Impact of COVID-19 on Nonpulmonary Critical Illness: Prevalence, Clinical Manifestations, Management, and Outcomes.

Although respiratory manifestations are the most common driver of hospitalization, SARS-CoV-2 infection has a wide range of manifestations, including multisystem organ failure in severe cases. This review discusses the prevalence, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, treatment, and outcomes of nonpulmonary organ dysfunction from SARS-CoV2, including renal, liver, cardiac, neurologic, and coagulation system dysfunction. At this time, management largely focuses on supportive care practices that are applicable regardless of the cause of organ injury.

Neurologic Manifestations and Complications of COVID-19.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has created a global pandemic. Beyond the well-described respiratory manifestations, SARS-CoV-2 may cause a variety of neurologic complications, including headaches, alteration in taste and smell, encephalopathy, cerebrovascular disease, myopathy, psychiatric diseases, and ocular disorders. Herein we describe SARS-CoV-2's mechanism of neuroinvasion and the epidemiology, outcomes, and treatments for neurologic manifestations of COVID-19.

Psychological Morbidity After COVID-19 Critical Illness.

Survivors of ICU hospitalizations often experience severe and debilitating symptoms long after critical illness has resolved. Many patients experience notable psychiatric sequelae such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that may persist for months to years after discharge. The COVID-19 pandemic has produced large numbers of critical illness survivors, warranting deeper understanding of psychological morbidity after COVID-19 critical illness. Many patients with critical illness caused by COVID-19 experience substantial post-ICU psychological sequelae mediated by specific pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational risk factors. Existing and novel interventions focused on minimizing psychiatric morbidity need to be further investigated to improve critical care survivorship after COVID-19 illness. This review proposes a framework to conceptualize three domains of risk factors (pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational) associated with psychological morbidity caused by COVID-19 critical illness: (1) direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 virus in the brain; (2) iatrogenic complications of ICU care that may disproportionately affect patients with COVID-19; and (3) social isolation that may worsen psychological morbidity. In addition, we review current interventions to minimize psychological complications after critical illness.

Dispensing of Ivermectin From Veterans Administration Pharmacies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This cohort study compares changes in ivermectin dispensing during the COVID-19 pandemic between the Veterans Administration (VA) and retail pharmacy settings and examines the association of the VA national formulary restriction with ivermectin dispensing.

Derivation and external validation of a simple risk score to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 continues to spread, easy-to-use risk models that predict hospital mortality can assist in clinical decision making and triage. We aimed to develop a risk score model for in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) that was robust across hospitals and used clinical factors that are readily available and measured standardly across hospitals.In this retrospective observational study, we developed a risk score model using data collected by trained abstractors for patients in 20 diverse hospitals across the state of Michigan (Mi-COVID19) who were discharged between March 5, 2020 and August 14, 2020. Patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 during hospitalization or were discharged with an ICD-10 code for COVID-19 (U07.1) were included. We employed an iterative forward selection approach to consider the inclusion of 145 potential risk factors available at hospital presentation. Model performance was externally validated with patients from 19 hospitals in the Mi-COVID19 registry not used in model development. We shared the model in an easy-to-use online application that allows the user to predict in-hospital mortality risk for a patient if they have any subset of the variables in the final model.Two thousand one hundred and ninety-three patients in the Mi-COVID19 registry met our inclusion criteria. The derivation and validation sets ultimately included 1690 and 398 patients, respectively, with mortality rates of 19.6% and 18.6%, respectively. The average age of participants in the study after exclusions was 64 years old, and the participants were 48% female, 49% Black, and 87% non-Hispanic. Our final model includes the patient's age, first recorded respiratory rate, first recorded pulse oximetry, highest creatinine level on day of presentation, and hospital's COVID-19 mortality rate. No other factors showed sufficient incremental model improvement to warrant inclusion. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the derivation and validation sets were .796 (95% confidence interval, .767-.826) and .829 (95% confidence interval, .782-.876) respectively.We conclude that the risk of in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients can be reliably estimated using a few factors, which are standardly measured and available to physicians very early in a hospital encounter.

