Contextualising adverse events of special interest to characterise the baseline incidence rates in 24 million patients with COVID-19 across 26 databases: a multinational retrospective cohort study.

Background: Adverse events of special interest (AESIs) were pre-specified to be monitored for the COVID-19 vaccines. Some AESIs are not only associated with the vaccines, but with COVID-19. Our aim was to characterise the incidence rates of AESIs following SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients and compare these to historical rates in the general population. Methods: A multi-national cohort study with data from primary care, electronic health records, and insurance claims mapped to a common data model. This study's evidence was collected between Jan 1, 2017 and the conclusion of each database (which ranged from Jul 2020 to May 2022). The 16 pre-specified prevalent AESIs were: acute myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell's palsy, deep vein thrombosis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, encephalomyelitis, Guillain- Barré syndrome, haemorrhagic stroke, non-haemorrhagic stroke, immune thrombocytopenia, myocarditis/pericarditis, narcolepsy, pulmonary embolism, transverse myelitis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia. Age-sex standardised incidence rate ratios (SIR) were estimated to compare post-COVID-19 to pre-pandemic rates in each of the databases. Findings: Substantial heterogeneity by age was seen for AESI rates, with some clearly increasing with age but others following the opposite trend. Similarly, differences were also observed across databases for same health outcome and age-sex strata. All studied AESIs appeared consistently more common in the post-COVID-19 compared to the historical cohorts, with related meta-analytic SIRs ranging from 1.32 (1.05 to 1.66) for narcolepsy to 11.70 (10.10 to 13.70) for pulmonary embolism. Interpretation: Our findings suggest all AESIs are more common after COVID-19 than in the general population. Thromboembolic events were particularly common, and over 10-fold more so. More research is needed to contextualise post-COVID-19 complications in the longer term. Funding: None.

Intravenous fluid therapy in perioperative and critical care setting-Knowledge test and practice: An international cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: In the absence of recent international recommendations supported by scientific societies like Anesthesiology or Intensive Care Medicine, healthcare professionals (HCP) knowledge on IV fluid is expected to vary. We undertook a cross-sectional survey, aiming to assess prescription patterns and test the knowledge of HCP for IV fluid use in the operating room (OR) and intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: An online international cross-sectional survey was conducted between October 20, 2019, and November 27, 2021. The survey included multiple-choice questions on demographics, practice patterns and knowledge of IV fluids, and a hemodynamically unstable patient assessment. RESULTS: 1045 HCP, from 97 countries responded to the survey. Nearly three-quarters reported the non-existence of internal hospital or ICU-based guidelines on IV fluids. The respondents' mean score on the knowledge assessment questions was 46.4 ± 14.4. The cumulative mean scores were significantly higher among those supervising trainees (p = 0.02), specialists (p < 0.001) and those working in high-income (p < 0.001) countries. Overall performance of respondents on the knowledge testing for IV fluid was unsatisfactory with only 6.5% respondents performed above average. CONCLUSION: There is a wide difference in the knowledge and prescription of IV fluids among the HCP surveyed. These findings reflect the urgent need for education on IV fluids.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia in coronavirus 2019 disease, a retrospective monocentric cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Severe coronavirus 2019 disease (CoViD-19) may lead to respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation. Therefore, ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) may complicate the course of the disease. The aim of the current article was to investigate possible predictive factors for bacterial VAP on a retrospective manner, in a cohort of mechanically ventilated CoViD-19 patients. Additionally, determinant factors of lethality were analyzed. METHODS: Medical records of patients hospitalized in the intensive care units (ICU) at the university hospital UZ Brussel during the epidemic were reviewed. VAP was defined following the National Healthcare Safety Network 2017 criteria. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among the 39 patients included in the study, 54% were diagnosed with bacterial VAP. Case fatality rate was 44%, but 59% of the deceased patients had a do-not-resuscitate status. Multivariate logistic regression for prediction of VAP showed significant differences in duration of ICU hospitalization and in minimal lung compliance. Additional analyses were performed on CoViD-19 patients who were affected by bacterial respiratory superinfection. The responsible pathogens correspond to the commonly found bacteria in VAP. However, 71% of the isolated germs were multi-drug resistant and bacteraemia was reported in 38%. Multivariate analyses for prediction of lethality found significant difference in SOFA score. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanically ventilated CoViD-19 patients might frequently develop VAP. Longer ICU hospitalization was associated with pulmonary superinfection in the current cohort. Moreover, decreased minimal lung compliance was correlated to VAP and higher SOFA score at VAP diagnosis was associated with lethality.