Angiopoietin-Like4 Is a Novel Marker of COVID-19 Severity.

Vascular dysfunction and capillary leak are common in critically ill COVID-19 patients, but identification of endothelial pathways involved in COVID-19 pathogenesis has been limited. Angiopoietin-like 4 (ANGPTL4) is a protein secreted in response to hypoxic and nutrient-poor conditions that has a variety of biological effects including vascular injury and capillary leak. OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of ANGPTL4 in COVID-19-related outcomes. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred twenty-five COVID-19 ICU patients were enrolled from April 2020 to May 2021 in a prospective, multicenter cohort study from three different medical centers, University of Washington, University of Southern California and New York University. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Plasma ANGPTL4 was measured on days 1, 7, and 14 after ICU admission. We used previously published tissue proteomic data and lung single nucleus RNA (snRNA) sequencing data from specimens collected from COVID-19 patients to determine the tissues and cells that produce ANGPTL4. RESULTS: Higher plasma ANGPTL4 concentrations were significantly associated with worse hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio per log2 increase, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-2.00; p = 0.002). Higher ANGPTL4 concentrations were also associated with higher proportions of venous thromboembolism and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Longitudinal ANGPTL4 concentrations were significantly different during the first 2 weeks of hospitalization in patients who subsequently died compared with survivors (p for interaction = 8.1 × 10-5). Proteomics analysis demonstrated abundance of ANGPTL4 in lung tissue compared with other organs in COVID-19. ANGPTL4 single-nuclear RNA gene expression was significantly increased in pulmonary alveolar type 2 epithelial cells and fibroblasts in COVID-19 lung tissue compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ANGPTL4 is expressed in pulmonary epithelial cells and fibroblasts and is associated with clinical prognosis in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Perceived Hospital Stress, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Activity, and Care Process Temporal Variance During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened standard hospital operations. We sought to understand how this stress was perceived and manifested within individual hospitals and in relation to local viral activity. DESIGN: Prospective weekly hospital stress survey, November 2020-June 2022. SETTING: Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Thirteen hospitals across seven U.S. health systems. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 839 hospital-weeks of data over 85 pandemic weeks and five viral surges. Perceived overall hospital, ICU, and emergency department (ED) stress due to severe acute respiratory infection patients during the pandemic were reported by a mean of 43% ( sd , 36%), 32% (30%), and 14% (22%) of hospitals per week, respectively, and perceived care deviations in a mean of 36% (33%). Overall hospital stress was highly correlated with ICU stress (ρ = 0.82; p < 0.0001) but only moderately correlated with ED stress (ρ = 0.52; p < 0.0001). A county increase in 10 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cases per 100,000 residents was associated with an increase in the odds of overall hospital, ICU, and ED stress by 9% (95% CI, 5-12%), 7% (3-10%), and 4% (2-6%), respectively. During the Delta variant surge, overall hospital stress persisted for a median of 11.5 weeks (interquartile range, 9-14 wk) after local case peak. ICU stress had a similar pattern of resolution (median 11 wk [6-14 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.59) while the resolution of ED stress (median 6 wk [5-6 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.003) was earlier. There was a similar but attenuated pattern during the Omicron BA.1 subvariant surge. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived care deviations were common and potentially avoidable patient harm was rare. Perceived hospital stress persisted for weeks after surges peaked.

Wellness and Coping of Physicians Who Worked in ICUs During the Pandemic: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional North American Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments. SETTING: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States. SUBJECTS: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.

Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness: Protocol for a Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study of Viral Respiratory Infections.