Psychological Morbidity After COVID-19 Critical Illness

Topic Importance Survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalizations often experience severe and debilitating symptoms long after critical illness has resolved. Many patients experience notable psychiatric sequelae such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that may persist for months to years after discharge. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has produced large numbers of critical illness survivors, warranting deeper understanding of psychological morbidity after COVID-19 critical illness. Review Findings Many patients with critical illness due to COVID-19 experience substantial post-ICU psychological sequelae mediated by specific pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational risk factors. Existing and novel interventions focused on minimizing psychiatric morbidity need to be further investigated in order to improve critical care survivorship after COVID-19 illness. Summary This review proposes a framework to conceptualize three domains of risk factors (pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational) associated with psychological morbidity due to COVID-19 critical illness: (1) direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 virus in the brain;(2) iatrogenic complications of ICU care which may disproportionately affect patients with COVID-19;and (3) social isolation that may worsen psychological morbidity. In addition, we review current interventions to minimize psychological complications after critical illness.

Hospital Discharge Summaries Are Insufficient Following ICU Stays: A Qualitative Study.

Primary care providers (PCPs) receive limited information about their patients' ICU stays; we sought to understand what additional information PCPs desire to support patients' recovery following critical illness. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with PCPs conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: Academic health system with central quaternary-care hospital and associated Veterans Affairs medical center. SUBJECTS: Fourteen attending internal medicine or family medicine physicians working in seven clinics across Southeast Michigan (median, 10.5 yr in practice). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We analyzed using a modified Rigorous and Accelerated Data Reduction (RADaR) technique to identify gaps in current discharge summaries for patients with ICU stays, impacts of these gaps, and desired ICU-specific information. We employed RADaR to efficiently consolidate data in Excel Microsoft (Redmond, WA) tables across multiple formats (lists, themes, etc.). RESULTS: PCPs reported receiving limited ICU-specific information in hospital discharge summaries. PCPs often spent significant time reading inpatient records for additional information. Information desired included life-support interventions provided and duration (mechanical ventilation, dialysis, etc.), reasons for treatment decisions (code status changes, medication changes, etc.), and potential complications (delirium, dysphagia, postintensive care syndrome, etc.). Pervasive discharge gaps (ongoing needs, incidental findings, etc.) were described as worse among patients with ICU stays due to more complex illness and required interventions. Insufficient information was felt to lead to incomplete follow-up on critical issues, PCP frustration, and patient harm. PCPs stated that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gaps due to decreased staffing, limited visitation policies, and reliance on telehealth follow-up visits. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results identified key data elements sought by PCPs about patients' ICU stays and suggest opportunities to improve care through developing tools/templates to provide PCPs with ICU-specific information for outpatient follow-up.

Contribution of Individual- and Neighborhood-Level Social, Demographic, and Health Factors to COVID-19 Hospitalization Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Although disparities in COVID-19 outcomes have been observed, factors contributing to these differences are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes are related to neighborhood-level social vulnerability, independent of patient-level clinical factors. DESIGN: Pooled cross-sectional study of prospectively collected data. SETTING: 38 Michigan hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults older than 18 years hospitalized for COVID-19 in a participating site between March and December 2020. MEASUREMENTS: COVID-19 outcomes included acute organ dysfunction, organ failure, invasive mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, death, and discharge disposition. Social vulnerability was measured by the social vulnerability index (SVI), a composite measure of social disadvantage. RESULTS: Compared with patients in low-vulnerability ZIP codes, those living in high-vulnerability ZIP codes were more frequently treated in the intensive care unit (29.0% vs. 24.5%); more frequently received mechanical ventilation (19.3% vs. 14.2%); and experienced higher rates of organ dysfunction (51.9% vs. 48.6%), organ failure (54.7% vs. 51.6%), and in-hospital death (19.4% vs. 16.7%). In mixed-effects regression analyses accounting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions, an increase in a patient's neighborhood SVI by 0.25 (1 quartile) was associated with greater likelihood of mechanical ventilation (increase of 2.1 percentage points), acute organ dysfunction (increase of 2.8 percentage points), and acute organ failure (increase of 2.8 percentage points) but was not associated with intensive care unit stay, mortality, or discharge disposition. LIMITATION: Observational data focused on hospitalizations in a single state. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from socially vulnerable neighborhoods presented with greater illness severity and required more intensive treatment, but once hospitalized they did not experience differences in hospital mortality or discharge disposition. Policies that target socially vulnerable neighborhoods and access to COVID-19 care may help ameliorate health disparities. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships Program, the Michigan Public Health Institute, and the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services.

