A roadmap for developing an emergency department based critical care consultation service: Building the early intervention team (EIT).

Emergency Department (ED) crowding and boarding impact safe and effective health care delivery. ED clinicians must balance caring for new arrivals who require stabilization and resuscitation as well as those who need longitudinal care and re-evaluation. These challenges are magnified in the setting of critically ill patients boarding for the intensive care unit. Boarding is a complex issue that has multiple solutions based on resources at individual institutions. Several different models have been described for delivery of critical care in the ED. Here, we describe the development of an ED based critical care consultation service, the early intervention team, at an urban academic ED.

Prospective Validation of a Rapid Host Gene Expression Test to Discriminate Bacterial From Viral Respiratory Infection.

Importance: Bacterial and viral causes of acute respiratory illness (ARI) are difficult to clinically distinguish, resulting in the inappropriate use of antibacterial therapy. The use of a host gene expression-based test that is able to discriminate bacterial from viral infection in less than 1 hour may improve care and antimicrobial stewardship. Objective: To validate the host response bacterial/viral (HR-B/V) test and assess its ability to accurately differentiate bacterial from viral infection among patients with ARI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective multicenter diagnostic study enrolled 755 children and adults with febrile ARI of 7 or fewer days' duration from 10 US emergency departments. Participants were enrolled from October 3, 2014, to September 1, 2019, followed by additional enrollment of patients with COVID-19 from March 20 to December 3, 2020. Clinical adjudication of enrolled participants identified 616 individuals as having bacterial or viral infection. The primary analysis cohort included 334 participants with high-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator concordance and the presence of an identified pathogen confirmed by microbiological testing). A secondary analysis of the entire cohort of 616 participants included cases with low-confidence reference adjudications (based on adjudicator discordance or the absence of an identified pathogen in microbiological testing). Thirty-three participants with COVID-19 were included post hoc. Interventions: The HR-B/V test quantified the expression of 45 host messenger RNAs in approximately 45 minutes to derive a probability of bacterial infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance characteristics for the HR-B/V test compared with clinical adjudication were reported as either bacterial or viral infection or categorized into 4 likelihood groups (viral very likely [probability score <0.19], viral likely [probability score of 0.19-0.40], bacterial likely [probability score of 0.41-0.73], and bacterial very likely [probability score >0.73]) and compared with procalcitonin measurement. Results: Among 755 enrolled participants, the median age was 26 years (IQR, 16-52 years); 360 participants (47.7%) were female, and 395 (52.3%) were male. A total of 13 participants (1.7%) were American Indian, 13 (1.7%) were Asian, 368 (48.7%) were Black, 131 (17.4%) were Hispanic, 3 (0.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 297 (39.3%) were White, and 60 (7.9%) were of unspecified race and/or ethnicity. In the primary analysis involving 334 participants, the HR-B/V test had sensitivity of 89.8% (95% CI, 77.8%-96.2%), specificity of 82.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-86.6%), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI, 95.3%-99.1%) for bacterial infection. In comparison, the sensitivity of procalcitonin measurement was 28.6% (95% CI, 16.2%-40.9%; P < .001), the specificity was 87.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-90.7%; P = .006), and the NPV was 87.6% (95% CI, 85.5%-89.5%; P < .001). When stratified into likelihood groups, the HR-B/V test had an NPV of 98.9% (95% CI, 96.1%-100%) for bacterial infection in the viral very likely group and a positive predictive value of 63.4% (95% CI, 47.2%-77.9%) for bacterial infection in the bacterial very likely group. The HR-B/V test correctly identified 30 of 33 participants (90.9%) with acute COVID-19 as having a viral infection. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the HR-B/V test accurately discriminated bacterial from viral infection among patients with febrile ARI and was superior to procalcitonin measurement. The findings suggest that an accurate point-of-need host response test with high NPV may offer an opportunity to improve antibiotic stewardship and patient outcomes.

INTRACRANIAL HEMORRHAGE DURING THE USE OF VENOVENOUS ECMO IN COVID 19: A CASE SERIES

Despite ECMO being a valid option there have been reported complications possibly due to viral pathophysiology posing unique perturbations not seen in other cases of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Deliberation of risks, benefits, and neurologic assessments prior to initiation of VVECMO in patients with COVID-19 ARDS needs to be taken. B Introduction/Hypothesis: b The COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

RESEARCH STAFF COVID-19 PANDEMIC RESPONSE SURVEY: RESULTS FROM THE NHLBI PETAL NETWORK

Respondents, regardless of these logistical challenges, indicated their willingness to enroll COVID-19 patients, however,12% of respondents would refuse to enroll COVID-19 research patients. B Conclusion: b Despite numerous stressors, including exposure and infection of research staff, members of the PETAL Network were heavily engaged in COVID-19 clinical trials and research. B Background: b During the COVID-19 pandemic, the initial understandings of disease pathogenesis and treatment interventions were limited. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Racial Differences in a Detroit, MI, ICU Population of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the potential influence of racial differences in outcomes of patients infected by coronavirus disease 2019-positive patients who require intensive care in an urban hospital. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Henry Ford Health System Multidisciplinary ICU, a total of 156 beds spread throughout the hospital in Detroit, MI. PATIENTS: We obtained data from the electronic medical record of all adult severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-positive patients managed in the ICU of Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI, between March 13, 2020, and July 31, 2020. Included patients were divided into two groups: people of color (including Black, Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and Arab) and White. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were evaluated: 219 were Black (60.0%), 129 were White (35.3%), two were Asian (0.6%), eight were Hispanic/Latino (2.2%), and seven were Arab (1.9%). People of color were younger (62.8 vs 67.1; p = 0.007), with equal distribution of sex. People of color had less coronary artery disease (34 [14.4%] vs 35 [27.1%]; p =0.003) and less self-reported use of regular alcohol consumption (50 [21.2%] vs 12 [9.3%]; p = 0.004) than Whites, with no differences in diabetes (125 [53.0%] vs 66 [51.2%]; p = 0.742), hypertension (188 [79.7%] vs 99 [76.8%]; p = 0.516), congestive heart failure (41 [17.4%] vs 32 [24.8%]; p = 0.090), or chronic kidney disease (123 [54.1%] vs 55 [42.6%]; p = 0.083).There was no difference in ICU length of stay between people of color (18 d [CI, 7-47 d]) and Whites (18 d [CI, 6-48 d]; p = 0. 0.979). Neither frequency (72.5% vs 71.3%; p = ns) nor median time to mechanical ventilation between people of color (9 d [CI, 6-15 d]) and Whites (10 d [CI, 5-16 d]; p = 0.733) was different. Overall, 188 patients (51.5 %) died in the hospital. The 28-day mortality was lower in people of color (107/236; 45.3%) versus Whites (73/129; 56.6%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.60; p = 0.034), and there was an increased median survival time in people of color (20 d) versus Whites (13.5 d; hazard ratio 0.62; p = 0.002). The inhospital mortality was lower in people of color versus White, but the difference was not statistically significant (113 [47.9%] vs 75 [58.1%], respectively; p = 0.061). Finally, there was no significant difference in days of symptoms prior to admission, frequency of presenting symptoms, or frequency or severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients infected with coronavirus disease 2019, people of color had a lower 28-day mortality than Whites with no difference in hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, or rates of intubation. These findings are contrary to previously held beliefs surrounding the pandemic.