Point-of-care ultrasound during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multidisciplinary approach between intensivists and echocardiographers.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) led to a large influx of critically ill patients and altered echocardiography laboratory workflow. We developed a point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) first approach to patients requiring echocardiography and describe our workflow and findings. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of all POCUS studies performed on critically ill patients with COVID-19. Sonography was performed by intensivists, uploaded and archived, and rapidly reviewed by echocardiographers. We evaluated each study based on the number of views obtained. Additionally, we provide a description of the workflow during the COVID-19 surge at a tertiary care hospital in New York City. RESULTS: Fifty patients had POCUS studies performed by intensivists and reviewed by echocardiographers obviating the need for sonographer-performed studies. Of the 48 cardiac POCUS studies, 17% of patients had 4 of 4 standard views available while 53% had 3 of 4 standard views. The parasternal long-axis view was obtained on 81%, subxiphoid view on 79%, apical 4-chamber view on 71%, and parasternal short-axis view on 63% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our POCUS workflow allowed intensivists to perform cardiac sonography for rapid bedside diagnosis of pathology with immediate interpretation performed by echocardiographers. At least 3 views were obtained in the majority of cases.

In-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus 2019.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused over 1 200 000 deaths worldwide as of November 2020. However, little is known about the clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with active COVID-19 after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). AIM: We aimed to characterize outcomes from IHCA in patients with COVID-19 and to identify patient- and hospital-level variables associated with 30-day survival. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study across 11 academic medical centres in the U.S. Adult patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation and/or defibrillation for IHCA between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 who had a documented positive test for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day survival after IHCA. RESULTS: There were 260 IHCAs among COVID-19 patients during the study period. The median age was 69 years (interquartile range 60-77), 71.5% were male, 49.6% were White, 16.9% were Black, and 16.2% were Hispanic. The most common presenting rhythms were pulseless electrical activity (45.0%) and asystole (44.6%). ROSC occurred in 58 patients (22.3%), 31 (11.9%) survived to hospital discharge, and 32 (12.3%) survived to 30 days. Rates of ROSC and 30-day survival in the two hospitals with the highest volume of IHCA over the study period compared to the remaining hospitals were considerably lower (10.8% vs. 64.3% and 5.9% vs. 35.7% respectively, p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: We found rates of ROSC and 30-day survival of 22.3% and 12.3% respectively. There were large variations in centre-level outcomes, which may explain the poor survival in prior studies.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest among patients with and without COVID-19.

AIMS: To define outcomes of patients with COVID-19 compared to patients without COVID-19 suffering in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study of IHCA cases. Patients with COVID-19 were compared to consecutive patients without COVID-19 from the prior year. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), 30-day survival, and cerebral performance category (CPC) at 30-days were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients with COVID-19 suffering IHCA were identified and compared to 55 consecutive IHCA patients in 2019. The COVID-19 cohort was more likely to require vasoactive agents (67.3% v 32.7%, p = 0.001), invasive mechanical ventilation (76.4% v 23.6%, p < 0.001), renal replacement therapy (18.2% v 3.6%, p = 0.029) and intensive care unit care (83.6% v 50.9%, p = 0.001) prior to IHCA. Patients with COVID-19 had shorter CPR duration (10 min v 22 min, p = 0.002). ROSC (38.2% v 49.1%, p = 0.336) and 30-day survival (20% v 32.7%, p = 0.194) did not differ. A 30-day cerebral performance category of 1 or 2 was more common among non-COVID patients (27.3% v 9.1%, p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Return of spontaneous circulation and 30-day survival were similar between IHCA patients with and without COVID-19. Compared to previously published data, we report greater ROSC and 30-day survival after IHCA in COVID-19.

Thrombosis in hospitalized patients with viral respiratory infections versus COVID-19.

We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses nationwide from 2012 to 2014 and compared this to the incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a large health system in New York. Non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness was complicated by acute MI in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (5% vs 16%; P< .001). BACKGROUND: Thrombosis is a prominent feature of the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The incidence of thrombosis during hospitalization for non-COVID-19 viral respiratory infections is uncertain. We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses compared to COVID-19. METHODS: Adults age >18 years hospitalized with a non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness between 2002 and 2014 were identified. The primary study outcome was a composite of venous and arterial thrombotic events, including myocardial infarction (MI), acute ischemic stroke, and venous thromboembolism (VTE), as defined by ICD-9 codes. The incidence of thrombosis in non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illnesses was compared to the recently published incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19 from 3,334 patients hospitalized in New York in 2020. RESULTS: Among 954,521 hospitalizations with viral pneumonia from 2002 to 2014 (mean age 62.3 years, 57.1% female), the combined incidence of arterial and venous thrombosis was 5.0%. Acute MI occurred in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. Patients with thrombosis had higher in-hospital mortality (14.9% vs 3.3%, P< .001) than those without thrombosis. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (median age 64; 39.6% female) in 2020 (5% vs 16%; P< .001) CONCLUSION: In a nationwide analysis of hospitalizations for viral pneumonias, thrombosis risk was lower than that observed in patients with COVID-19. Investigations into mechanisms of thrombosis and risk reduction strategies in COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections are necessary.

