Thoracic Ultrasound in COVID-19: Use of Lung and Diaphragm Ultrasound in Evaluating Dyspnea in Survivors of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19 Pneumonia in a Post-ICU Clinic.

INTRODUCTION: Dyspnea is a common symptom in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia. While frequently employed in hospital settings, the use of point-of-care ultrasound in ambulatory clinics for dyspnea evaluation has rarely been explored. We aimed to determine how lung ultrasound score (LUS) and inspiratory diaphragm excursion (DE) correlate with patient-reported dyspnea during a 6-min walk test (6MWT) in survivors of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesize higher LUS and lower DE will correlate with dyspnea severity. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Single-center cross-sectional study of survivors of critically ill COVID-19 pneumonia (requiring high-flow nasal cannula, invasive, or non-invasive mechanical ventilation) seen in our Post-ICU clinic. All patients underwent standardized scanning protocols to compute LUS and DE. Pearson correlations were performed to detect an association between LUS and DE with dyspnea at rest and exertion during 6MWT. RESULTS: We enrolled 45 patients. Average age was 61.5 years (57.7% male), with average BMI of 32.3 Higher LUS correlated significantly with dyspnea, at rest (r = + 0.41, p = < 0.01) and at exertion (r = + 0.40, p = < 0.01). Higher LUS correlated significantly with lower oxygen saturation during 6MWT (r = -0.55, p = < 0.01) and lower 6MWT distance (r = -0.44, p = < 0.01). DE correlated significantly with 6MWT distance but did not correlate with dyspnea at rest or exertion. CONCLUSION: Higher LUS correlated significantly with patient-reported dyspnea at rest and exertion. Higher LUS significantly correlated with more exertional oxygen desaturation during 6MWT and lower 6MWT distance. DE did not correlate with dyspnea.

Assessment of Symptom, Disability, and Financial Trajectories in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 at 6 Months.

Importance: Individuals who survived COVID-19 often report persistent symptoms, disabilities, and financial consequences. However, national longitudinal estimates of symptom burden remain limited. Objective: To measure the incidence and changes over time in symptoms, disability, and financial status after COVID-19-related hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: A national US multicenter prospective cohort study with 1-, 3-, and 6-month postdischarge visits was conducted at 44 sites participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. Participants included hospitalized English- or Spanish-speaking adults without severe prehospitalization disabilities or cognitive impairment. Participants were enrolled between August 24, 2020, and July 20, 2021, with follow-up occurring through March 30, 2022. Exposure: Hospitalization for COVID-19 as identified with a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test. Main Outcomes and Measures: New or worsened cardiopulmonary symptoms, financial problems, functional impairments, perceived return to baseline health, and quality of life. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with new cardiopulmonary symptoms or financial problems at 6 months. Results: A total of 825 adults (444 [54.0%] were male, and 379 [46.0%] were female) met eligibility criteria and completed at least 1 follow-up survey. Median age was 56 (IQR, 43-66) years; 253 (30.7%) participants were Hispanic, 145 (17.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 360 (43.6%) were non-Hispanic White. Symptoms, disabilities, and financial problems remained highly prevalent among hospitalization survivors at month 6. Rates increased between months 1 and 6 for cardiopulmonary symptoms (from 67.3% to 75.4%; P = .001) and fatigue (from 40.7% to 50.8%; P < .001). Decreases were noted over the same interval for prevalent financial problems (from 66.1% to 56.4%; P < .001) and functional limitations (from 55.3% to 47.3%; P = .004). Participants not reporting problems at month 1 often reported new symptoms (60.0%), financial problems (23.7%), disabilities (23.8%), or fatigue (41.4%) at month 6. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study of people discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization suggest that recovery in symptoms, functional status, and fatigue was limited at 6 months, and some participants reported new problems 6 months after hospital discharge.

