Early Intensive Physical Rehabilitation Combined with a Protocolized Decannulation Process in Tracheostomized Survivors from Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia with Chronic Critical Illness.

(1) Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) survivors from severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) with chronic critical illness (CCI) may be considered vast resource consumers with a poor prognosis. We hypothesized that a holistic approach combining an early intensive rehabilitation with a protocol of difficult weaning would improve patient outcomes (2) Methods: A single-center retrospective study in a five-bed post-ICU weaning and intensive rehabilitation center with a dedicated fitness room specifically equipped to safely deliver physical activity sessions in frail patients with CCI. (3) Results: Among 502 CARDS patients admitted to the ICU from March 2020 to March 2022, 50 consecutive tracheostomized patients were included in the program. After a median of 39 ICU days, 25 days of rehabilitation were needed to restore patients' autonomy (ADL, from 0 to 6; p < 0.001), to significantly improve their aerobic capacity (6-min walking test distance, from 0 to 253 m; p < 0.001) and to reduce patients' vulnerability (frailty score, from 7 to 3; p < 0.001) and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS, from 18 to 10; p < 0.001). Forty-eight decannulated patients (96%) were discharged home. (4) Conclusions: A protocolized weaning strategy combined with early intensive rehabilitation in a dedicated specialized center boosted the physical and mental recovery.

The global mental health burden of COVID-19 on critical care staff.

BACKGROUND: Although the mental health burden in healthcare workers caused by COVID-19 has gained increasing attention both within the profession and through public opinion, there has been a lack of data describing their experience; specifically, the mental wellbeing of healthcare workers in the intensive care unit (ICU), including those redeployed. AIMS: The authors aimed to compare the mental health status of ICU healthcare workers (physicians, nurses and allied health professionals) affected by various factors during the COVID-19 pandemic; and highlight to policymakers areas of staff vulnerabilities in order to improve wellbeing strategies within healthcare systems. METHODS: An online survey using three validated scales was conducted in France, the UK, Italy, Mainland China, Taiwan, Egypt and Belgium. FINDINGS: The proportion of respondents who screened positive on the three scales across the countries was 16-49% for depression, 60-86% for insomnia and 17-35% for post-traumatic stress disorder. The authors also identified an increase in the scores with longer time spent in personal protective equipment, female gender, advancing age and redeployed status. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of mental disorders among ICU staff during the COVID-19 crisis should inform local and national wellbeing policies.

Natural history, trajectory, and management of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: The trajectory of mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for clinical decisions, yet the focus so far has been on admission characteristics without consideration of the dynamic course of the disease in the context of applied therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We included adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with complete clinical data until ICU death or discharge. We examined the importance of factors associated with disease progression over the first week, implementation and responsiveness to interventions used in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and ICU outcome. We used machine learning (ML) and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to characterise the evolution of clinical parameters and our ICU data visualisation tool is available as a web-based widget ( https://www.CovidUK.ICU ). RESULTS: Data for 633 adults with COVID-19 who underwent IMV between 01 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.3% and highest with non-resolution of hypoxaemia [60.4% vs17.6%; P < 0.001; median PaO2/FiO2 on the day of death was 12.3(8.9-18.4) kPa] and non-response to proning (69.5% vs.31.1%; P < 0.001). Two ML models using weeklong data demonstrated an increased predictive accuracy for mortality compared to admission data (74.5% and 76.3% vs 60%, respectively). XAI models highlighted the increasing importance, over the first week, of PaO2/FiO2 in predicting mortality. Prone positioning improved oxygenation only in 45% of patients. A higher peak pressure (OR 1.42[1.06-1.91]; P < 0.05), raised respiratory component (OR 1.71[ 1.17-2.5]; P < 0.01) and cardiovascular component (OR 1.36 [1.04-1.75]; P < 0.05) of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and raised lactate (OR 1.33 [0.99-1.79]; P = 0.057) immediately prior to application of prone positioning were associated with lack of oxygenation response. Prone positioning was not applied to 76% of patients with moderate hypoxemia and 45% of those with severe hypoxemia and patients who died without receiving proning interventions had more missed opportunities for prone intervention [7 (3-15.5) versus 2 (0-6); P < 0.001]. Despite the severity of gas exchange deficit, most patients received lung-protective ventilation with tidal volumes less than 8 mL/kg and plateau pressures less than 30cmH2O. This was despite systematic errors in measurement of height and derived ideal body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Refractory hypoxaemia remains a major association with mortality, yet evidence based ARDS interventions, in particular prone positioning, were not implemented and had delayed application with an associated reduced responsiveness. Real-time service evaluation techniques offer opportunities to assess the delivery of care and improve protocolised implementation of evidence-based ARDS interventions, which might be associated with improvements in survival.

Reprint of: Air travel and COVID-19 prevention in the pandemic and peri-pandemic period: A narrative review.

