Practice Changes Among Patients Without COVID-19 Receiving Mechanical Ventilation During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid changes in care delivery for critically ill patients, due to factors including increased numbers of ICU patients, shifting staff roles, and changed care locations. As these changes may have impacted the care of patients without COVID-19, we assessed changes in common ICU practices for mechanically ventilated patients with non-COVID acute respiratory failure at the onset of and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis, adjusted for seasonality and autocorrelation where present, evaluating trends in common ICU practices prior to the pandemic (March 2016 to February 2020), at the onset of the pandemic (April 2020) and intra-pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020). SETTING: Premier Healthcare Database, containing data from 25% of U.S. discharges from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. PATIENTS: Patients without COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed monthly rates of chest radiograph (CXR), chest CT scans, lower extremity noninvasive vascular testing (LENI), bronchoscopy, arterial catheters, and central venous catheters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 742,096 mechanically ventilated patients without COVID-19 at 545 hospitals. At the onset of the pandemic, CXR (-0.5% [-0.9% to -0.2%; p = 0.001]), LENI (LENI: -2.1% [-3.3% to -0.9%; p = 0.001]), and bronchoscopy rates (-1.0% [-1.5% to -0.6%; p < 0.001]) decreased; use of chest CT increased (1.5% [0.5-2.5%; p = 0.006]). Use of arterial lines and central venous catheters did not change significantly. Intra-pandemic, LENI (0.5% [0.3-0.7%; p < 0.001]/mo) and bronchoscopy (0.1% [0.05-0.2%; p < 0.001]/mo) trends increased relative to pre-pandemic trends, while the remainder of practices did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: We observed several statistically significant changes to practice patterns among patients without COVID-19 early during the pandemic. However, most of the changes were small or temporary, suggesting that routine practices in the care of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU was not drastically affected by the pandemic.

Inhaled Nitric Oxide vs Epoprostenol During Acute Respiratory Failure: An Observational Target Trial Emulation.

BACKGROUND: The inhaled vasodilators nitric oxide and epoprostenol may be initiated to improve oxygenation in mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory failure (ARF); however, practice patterns and head-to-head comparisons of effectiveness are unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the practice patterns and comparative effectiveness for inhaled nitric oxide and epoprostenol in severe ARF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a large US database (Premier Healthcare Database), we identified adult patients with ARF or ARDS who were mechanically ventilated and started on inhaled nitric oxide, epoprostenol, or both. Leveraging large hospital variation in the choice of initial inhaled vasodilator, we compared the effectiveness of inhaled nitric oxide with that of epoprostenol by limiting analysis to patients admitted to hospitals that exclusively used either inhaled nitric oxide or epoprostenol. The primary outcome of successful extubation was modeled using multivariate Fine-Grey competing risk (death or hospice discharge) time-to-event models. RESULTS: Among 11,200 patients (303 hospitals), 6,366 patients (56.8%) received inhaled nitric oxide first, 4,720 patients (42.1%) received inhaled epoprostenol first, and 114 patients (1.0%) received both therapies on the same day. One hundred four hospitals (34.3%; 1,666 patients) exclusively used nitric oxide and 118 hospitals (38.9%; 1,812 patients) exclusively used epoprostenol. No differences were found in the likelihood of successful extubation between patients admitted to nitric oxide-only hospitals vs those admitted to epoprostenol-only hospitals (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18). Also no differences were found in total hospital costs or death. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: Large variation exists in the use of initial inhaled vasodilator for respiratory failure across US hospitals. Comparative effectiveness analyses identified no differences in outcomes based on inhaled vasodilator type.