Outcomes Associated With Intensive Care and Organ Support Among Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate accounting of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care outcomes has important implications for health care delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: We aimed to determine critical care and organ support outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients and whether they varied depending on the completeness of study follow-up or admission time period. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports describing ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mortality. A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.We included English language observational studies of COVID-19 patients, reporting ICU admission, MV, and ICU case fatality, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. We excluded reports of less than 5 ICU patients and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and outcomes were extracted from each article. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed based on the admission end date and the completeness of data. RESULTS: Of 6,778 generated articles, 145 were retained for inclusion (n = 60,357 patients). Case fatality rates across all studies were 34.0% (95% CI = 30.7%, 37.5%, P < 0.001) for ICU deaths, 47.9% (95% CI = 41.6%, 54.2%, P < 0.001) for MV deaths, 58.7% (95% CI = 50.0%, 67.2%, P < 0.001) for RRT deaths, and 43.3% (95% CI = 31.4%, 55.4%, P < 0.001) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation deaths. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU and organ support outcomes between studies with complete follow-up versus studies without complete follow-up. Case fatality rates for ICU, MV, and RRT deaths were significantly higher in studies with patients admitted before April 31st 2020. INTERPRETATION: Coronavirus disease 2019 critical care outcomes have significantly improved since the start of the pandemic. Intensive care unit outcomes should be evaluated contextually (study quality, data completeness, and time) for the most accurate reporting and to effectively guide mortality predictions.

Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With COVID-19: A Brief Update to the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 often exhibit markers of a hypercoagulable state and have an increased incidence of VTE. In response, CHEST issued rapid clinical guidance regarding prevention of VTE. Over the past 18 months the quality of the evidence has improved. We thus sought to incorporate this evidence and update our recommendations as necessary. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This update focuses on the optimal approach to thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. The original questions were used to guide the search, using MEDLINE via PubMed. Eight randomized controlled trials and one observational study were included. Meta-analysis, using a random effects model, was performed. The panel created summaries using the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision framework. Updated guidance statements were drafted, and a modified Delphi approach was used to obtain consensus. RESULTS: We provide separate guidance statements for VTE prevention for hospitalized patients with acute (moderate) illness and critically ill patients in the ICU. However, we divided each original question and resulting recommendation into two questions: standard prophylaxis vs therapeutic (or escalated dose) prophylaxis and standard prophylaxis vs intermediate dose prophylaxis. This led to a change in one recommendation, and an upgrading of three additional recommendations based upon higher quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Advances in care for patients with COVID-19 have improved overall outcomes. Despite this, rates of VTE in these patients remain elevated. Critically ill patients should receive standard thromboprophylaxis for VTE, and moderately ill patients with a low bleeding risk might benefit from therapeutic heparin. We see no role for intermediate dose thromboprophylaxis in either setting.

7-Year Experience with Automated Pupillometry and Direct Integration With the Hospital Electronic Medical Record.

INTRODUCTION: Manual pupillary assessments are an integral part of the neurologic evaluation in critically ill patients. Automated pupillometry provides reliable, consistent, and accurate measurement of the light response. We established a computer interface that allows for direct download of pupillometer information to our hospital electronic medical record (EMR). Here, we report our single-center experience. METHODS: An interface allowing direct download of pupillometer data to our EMR was developed. We then performed a prospective study using an electronic survey distributed to nurses that used pupillometers in 2015, 2018, and 2020 using a 5-point Likert-style format to evaluate the acceptance of this implementation. RESULTS: In 2015, 22 nurses were surveyed, with 50% of the respondents citing lack of pupillometers and 41% citing the labor intensity associated with data entry as the reason for the reluctance to use the pupillometer. The number of nurse responses in 2018 increased to 123, with 78% of nurses finding that the direct download to hospital EMR improved the efficiency of their neurologic exams. In 2020, 108 nurses responded with similar responses to those in 2018. We added 3 additional questions regarding utility of the pupillometer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifty-eight percent of nurses were reassured of the neurologic exam when using the pupillometer in lieu of a full exam to limit infectious exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of the implementation of a direct interface to download pupillometer data to the EMR. The positive effect on nursing workflow and documentation of pupillary findings is discussed.

Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of VTE in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence shows that severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be complicated by a significant coagulopathy, that likely manifests in the form of both microthrombosis and VTE. This recognition has led to the urgent need for practical guidance regarding prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE. METHODS: A group of approved panelists developed key clinical questions by using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) format that addressed urgent clinical questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of VTE in patients with COVID-19. MEDLINE (via PubMed or Ovid), Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials were systematically searched for relevant literature, and references were screened for inclusion. Validated evaluation tools were used to grade the level of evidence to support each recommendation. When evidence did not exist, guidance was developed based on consensus using the modified Delphi process. RESULTS: The systematic review and critical analysis of the literature based on 13 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions resulted in 22 statements. Very little evidence exists in the COVID-19 population. The panel thus used expert consensus and existing evidence-based guidelines to craft the guidance statements. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the optimal strategies to prevent, diagnose, and treat VTE in patients with COVID-19 is sparse but rapidly evolving.