Critical Care Pandemic Preparation: Considerations and Lessons Learned from COVID-19.

Pandemics, increases in disease incidence that affect multiple regions of the world, present huge challenges to health care systems and in particular to policymakers, public health authorities, clinicians, and all health care workers (HCWs). The recent COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in millions of severely ill patients, many of whom who have required hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The discipline of critical care is a vital and integral component of pandemic preparedness. Safe and effective critical care has the potential to improve outcomes, motivate individuals to seek timely medical attention, and attenuate the devastating sequelae of a severe pandemic. To achieve this, suitable critical care planning and preparation are essential.

COVID-19 and Sepsis

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a major alteration in the medical literature including the sepsis discussion. From the outset of the pandemic, various reports have indicated that although there are some unique features pertinent to COVID-19, many of its acute manifestations are similar to sepsis caused by other pathogens. As a consequence, the old definitions now require consideration of this new etiologic agent, namely SARS-CoV-2. Although the pathogenesis of COVID-19 has not been fully explained, the data obtained so far in hospitalized patients has revealed that serum cytokine and chemokine levels are high in severe COVID-19 patients, similar to those found with sepsis. COVID-19 may involve multiple organ systems. In addition to the lungs, the virus has been isolated from blood, urine, faeces, liver, and gallbladder. Results from autopsy series in COVID-19 patients have demonstrated a wide range of findings, including vascular involvement, congestion, consolidation, and hemorrhage as well as diffuse alveolar damage in lung tissue consistent with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The presence of viral cytopathic-like changes, infiltration of inflammatory cells (mononuclear cells and macrophages), and viral particles in histopathological samples are considered a consequence of both direct viral infection and immune hyperactivation. Thromboembolism and hyper-coagulopathy are other components in the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19. Although the pathogenesis of hypercoagulability is not fully understood, it has been pointed out that all three components of Virchow's triad (endothelial injury, stasis, and hypercoagulable state) play a major role in contributing to clot formation in severe COVID-19 infection. In severe COVID-19 cases, laboratory parameters such as hematological findings, coagulation tests, liver function tests, D-dimer, ferritin, and acute phase reactants such as CRP show marked alterations, which are suggestive of a cytokine storm. Another key element of COVID-19 pathogenesis in severe cases is its similarity or association with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). SARS-CoV-2 induced cytokine storm has significant clinical and laboratory findings overlapping with HLH. Viral sepsis has some similarities but also some differences when compared to bacterial sepsis. In bacterial sepsis, systemic inflammation affecting multiple organs is more dominant than in COVID-19 sepsis. While bacterial sepsis causes an early and sudden onset clinical deterioration, viral diseases may exhibit a relatively late onset and chronic course. Consideration of severe COVID-19 disease as a sepsis syndrome has relevance and may assist in terms of determining treatments that will modulate the immune response, limit intrinsic damage to tissue and organs, and potentially improve outcome.

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has seen a global surge in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and stress. AIMS: This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with COVID-19, their family, health professionals, and the general public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. METHODS: A secondary thematic analysis was conducted using data from the COVID-19 COS project. We extracted data on the perceived causes and impact of COVID-19 on mental health from an international survey and seven online consensus workshops. RESULTS: We identified four themes (with subthemes in parenthesis): anxiety amidst uncertainty (always on high alert, ebb and flow of recovery); anguish of a threatened future (intense frustration of a changed normality, facing loss of livelihood, trauma of ventilation, a troubling prognosis, confronting death); bearing responsibility for transmission (fear of spreading COVID-19 in public; overwhelming guilt of infecting a loved one); and suffering in isolation (severe solitude of quarantine, sick and alone, separation exacerbating grief). CONCLUSION: We found that the unpredictability of COVID-19, the fear of long-term health consequences, burden of guilt, and suffering in isolation profoundly impacted mental health. Clinical and public health interventions are needed to manage the psychological consequences arising from this pandemic.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Comparison of outcomes in HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: South Africa has the highest prevalence of HIV in the world and to date has recorded the highest number of cases of COVID-19 in Africa. There is uncertainty as to what the significance of this dual infection is, and whether people living with HIV (PLWH) have worse outcomes compared to HIV-negative patients with COVID-19. This study compared the outcomes of COVID-19 in a group of HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients admitted to a tertiary referral centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. METHODS: Data was collected on all adult patients with known HIV status and COVID-19, confirmed by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), admitted to the medical wards and intensive care unit (ICU) between 6 March and 11 September 2020. The data included demographics, co-morbidities, laboratory results, severity of illness scores, complications and mortality, and comparisons were made between the HIV-positive and HIV negative groups. RESULTS: Three-hundred and eighty-four patients, 108 HIV-positive and 276 HIV-negative, were included in the study. Median 4C score was significantly higher in the HIV-positive patients compared to the HIV-negative patients, but there was no significant difference in mortality between the HIV-positive and HIV-negative groups (15% vs 20%, p = 0.31). In addition, HIV-positive patients who died were younger than their HIV-negative counterparts, but this was not statistically significant (47.5 vs 57 years, p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that HIV is not a risk factor for moderate or severe COVID-19 disease neither is it a risk factor for mortality. However, HIV-positive patients with COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital are more likely to be younger than their HIV-negative counterparts. These findings need to be confirmed in future, prospective, studies.

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.