Postacute Sequelae of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

Postacute sequelae of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or long coronavirus disease (COVID) is an emerging syndrome characterized by multiple persisting or newly emergent symptoms following the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For affected patients, these prolonged symptoms can have a relapsing and remitting course and may be associated with disability and frequent health care utilization. Although many symptom-driven treatments are available, management remains challenging and often requires a multidisciplinary approach. This article summarizes the emerging consensus on definitions, epidemiology, and pathophysiology of long COVID and discusses what is understood about prevention, evaluation, and treatment of this syndrome.

Evolution in Care Delivery within Critical Illness Recovery Programs during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

Rationale: There are limited data on the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on intensive care unit (ICU) recovery clinic care delivery practices. Objectives: We sought to better understand the patient-level factors affecting ICU recovery clinic care and changing clinical thinking during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also sought to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic sparked innovation within ICU recovery clinics. Methods: A multicenter qualitative study was conducted with ICU recovery clinic interprofessional clinicians involved with the Critical and Acute Illness Recovery Organization (CAIRO) between February and March 2021. Data were collected using semistructured interviews and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Key themes were organized in a working analytical framework. Results: Twenty-nine participants from 15 international sites participated in the study. Participants identified three patient-level key themes that influenced care delivery in ICU recovery programs: 1) social isolation, 2) decreased emotional reserve in patients and families, and 3) substantial social care needs. Changes in ICU recovery clinic care delivery occurred at both the clinician level (e.g., growing awareness of healthcare disparities and inequities, recognition of financial effects of illness, refinement of communication skills, increased focus on reconstructing the illness narrative) and the practice level (e.g., expansion of care delivery modes, efforts to integrate social care) in response to each of the patient-level themes. Identified gaps in ICU recovery clinic care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic included a need for multidisciplinary team members, access to care issues (e.g., digital poverty, health insurance coverage, language barriers), and altered family engagement. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that addressing patient-level factors such as efforts to integrate social care, address financial needs, refine provider communication skills (e.g., empathic listening), and enhance focus on reconstructing the illness narrative became important priorities during the ICU recovery clinic visit during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also identified several ongoing gaps in ICU recovery clinic care delivery that highlight the need for interventions focused on the integration of social and clinic services for critical care survivors.

Healthcare delivery and recovery after critical illness.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize improvements and innovations in healthcare delivery which could be implemented to improve the recovery experience after critical illness for adult survivors and their families. RECENT FINDINGS: For survivors of critical illness, the transitions in care during their recovery journey are points of heightened vulnerability associated with adverse events. Survivors of critical illness often have errors in the management of their medications during the recovery period. A multicomponent intervention delivered for 30 days that focused on four key principles of improved recovery care after sepsis care was associated with a durable effect on 12-month rehospitalization and mortality compared with usual care. A recent multicentre study which piloted integrating health and social care for critical care survivors demonstrated improvements in health-related quality of life and self-efficacy at 12 months. Multiple qualitative studies provide insights into how peer support programmes could potentially benefit survivors of critical illness by providing them mechanism to share their experiences, to give back to other patients, and to set more realistic expectations for recovery. SUMMARY: Future research could focus on exploring safety outcomes as primary endpoints and finding ways to develop and test implementation strategies to improve the recovery after critical illness.

Functional, imaging, and respiratory evaluation (FIRE) of patients post-hospitalization for COVID-19: protocol for a pilot observational study.

