Six-Month Impairment in Cognition, Mental Health, and Physical Function Following COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure.

To determine the prevalence and extent of impairments impacting health-related quality of life among survivors of COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation, 6 months after hospital discharge. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective cohort study, enrolling adults 18 years old or older with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who received mechanical ventilation for 48 hours or more and survived to hospital discharge. Eligible patients were contacted 6 months after discharge for telephone-based interviews from March 2020 to December 2020. Assessments included: Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale-6, EuroQOL 5 domain quality-of-life questionnaire, and components of the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile. SETTING: Two tertiary academic health systems. PATIENTS: Of 173 eligible survivors, a random sample of 63 were contacted and 60 consented and completed interviews. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean age was 57 + 13 years and mean duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 14 + 8.2 days. Six months post-discharge, 48 patients (80%; 95% CI, 68-88%) met criteria for post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), with one or more domains impaired. Among patients with PICS, 28 (47%; 95% CI, 35-59%) were impaired in at least 2 domains, and 12 (20%; 95% CI, 12-32%) impaired in all three domains. Significant symptoms of post-traumatic stress were present in 20 patients (33%; 95% CI, 23-46%), anxiety in 23 (38%; 95% CI, 27-51%), and depression in 25 (42%; 95% CI, 30-54%). Thirty-three patients (55%; 95% CI, 42-67%) had impairments in physical activity; 25 patients (42%; 95% CI, 30-54%) demonstrated cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Eighty percent of COVID-19 survivors who required mechanical ventilation demonstrated PICS 6 months after hospital discharge. Patients were commonly impaired in multiple PICS domains as well as coexisting mental health domains.

Characteristics of Post-ICU and Post-COVID Recovery Clinics in 29 U.S. Health Systems

OBJECTIVES: The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%;physical, 69%;and cognitive, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.

The Fast Literature Assessment and Review (FLARE) Initiative. A Collaborative Effort for Timely Literature Appraisal during the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic.

The emergence and worldwide spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused major disruptions to the healthcare system and medical education. In response, the scientific community has been acquiring, releasing, and publishing data at a remarkable pace. At the same time, medical practitioners are taxed with greater professional duties than ever before, making it challenging to stay current with the influx of medical literature.To address the above mismatch between data release and provider capacity and to support our colleagues, physicians at the Massachusetts General Hospital have engaged in an electronic collaborative effort focused on rapid literature appraisal and dissemination regarding SARS-CoV-2 with a focus on critical care.Members of the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, the Division of Cardiology, and the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital established the Fast Literature Assessment and Review (FLARE) team. This group rapidly compiles, appraises, and synthesizes literature regarding SARS-CoV-2 as it pertains to critical care, relevant clinical questions, and anecdotal reports. Daily, FLARE produces and disseminates highly curated scientific reviews and opinion pieces, which are distributed to readers using an online newsletter platform.Interest in our work has escalated rapidly. FLARE was quickly shared with colleagues outside our division, and, in a short time, our audience has grown to include more than 4,000 readers across the globe.Creating a collaborative group with a variety of expertise represents a feasible and acceptable way of rapidly appraising, synthesizing, and communicating scientific evidence directly to frontline clinicians in this time of great need.

Transpulmonary pressure measurements and lung mechanics in patients with early ARDS and SARS-CoV-2.

PURPOSE: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) secondary to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has demonstrated variable oxygenation and respiratory-system mechanics without investigation of transpulmonary and chest-wall mechanics. This study describes lung, chest wall and respiratory-system mechanics in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and ARDS. METHODS: Data was collected from forty patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and ARDS at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. Esophageal balloons were placed to estimate pleural and transpulmonary pressures. Clinical characteristics, respiratory-system, transpulmonary, and chest-wall mechanics were measured over the first week. RESULTS: Patients had moderate-severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 123[98-149]) and were critically ill (APACHE IV 108 [94-128] and SOFA 12 [11-13]). PaO2/FiO2 improved over the first week (150 mmHg [122.9-182] to 185 mmHg [138-228] (p = 0.035)). Respiratory system (30-35 ml/cm H2O), lung (40-50 ml/cm H2O) and chest wall (120-150 ml/cm H2O) compliance remained similar over the first week. Elevated basal pleural pressures correlated with BMI. Patients required prolonged mechanical ventilation (14.5 days [9.5-19.0]), with a mortality of 32.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients displayed normal chest-wall mechanics, with increased basal pleural pressure. Respiratory system and lung mechanics were similar to known existing ARDS cohorts. The wide range of respiratory system mechanics illustrates the inherent heterogeneity that is consistent with typical ARDS.

Lung Histopathology in Coronavirus Disease 2019 as Compared With Severe Acute Respiratory Sydrome and H1N1 Influenza: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have respiratory failure with hypoxemia and acute bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, consistent with ARDS. Respiratory failure in COVID-19 might represent a novel pathologic entity. RESEARCH QUESTION: How does the lung histopathology described in COVID-19 compare with the lung histopathology described in SARS and H1N1 influenza? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to characterize the lung histopathologic features of COVID-19 and compare them against findings of other recent viral pandemics, H1N1 influenza and SARS. We systematically searched MEDLINE and PubMed for studies published up to June 24, 2020, using search terms for COVID-19, H1N1 influenza, and SARS with keywords for pathology, biopsy, and autopsy. Using PRISMA-Individual Participant Data guidelines, our systematic review analysis included 26 articles representing 171 COVID-19 patients; 20 articles representing 287 H1N1 patients; and eight articles representing 64 SARS patients. RESULTS: In COVID-19, acute-phase diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) was reported in 88% of patients, which was similar to the proportion of cases with DAD in both H1N1 (90%) and SARS (98%). Pulmonary microthrombi were reported in 57% of COVID-19 and 58% of SARS patients, as compared with 24% of H1N1 influenza patients. INTERPRETATION: DAD, the histologic correlate of ARDS, is the predominant histopathologic pattern identified in lung pathology from patients with COVID-19, H1N1 influenza, and SARS. Microthrombi were reported more frequently in both patients with COVID-19 and SARS as compared with H1N1 influenza. Future work is needed to validate this histopathologic finding and, if confirmed, elucidate the mechanistic underpinnings and characterize any associations with clinically important outcomes.

Evidence-Based Management of the Critically Ill Adult With SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Human infection by the novel viral pathogen SARS-CoV-2 results in a clinical syndrome termed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although the majority of COVID-19 cases are self-limiting, a substantial minority of patients develop disease severe enough to require intensive care. Features of critical illness associated with COVID-19 include hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), shock, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). In most (but not all) respects critically ill patients with COVID-19 resemble critically ill patients with ARDS due to other causes and are optimally managed with standard, evidence-based critical care protocols. However, there is naturally an intense interest in developing specific therapies for severe COVID-19. Here we synthesize the rapidly expanding literature around the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and management of COVID-19 with a focus on those points most relevant for intensivists tasked with caring for these patients. We specifically highlight evidence-based approaches that we believe should guide the identification, triage, respiratory support, and general ICU care of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. In addition, in light of the pressing need and growing enthusiasm for targeted COVID-19 therapies, we review the biological basis, plausibility, and clinical evidence underlying these novel treatment approaches.