suffered disproportionately worse outcomes during the pandemic, which may in part relate to differences in end-of-life decision-making. AIM: Characterize patterns of and factors associated with decisions to forgo resuscitative efforts, as measured by do-not-resuscitate orders, during critical illness with Covid-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort with medical record abstraction. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients diagnosed with SARS-Cov-2 virus via polymerase chain reaction and admitted to the intensive care unit at an academic hospital, which cares for the city's underserved communities, between March 1 and June 7, 2020 who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. RESULTS: In this cohort (n = 155), 45% were black people, and 51% spoke English as their primary language. Median time to first goals-of-care conversation was 3.9 days (IQR 1.9-7.6) after intensive care unit admission. Overall 61/155 patients (39%) transitioned to do-not-resuscitate status, and 50/62 (82%) patients who died had do-not-resuscitate orders. Multivariate analysis shows age and palliative care involvement as the strongest predictors of decision to instate do-not-resuscitate order. There was no association between race, ethnicity, or language and decisions to forego resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: During this time of crisis and uncertainty with limited resources and strained communication, time to first goals of care conversation was shorter than in pre-pandemic studies, but rates of foregoing resuscitation remained similar, with no differences observed by race, ethnicity, or language. This study suggests that early palliative care involvement and non-traditional communications, including videoconferencing, to facilitate goals of care conversations could have mitigated potential disparities in end-of-life decision making patterns during the pandemic.

Rationale and Design of the Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Study Protocol: A Clinical Trial.

The unprecedented public health burdens of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have intensified the urgency of identifying effective, low-cost treatments that limit the need for advanced life support measures and improve clinical outcomes. However, personal protective equipment and staffing shortages, disease virulence, and infectivity have created significant barriers to traditional clinical trial practices. We present the novel design of a pragmatic, adaptive, multicenter, international, prospective randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of awake prone positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 (APPEX-19 [Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19]). Key innovations of this trial include 1) a novel smartphone-based communication process that facilitates rapid enrollment and intervention delivery while allowing social distancing and conservation of personal protective equipment, 2) Bayesian response-adaptive randomization to allow preferential assignment to the most effective intervention and expedite trial completion compared with frequentist designs, 3) remote electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes and electronic medical record data, and 4) pragmatic prospective use of patient-reported data and data collected as part of routine clinical care. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04344587).

Outcomes of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Receiving Organ Support Therapies: The International Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

ICU outcomes in Covid-19 patients with obesity.

The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.