Air travel during the COVID-19 pandemic is challenging for travellers, airlines, airports, health authorities, and governments. We reviewed multiple aspects of COVID peri-pandemic air travel, including data on traveller numbers, peri-flight prevention, and testing recommendations and in-flight SARS-CoV-2 transmission, photo-epidemiology of mask use, the pausing of air travel to mass gathering events, and quarantine measures and their effectiveness. Flights are reduced by 43% compared to 2019. Hygiene measures, mask use, and distancing are effective, while temperature screening has been shown to be unreliable. Although the risk of in-flight transmission is considered to be very low, estimated at one case per 27 million travellers, confirmed in-flight cases have been published. Some models exist and predict minimal risk but fail to consider human behavior and airline procedures variations. Despite aircraft high-efficiency filtering, there is some evidence that passengers within two rows of an index case are at higher risk. Air travel to mass gatherings should be avoided. Antigen testing is useful but impaired by time lag to results. Widespread application of solutions such as saliva-based, rapid testing or even detection with the help of "sniffer dogs" might be the way forward. The "traffic light system" for traveling, recently introduced by the Council of the European Union is a first step towards normalization of air travel. Quarantine of travellers may delay introduction or re-introduction of the virus, or may delay the peak of transmission, but the effect is small and there is limited evidence. New protocols detailing on-arrival, rapid testing and tracing are indicated to ensure that restricted movement is pragmatically implemented. Guidelines from airlines are non-transparent. Most airlines disinfect their flights and enforce wearing masks and social distancing to a certain degree. A layered approach of non-pharmaceutical interventions, screening and testing procedures, implementation and adherence to distancing, hygiene measures and mask use at airports, in-flight and throughout the entire journey together with pragmatic post-flight testing and tracing are all effective measures that can be implemented. Ongoing research and systematic review are indicated to provide evidence on the utility of preventive measures and to help answer the question "is it safe to fly?".

Air travel and COVID-19 prevention in the pandemic and peri-pandemic period: A narrative review.

Air travel during the COVID-19 pandemic is challenging for travellers, airlines, airports, health authorities, and governments. We reviewed multiple aspects of COVID peri-pandemic air travel, including data on traveller numbers, peri-flight prevention, and testing recommendations and in-flight SARS-CoV-2 transmission, photo-epidemiology of mask use, the pausing of air travel to mass gathering events, and quarantine measures and their effectiveness. Flights are reduced by 43% compared to 2019. Hygiene measures, mask use, and distancing are effective, while temperature screening has been shown to be unreliable. Although the risk of in-flight transmission is considered to be very low, estimated at one case per 27 million travellers, confirmed in-flight cases have been published. Some models exist and predict minimal risk but fail to consider human behavior and airline procedures variations. Despite aircraft high-efficiency filtering, there is some evidence that passengers within two rows of an index case are at higher risk. Air travel to mass gatherings should be avoided. Antigen testing is useful but impaired by time lag to results. Widespread application of solutions such as saliva-based, rapid testing or even detection with the help of "sniffer dogs" might be the way forward. The "traffic light system" for traveling, recently introduced by the Council of the European Union is a first step towards normalization of air travel. Quarantine of travellers may delay introduction or re-introduction of the virus, or may delay the peak of transmission, but the effect is small and there is limited evidence. New protocols detailing on-arrival, rapid testing and tracing are indicated to ensure that restricted movement is pragmatically implemented. Guidelines from airlines are non-transparent. Most airlines disinfect their flights and enforce wearing masks and social distancing to a certain degree. A layered approach of non-pharmaceutical interventions, screening and testing procedures, implementation and adherence to distancing, hygiene measures and mask use at airports, in-flight and throughout the entire journey together with pragmatic post-flight testing and tracing are all effective measures that can be implemented. Ongoing research and systematic review are indicated to provide evidence on the utility of preventive measures and to help answer the question "is it safe to fly?".

Implications of Obesity for the Management of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' characteristics, management, and outcomes in the critically ill population admitted to the ICU for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia causing an acute respiratory distress syndrome. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. SETTING: A 34-bed ICU of a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: The first 44 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients were compared with a historical control group of 39 consecutive acute respiratory distress syndrome patients admitted to the ICU just before the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Obesity was the most frequent comorbidity exhibited by coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n = 32, 73% vs n = 11, 28% in controls; p < 0.001). Despite the same severity of illness and level of hypoxemia at admission, coronavirus disease 2019 patients failed more high flow oxygen via nasal cannula challenges (n = 16, 100% vs n = 5, 45% in controls; p = 0.002), were more often intubated (n = 44, 100% vs n = 22, 56% in controls; p < 0.001) and paralyzed (n = 34, 77% vs n = 3, 14% in controls; p < 0.001), required higher level of positive end-expiratory pressure (15 vs 8 cm H2O in controls; p < 0.001), more prone positioning (n = 33, 75% vs n = 6, 27% in controls; p < 0.001), more dialysis (n = 16, 36% vs n = 3, 8% in controls; p = 0.003), more hemodynamic support by vasopressors (n = 36, 82% vs n = 22, 56% in controls; p = 0.001), and had more often a prolonged weaning from mechanical ventilation (n = 28, 64% vs n = 10, 26% in controls; p < 0.01) resulting in a more frequent resort to tracheostomy (n = 18, 40.9% vs n = 2, 9% in controls; p = 0.01). However, an intensive management requiring more staff per patient for positioning coronavirus disease 2019 subjects (6 [5-7] vs 5 [4-5] in controls; p < 0.001) yielded the same ICU survival rate in the two groups (n = 34, 77% vs n = 29, 74% in controls; p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: In its most severe form, coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia striked preferentially the vulnerable obese population, evolved toward a multiple organ failure, required prolonged mechanical ventilatory support, and resulted in a high workload for the caregivers.