Deep vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused devastating morbidity and mortality worldwide. In particular, thromboembolic complications have emerged as a key threat for patients with COVID-19. We assessed our experience with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients with COVID-19 who had undergone upper or lower extremity venous duplex ultrasonography at an academic health system in New York City from March 3, 2020 to April 12, 2020 with follow-up through May 12, 2020. A cohort of hospitalized patients without COVID-19 (non-COVID-19) who had undergone venous duplex ultrasonography from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 was used for comparison. The primary outcome was DVT. The secondary outcomes included pulmonary embolism, in-hospital mortality, admission to the intensive care unit, and antithrombotic therapy. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors for DVT and mortality. RESULTS: Of 443 patients (COVID-19, n = 188; and non-COVID-19, n = 255) who had undergone venous duplex ultrasonography, the COVID-19 cohort had had a greater incidence of DVT (31% vs 19%; P = .005) than had the non-COVID-19 cohort. The incidence of pulmonary embolism was not significantly different statistically between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts (8% vs 4%; P = .105). The DVT location in the COVID-19 group was more often distal (63% vs 29%; P < .001) and bilateral (15% vs 4%; P < .001). The duplex ultrasound findings had a significant impact on the antithrombotic plan; 42 patients (72%) with COVID-19 in the DVT group had their therapy escalated and 49 (38%) and 3 (2%) had their therapy escalated and deescalated in the non-DVT group, respectively (P < .001). Within the COVID-19 cohort, the D-dimer level was significantly greater in the DVT group at admission (2746 ng/mL vs 1481 ng/mL; P = .004) and at the duplex examination (6068 ng/mL vs 3049 ng/mL; P < .01). On multivariable analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.87; P = .035), intensive care unit admission (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.02-11.44; P = .046), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 1.01-30.13; P = .049) were independently associated with DVT. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolic events in this population, we support the decision to empirically initiate therapeutic anticoagulation for patients with a low bleeding risk and severe COVID-19 infection. Duplex ultrasonography should be reserved for patients with a high clinical suspicion of venous thromboembolism for whom anticoagulation therapy could result in life-threatening consequences. Further study of patients with COVID-19 is warranted to elucidate the etiology of vascular thromboembolic events and guide the prophylactic and therapeutic interventions for these patients.

Simulation-based uptraining improves provider comfort in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 surge required the deployment of large numbers of non-intensive care providers to assist in the management of the critically ill. Institutions took a variety of approaches to "uptraining" such providers though studies describing methods and effectiveness are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five providers underwent a 3 h simulation-based session focused on management of shock, mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and critical care ultrasound. All participants were sent surveys to assess their comfort with various aspects of critical care following return to their usual work environments. RESULTS: One hundred and eight providers of 175 (62%) completed the survey. Overall, 104/108 responders (96%) felt training either significantly or somewhat improved their knowledge in the management of ICU patients. Responders felt most comfortable in the management of hypoxemia in intubated patients and the management of ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (93% strongly agree or agree, and 86% strongly agree or agree, respectively). Fewer responders felt more comfortable using focused echocardiography (70% strongly agree or agree) and lung ultrasonography in following progression of COVID-19 (76% strongly agree or agree). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based training improved provider comfort in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team activation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New York City Academic Hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

Thromboelastography Profiles of Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The rate of thromboembolic events among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is high; however, there is no robust method to identify those at greatest risk. We reviewed thromboelastography studies in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 to characterize their coagulation states. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Tertiary ICU in New York City. PATIENTS: Sixty-four patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the ICU with thromboelastography performed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty percent of patients had a clotting index in the hypercoagulable range (clotting index > 3) (median 3.05). Reaction time and K values were below the lower limit of normal in 43.8% of the population consistent with a hypercoagulable profile. The median α angle and maximum amplitude (75.8° and 72.8 mm, respectively) were in the hypercoagulable range. The α angle was above reference range in 70.3% of patients indicative of rapid clot formation. Maximum amplitude, a factor of fibrinogen and platelet count and function, and a measure of clot strength was above reference range in 60.1% of patients. Thirty-one percent had thromboembolic events; thromboelastography parameters did not correlate with events in our cohort. Those with D-dimer values greater than 2,000 were more likely to have shorter reaction times compared with those with D-dimer levels less than or equal to 2,000 (4.8 vs 5.6 min; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have hypercoagulable thromboelastography profiles with additional derangements related to fibrinogen and platelet function. As the majority of patients have an elevated thromboelastography maximum amplitude, a follow-up study evaluating platelet aggregation would be instructive.

Critical Care Transesophageal Echocardiography in Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an extraordinary strain on healthcare systems across North America. Defining the optimal approach for managing a critically ill COVID-19 patient is rapidly changing. Goal-directed transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is frequently used by physicians caring for intubated critically ill patients as a reliable imaging modality that is well suited to answer questions at bedside. METHODS: A multidisciplinary (intensive care, critical care cardiology, and emergency medicine) group of experts in point-of-care echocardiography and TEE from the United States and Canada convened to review the available evidence, share experiences, and produce a consensus statement aiming to provide clinicians with a framework to maximize the safety of patients and healthcare providers when considering focused point-of-care TEE in critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Although transthoracic echocardiography can provide the information needed in most patients, there are specific scenarios in which TEE represents the modality of choice. TEE provides acute care clinicians with a goal-directed framework to guide clinical care and represents an ideal modality to evaluate hemodynamic instability during prone ventilation, perform serial evaluations of the lungs, support cardiac arrest resuscitation, and guide veno-venous ECMO cannulation. To aid other clinicians in performing TEE during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe a set of principles and practical aspects for performing examinations with a focus on the logistics, personnel, and equipment required before, during, and after an examination. CONCLUSIONS: In the right clinical scenario, TEE is a tool that can provide the information needed to deliver the best and safest possible care for the critically ill patients.