Toward Respiratory Support of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Using Repurposed Kidney Hollow Fiber Membrane Dialysers to Oxygenate the Blood.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted resource constraints in respiratory support. The oxygen transfer characteristics of a specific hollow fiber membrane dialyser was investigated with a view to repurposing the device as a low-cost, readily available blood oxygenator. Oxygen transfer in a low-flux hollow fiber dialyser with a polysulfone membrane was studied by passing first water and then blood through the dialyser in countercurrent to high-purity oxygen. Oxygen transfer rates of about 15% of the nominal 250 ml (STP)/min of a typical adult oxygen consumption rate were achieved for blood flow rates of 500 ml/min. Using two such dialysis devices in parallel could provide up to 30% of the nominal oxygen consumption. Specific hollow fiber dialysis devices operating with suitable pumps in a veno-venous access configuration could provide a cost-effective and readily available supplementation of respiratory support in the face of severe resource constraints.

Core Outcome Measures for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019: Respiratory Failure, Multiorgan Failure, Shortness of Breath, and Recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, recovery, and mortality have been identified as critically important core outcomes by more than 9300 patients, health professionals, and the public from 111 countries in the global coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set initiative. The aim of this project was to establish the core outcome measures for these domains for trials in coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Three online consensus workshops were convened to establish outcome measures for the four core domains of respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery. SETTING: International. PATIENTS: About 130 participants (patients, public, and health professionals) from 17 countries attended the three workshops. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respiratory failure, assessed by the need for respiratory support based on the World Health Organization Clinical Progression Scale, was considered pragmatic, objective, and with broad applicability to various clinical scenarios. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was recommended for multiple organ failure, because it was routinely used in trials and clinical care, well validated, and feasible. The Modified Medical Research Council measure for shortness of breath, with minor adaptations (recall period of 24 hr to capture daily fluctuations and inclusion of activities to ensure relevance and to capture the extreme severity of shortness of breath in people with coronavirus disease 2019), was regarded as fit for purpose for this indication. The recovery measure was developed de novo and defined as the absence of symptoms, resumption of usual daily activities, and return to the previous state of health prior to the illness, using a 5-point Likert scale, and was endorsed. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 core outcome set recommended core outcome measures have content validity and are considered the most feasible and acceptable among existing measures. Implementation of the core outcome measures in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 will ensure consistency and relevance of the evidence to inform decision-making and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Core Outcomes Set for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The outcomes reported in trials in coronavirus disease 2019 are extremely heterogeneous and of uncertain patient relevance, limiting their applicability for clinical decision-making. The aim of this workshop was to establish a core outcomes set for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Four international online multistakeholder consensus workshops were convened to discuss proposed core outcomes for trials in people with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, informed by a survey involving 9,289 respondents from 111 countries. The transcripts were analyzed thematically. The workshop recommendations were used to finalize the core outcomes set. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: Six themes were identified. "Responding to the critical and acute health crisis" reflected the immediate focus on saving lives and preventing life-threatening complications that underpinned the high prioritization of mortality, respiratory failure, and multiple organ failure. "Capturing different settings of care" highlighted the need to minimize the burden on hospitals and to acknowledge outcomes in community settings. "Encompassing the full trajectory and severity of disease" was addressing longer term impacts and the full spectrum of illness (e.g. shortness of breath and recovery). "Distinguishing overlap, correlation and collinearity" meant recognizing that symptoms such as shortness of breath had distinct value and minimizing overlap (e.g. lung function and pneumonia were on the continuum toward respiratory failure). "Recognizing adverse events" refers to the potential harms of new and evolving interventions. "Being cognizant of family and psychosocial wellbeing" reflected the pervasive impacts of coronavirus disease 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, respiratory failure, multiple organ failure, shortness of breath, and recovery are critically important outcomes to be consistently reported in coronavirus disease 2019 trials.

International Survey to Establish Prioritized Outcomes for Trials in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: There are over 4,000 trials conducted in people with coronavirus disease 2019. However, the variability of outcomes and the omission of patient-centered outcomes may diminish the impact of these trials on decision-making. The aim of this study was to generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of outcomes for coronavirus disease 2019 trials. DESIGN: In an online survey conducted in English, Chinese, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish languages, adults with coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, health professionals, and the general public rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale (7-9, critical importance) and completed a Best-Worst Scale to estimate relative importance. Participant comments were analyzed thematically. SETTING: International. SUBJECTS: Adults 18 years old and over with confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019, their family members, members of the general public, and health professionals (including clinicians, policy makers, regulators, funders, and researchers). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: None. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 9,289 participants from 111 countries (776 people with coronavirus disease 2019 or family members, 4,882 health professionals, and 3,631 members of the public) completed the survey. The four outcomes of highest priority for all three groups were: mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and organ failure. Lung function, lung scarring, sepsis, shortness of breath, and oxygen level in the blood were common to the top 10 outcomes across all three groups (mean > 7.5, median ≥ 8, and > 70% of respondents rated the outcome as critically important). Patients/family members rated fatigue, anxiety, chest pain, muscle pain, gastrointestinal problems, and cardiovascular disease higher than health professionals. Four themes underpinned prioritization: fear of life-threatening, debilitating, and permanent consequences; addressing knowledge gaps; enabling preparedness and planning; and tolerable or infrequent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life-threatening respiratory and other organ outcomes were consistently highly prioritized by all stakeholder groups. Patients/family members gave higher priority to many patient-reported outcomes compared with health professionals.