INTRODUCTION: We describe a protocol for FIRE CORAL, an observational cohort study that examines the recovery from COVID-19 disease following acute hospitalization with an emphasis on functional, imaging, and respiratory evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: FIRE CORAL is a multicenter prospective cohort study of participants recovering from COVID-19 disease with in-person follow-up for functional and pulmonary phenotyping conducted by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network. FIRE CORAL will include a subset of participants enrolled in Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology of PETAL COVID-19 Observational Study (BLUE CORAL), an NHLBI-funded prospective cohort study describing the clinical characteristics, treatments, biology, and outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across the PETAL Network. FIRE CORAL consists of a battery of in-person assessments objectively measuring pulmonary function, abnormalities on lung imaging, physical functional status, and biospecimen analyses. Participants will attend and perform initial in-person testing at 3 to 9 months after hospitalization. The primary objective of the study is to determine the feasibility of longitudinal assessments investigating multiple domains of recovery from COVID-19. Secondarily, we will perform descriptive statistics, including the prevalence and characterization of abnormalities on pulmonary function, chest imaging, and functional status. We will also identify potential clinical and biologic factors that predict recovery or the occurrence of persistent impairment of pulmonary function, chest imaging, and functional status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: FIRE CORAL is approved via the Vanderbilt University central institutional review board (IRB) and via reliance agreement with the site IRBs. Results will be disseminated via the writing group for the protocol committee and reviewed by the PETAL Network publications committee prior to publication. Data obtained via the study will subsequently be made publicly available via NHLBI's biorepository. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY: Strengths: First US-based multicenter cohort of pulmonary and functional outcomes in patients previously hospitalized for COVID-19 infection Longitudinal biospecimen measurement allowing for biologic phenotyping of abnormalities Geographically diverse cohort allowing for a more generalizable understanding of post-COVID pulmonary sequela Limitations: Selected cohort given proximity to a participating center Small cohort which may be underpowered to identify small changes in pulmonary function.

What the American Journal of Critical Care Junior Peer Reviewers Were Reading During Year 2 of the Program.

The American Journal of Critical Care's Junior Peer Reviewer program aims to mentor novice reviewers in the peer review process. To grow their critical appraisal skills, the participants take part in discussion sessions in which they review articles published in other journals. Here we summarize the articles reviewed during the second year of the program, which again focused on the care of critically ill patients with COVID-19. This article aims to share these reviews and the reviewers' thoughts regarding the relevance, design, and applicability of the findings from the selected studies. High rates of delirium associated with COVID-19 may be impacted by optimizing sedation strategies and allowing safe family visitation. Current methodology in crisis standards of care may result in inequity and further research is needed. The use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate super low tidal volume ventilation does not improve 90-day mortality outcomes. Continued research to better understand the natural history of COVID-19 and interventions useful for improving outcomes is imperative.

What the American Journal of Critical Care Junior Peer Reviewers Were Reading During the First Year of the Program: Caring for Patients With COVID-19.

The Junior Peer Reviewer program of the American Journal of Critical Care provides mentorship in the peer review process to novice reviewers. The program includes discussion sessions in which participants review articles published in other journals to practice and improve their critical appraisal skills. The articles reviewed during the first year of the program focused on caring for patients with COVID-19. The global pandemic has placed a heavy burden on nursing practice. Prone positioning of patients with acute respiratory failure is likely to improve their outcomes. Hospitals caring for patients needing prolonged ventilation should use evidence-based, standardized care practices to reduce mortality. The burden on uncompensated caregivers of COVID-19 survivors is also high, and such caregivers are likely to require assistance with their efforts. Reviewing these articles was helpful for building the peer review skills of program participants and identifying actionable research to improve the lives of critically ill patients.

Characteristics and Outcomes of US Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Understanding COVID-19 epidemiology is crucial to clinical care and to clinical trial design and interpretation. OBJECTIVE: To describe characteristics, treatment, and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 early in the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients with laboratory-confirmed, symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to 57 US hospitals from March 1 to April 1, 2020. RESULTS: Of 1480 inpatients with COVID-19, median (IQR) age was 62.0 (49.4-72.9) years, 649 (43.9%) were female, and 822 of 1338 (61.4%) were non-White or Hispanic/Latino. Intensive care unit admission occurred in 575 patients (38.9%), mostly within 4 days of hospital presentation. Respiratory failure affected 583 patients (39.4%), including 284 (19.2%) within 24 hours of hospital presentation and 413 (27.9%) who received invasive mechanical ventilation. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 8 (5-15) days overall and 15 (9-24) days among intensive care unit patients. Hospital mortality was 17.7% (n = 262). Risk factors for hospital death identified by penalized multivariable regression included older age; male sex; comorbidity burden; symptoms-to-admission interval; hypotension; hypoxemia; and higher white blood cell count, creatinine level, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Of 1218 survivors, 221 (18.1%) required new respiratory support at discharge and 259 of 1153 (22.5%) admitted from home required new health care services. CONCLUSIONS: In a geographically diverse early-pandemic COVID-19 cohort with complete hospital folllow-up, hospital mortality was associated with older age, comorbidity burden, and male sex. Intensive care unit admissions occurred early and were associated with protracted hospital stays. Survivors often required new health care services or respiratory support at discharge.

