SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk to healthcare workers performing tracheostomies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). This review aims to investigate the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) when tracheostomies are performed. METHODS: This systematic review used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework. Studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs involved in tracheostomy procedures were included. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies (between 01/11/2019 and 16/01/2022) reporting 3117 tracheostomy events were included, 45.9% (1430/3117) were performed surgically. The mean time from MV initiation to tracheostomy was 16.7 ± 7.9 days. Location of tracheostomy, personal protective equipment used, and anaesthesia technique varied between studies. The mean procedure duration was 14.1 ± 7.5 minutes; was statistically longer for percutaneous tracheostomies compared with surgical tracheostomies (mean duration 17.5 ± 7.0 versus 15.5 ± 5.6 minutes, p = 0.02). Across 5 out of 69 studies that reported 311 tracheostomies, 34 HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 23/34 (67.6%) were associated with percutaneous tracheostomies. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCWs performing or assisting with a tracheostomy procedure appeared to be low, with all reported transmissions occurring in 2020, prior to vaccinations and more recent strains of SARS-CoV-2. Transmissions may be higher with percutaneous tracheostomies. However, an accurate estimation of infection risk was not possible in the absence of the actual number of HCWs exposed to the risk during the procedure and the inability to control for multiple confounders related to variable timing, technique, and infection control practices.

Frailty and mortality associations in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational data during the pandemic have demonstrated mixed associations between frailty and mortality. AIM: To examine associations between frailty and short-term mortality in patients hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase and the COVID-19 living systematic review from 1 December 2019 to 15 July 2021. Studies reporting mortality and frailty scores in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (age ≥18 years) were included. Data on patient demographics, short-term mortality (in hospital or within 30 days), intensive care unit (ICU) admission and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies reporting 34 628 patients were included. Overall, 26.2% (n = 9061) died. Patients who died were older (76.7 ± 9.6 vs 69.2 ± 13.4), more likely male (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.11) and had more comorbidities. Fifty-eight percent of patients were frail. Adjusting for age, there was no difference in short-term mortality between frail and non-frail patients (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.84-1.28). The non-frail patients were commonly admitted to ICU (27.2% (4256/15639) vs 29.1% (3567/12274); P = 0.011) and had a higher mortality risk (RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.30-2.03) than frail patients. Among patients receiving IMV, there was no difference in mortality between frail and non-frail (RR = 1.62; 95% CI 0.93-2.77). CONCLUSION: This systematic review did not demonstrate an independent association between frailty status and short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19. Patients with frailty were less commonly admitted to ICU and non-frail patients were more likely to receive IMV and had higher mortality risk. This finding may be related to allocation decisions for patients with frailty amidst the pandemic.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of readmitted COVID-19 survivors.

The objective of the present study is to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients who were readmitted to hospital emergency departments or required re-hospitalisation following an index hospitalisation with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and pre-print websites was conducted between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Studies reporting on the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who represent or require hospital admission were included. Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. Data were synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Six studies reporting on 547 readmitted patients were included. The overall incidence was 4.4%, most common in males (57.2%), and due to respiratory distress or prolonged COVID-19. Readmitted patients had a shorter initial hospital length of stay (LOS) compared with those with a single hospitalisation (8.1 ± 10.6 vs 13.9 ± 10.2 days). The mean time to readmission was 7.6 ± 6.0 days; the mean LOS on re-hospitalisation was 6.3 ± 5.6 days. Hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69-2.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.38-2.27; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and chronic renal failure (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.09-5.14; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were more common in these patients. Intensive care admission rates were similar between the two groups; 12.8% (22/172) of readmitted patients died. In summary, readmitted patients following an index hospitalisation for COVID-19 were more commonly males with multiple comorbidities. Shorter initial hospital LOS and unresolved primary illness may have contributed to readmission.

Prone Positioning of Nonintubated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

A Systematic Review of the Incidence and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.

Personal protective equipment preparedness in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An Asia-Pacific follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections. OBJECTIVES: To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2. FINDINGS: Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.

Incidence and outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the COVID-19 era: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on pre-hospital and hospital services and hence on the prevalence and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) remain unclear. The review aimed to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence, process, and outcomes of OHCA. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and pre-print websites was performed. Studies reporting comparative data on OHCA within the same jurisdiction, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Study quality was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting data from 35,379 OHCA events were included. There was a 120% increase in OHCA events since the pandemic. Time from OHCA to ambulance arrival was longer during the pandemic (p = 0.036). While mortality (OR = 0.67, 95%-CI 0.49-0.91) and supraglottic airway use (OR = 0.36, 95%-CI 0.27-0.46) was higher during the pandemic, automated external defibrillator use (OR = 1.78 95%-CI 1.06-2.98), return of spontaneous circulation (OR = 1.63, 95%CI 1.18-2.26) and intubation (OR = 1.87, 95%-CI 1.12--3.13) was more common before the pandemic. More patients survived to hospital admission (OR = 1.75, 95%-CI 1.42-2.17) and discharge (OR = 1.65, 95%-CI 1.28-2.12) before the pandemic. Bystander CPR (OR = 1.18, 95%-CI 0.95-1.46), unwitnessed OHCA (OR = 0.84, 95%-CI 0.66-1.07), paramedic-resuscitation attempts (OR = 1.19 95%-CI 1.00-1.42) and mechanical CPR device use (OR = 1.57 95%-CI 0.55-4.55) did not defer significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and mortality following OHCA was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were significant variations in resuscitation practices during the pandemic. Research to define optimal processes of pre-hospital care during a pandemic is urgently required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020203371).

Case Fatality Rates for Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. A Meta-analysis.

Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable.Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV.Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the "reported CFR" for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. "Definitive hospital CFR" for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4-49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3-85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger's regression test suggesting no publication bias.Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies.Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997).