Respiratory virus infections cause significant morbidity and mortality ranging from mild uncomplicated acute respiratory illness to severe complications, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, and death during epidemics and pandemics. We present a protocol to systematically study patients with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI), including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, due to respiratory viral pathogens to evaluate the natural history, prognostic biomarkers, and characteristics, including hospital stress, associated with clinical outcomes and severity. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Multicenter cohort of patients admitted to an acute care ward or ICU from at least 15 hospitals representing diverse geographic regions across the United States. PATIENTS: Patients with SARI caused by infection with respiratory viruses that can cause outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements include patient demographics, signs, symptoms, and medications; microbiology, imaging, and associated tests; mechanical ventilation, hospital procedures, and other interventions; and clinical outcomes and hospital stress, with specimens collected on days 0, 3, and 7-14 after enrollment and at discharge. The primary outcome measure is the number of consecutive days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (VFD) in the first 30 days after hospital admission. Important secondary outcomes include organ failure-free days before acute kidney injury, shock, hepatic failure, disseminated intravascular coagulation, 28-day mortality, adaptive immunity, as well as immunologic and microbiologic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SARI-Preparedness is a multicenter study under the collaboration of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery, Resilience Intelligence Network, and National Emerging Special Pathogen Training and Education Center, which seeks to improve understanding of prognostic factors associated with worse outcomes and increased resource utilization. This can lead to interventions to mitigate the clinical impact of respiratory virus infections associated with SARI.

HOSPITAL STRESS AND CARE PROCESS TEMPORAL VARIANCE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN THE U.S

The survey assessed hospital stress ordinally and also assessed ED and ICU stress and deviations from standard operating procedures. During one December 2020 week, hospital stress, ICU stress, and care deviations were all present at 100% of reporting sites. B Introduction: b Hospitals experienced substantial stress during the COVID-19 pandemic - threats to standard operations - but it is not well known how this stress manifested at individual hospitals. [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.)

A dynamic, D-dimer-based thromboprophylaxis strategy in patients with COVID-19

Background While Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) during hospitalization despite prophylactic anticoagulation, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for dose escalation of anticoagulation for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods This single-center retrospective cohort study was part of a quality improvement program evaluating safety and efficacy of anticoagulation protocols at our large, metropolitan public hospital. We implemented a D-dimer-based guideline for dosing unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in COVID-19 hospitalized patients that allowed for up-titration from standard prophylactic dosing to escalated prophylactic dosing or therapeutic dosing based on patient risk and presence of known or highly suspected VTE. Primary endpoints were International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)-defined major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) events and in-hospital survival. Findings Among 262 COVID-19-infected patients hospitalized between March 15th and June 15th, 2020, 125 (73.1%) were male. Highest anticoagulation dose was: 65.3% prophylactic, 13.4% escalated prophylactic, 21.4% therapeutic. The dose was uptitrated in 83 (31.6%) patients. Bleeding events were comparable between the therapeutic (12.5%) and escalated prophylactic groups (11.4%), but significantly higher than in the prophylactic group (1.2%). In-hospital survival at 28 days was superior among patients whose anticoagulation was uptitrated to either escalated prophylactic or therapeutic (77.6%), compared to those receiving fixed prophylactic (56.7%) or fixed therapeutic (26.7%) dosing (p = 0.001). Conclusion A dynamic, D-dimer based dose escalation of anticoagulation for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 may improve in-hospital mortality without increasing fatal bleeding.

Updated guidance on the management of COVID-19: from an American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society coordinated International Task Force (29 July 2020).

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2. Consensus suggestions can standardise care, thereby improving outcomes and facilitating future research. METHODS: An International Task Force was composed and agreement regarding courses of action was measured using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. 70% agreement was necessary to make a consensus suggestion. RESULTS: The Task Force made consensus suggestions to treat patients with acute COVID-19 pneumonia with remdesivir and dexamethasone but suggested against hydroxychloroquine except in the context of a clinical trial; these are revisions of prior suggestions resulting from the interim publication of several randomised trials. It also suggested that COVID-19 patients with a venous thromboembolic event be treated with therapeutic anticoagulant therapy for 3 months. The Task Force was unable to reach sufficient agreement to yield consensus suggestions for the post-hospital care of COVID-19 survivors. The Task Force fell one vote shy of suggesting routine screening for depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSIONS: The Task Force addressed questions related to pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID-19 and the post-hospital care of survivors, yielding several consensus suggestions. Management options for which there is insufficient agreement to formulate a suggestion represent research priorities.