Continuing Cardiopulmonary Symptoms, Disability, and Financial Toxicity 1 Month After Hospitalization for Third-Wave COVID-19: Early Results From a US Nationwide Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients discharged after COVID-19 report ongoing needs. OBJECTIVES: To measure incident symptoms after COVID-19 hospitalization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Preplanned early look at 1-month follow-up surveys from patients hospitalized August 2020 to January 2021 in NHLBI PETAL Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. English- or Spanish-speaking hospitalized adults without substantial pre-COVID-19 disability with a positive molecular test for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Overall, 253 patients were hospitalized for a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-8), and had a median age of 60 years (IQR, 45-68). By race/ethnicity, 136 (53.8%) were non-Hispanic White, 23 (9.1%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 83 (32.8%) were Hispanic. Most (139 [54.9%]) reported a new or worsened cardiopulmonary symptom, and 16% (n = 39) reported new or increased oxygen use; 213 (84.2%) patients reported not feeling fully back to their pre-COVID-19 level of functioning. New limitations in activities of daily living were present in 130 (52.8%) patients. Financial toxicities, including job loss or change (49 [19.8%]), having a loved one take time off (93 [37.8%]), and using up one's savings (58 [23.2%]), were common. Longer lengths of hospital stay were associated with greater odds of 1-month cardiopulmonary symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.82 per additional week in the hospital; 95% CI, 1.11-2.98) and new disability (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.21-3.53). There were not uniform demographic patterns of association. LIMITATIONS: We prioritized patients' reports of their own incident problems over objective testing. CONCLUSION: Patients who survived COVID-19 in the United States during late 2020/early 2021 still faced new burdens 1 month after hospital discharge.

A Case-Control Study of Prone Positioning in Awake and Nonintubated Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

To determine the association between prone positioning in nonintubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality. DESIGN: A nested case-matched control analysis. SETTING: Three hospital sites in Bronx, NY. PATIENTS: Adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and April 1, 2020. We excluded patients with do-not-intubate orders. Cases were defined by invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality. Each case was matched with two controls based on age, gender, admission date, and hospital length of stay greater than index time of matched case via risk-set sampling. The presence of nonintubated proning was identified from provider documentation. INTERVENTION: Nonintubated proning documented prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality for cases or prior to corresponding index time for matched controls. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 600 patients, 41 (6.8%) underwent nonintubated proning. Cases had lower Spo2/Fio2 ratios prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality compared with controls (case median, 97 [interquartile range, 90-290] vs control median, 404 [interquartile range, 296-452]). Although most providers (58.5%) documented immediate improvement in oxygenation status after initiating nonintubated proning, there was no difference in worst Spo2/Fio2 ratios before and after nonintubated proning in both case and control (case median Spo2/Fio2 ratio difference, 3 [interquartile range, -3 to 8] vs control median Spo2/Fio2 ratio difference, 0 [interquartile range, -3 to 50]). In the univariate analysis, patients who underwent nonintubated proning were 2.57 times more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation or experience inhospital mortality (hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.17-5.64; p = 0.02). Following adjustment for patient level differences, we found no association between nonintubated proning and invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.34-2.45; p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant association with reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality after adjusting for baseline severity of illness and oxygenation status.