Caring for the Critically Ill Patient with COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented numbers of critically ill patients. Critical care providers have been challenged to increase the capacity for critical care, prevent the spread of syndrome coronavirus 2 in hospitals, determine the optimal treatment approaches for patients with critical COVID-19, and to design and implement systems for fair allocation of scarce life-saving resources when capacity is exhausted. The global burden of COVID-19 highlighted disparities, across geographic regions and among minority patient populations. Faced with a novel pathogen, critical care providers grappled with the extent to which conventional supportive critical care practices should be followed versus adapted to treat patients with COVID-19. Fiercely debated practices included the use of awake prone positioning, the timing of intubation, and optimal approach to sedation. Advances in clinical trial design were necessary to rapidly identify appropriate therapeutics for the critically ill patient with COVID-19. In this article, we review the epidemiology, outcomes, and treatments for the critically ill patient with COVID-19.

Impact of Early Corticosteroids on Preventing Clinical Deterioration in Non-critically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: While guidelines stronglyrecommend dexamethasone in critical COVID-19, the optimal threshold to initiate corticosteroids in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. Using data from a state-wide COVID-19 registry, we evaluated the effectiveness of early corticosteroids for preventing clinical deterioration among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. METHODS: This was a target trial using observational data from patients hospitalized for COVID-19 at 39 hospitals participating in the MI-COVID19 registry between March 16, 2020 and August 24, 2020. We studied the impact of corticosteroids initiated within 2 calendar days of hospitalization ("early steroids") versus no early steroids among non-ICU patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV2 receiving non-invasive supplemental oxygen therapy. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, transfer to intensive care, and receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score-weighted regression to measure the association of early steroids and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1002 patients meeting study criteria, 231 (23.1%) received early steroids. After IPTW, to balance potential confounders between the treatment groups, early steroids were not associated with a decrease in the composite outcome (aOR 1.1, 95%CI 0.8-1.6) or in any components of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that early corticosteroid therapy prevents clinical deterioration among hospitalized non-critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving non-invasive oxygen therapy. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal threshold for initiating corticosteroids in this population.

Implementation of a Nurse-Driven Spontaneous Awakening Trial Protocol in a Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: In patients receiving mechanical ventilation, spontaneous awakening trials reduce morbidity and mortality when paired with spontaneous breathing trials. However, spontaneous awakening trials are not performed every day they are indicated and little is known about spontaneous awakening trial protocol use in cardiac intensive care units. LOCAL PROBLEM: Spontaneous awakening trial completion rate at the study institution was low and no trial protocol was regularly used. METHODS: A preintervention-postintervention retrospective cohort study was performed in adult patients with at least 24 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation in Michigan Medicine's cardiac intensive care unit. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded. Data included demographics, sedation, mechanical ventilation duration, and in-hospital mortality. A nurse-driven spontaneous awakening trial protocol modified for the cardiac intensive care unit was implemented in October 2020. RESULTS: Compared with the preintervention cohort (n = 29, May through July 2020), the postintervention cohort (n = 27, October 2020 through February 2021) had a higher ratio of number of trials performed to number of days eligible for trial (0.91 vs 0.52; P < .01). Median continuous sedative infusion duration was shorter after intervention (2.3 vs 3.6 days; P = .02). Median mechanical ventilation duration (3.8 vs 4.7 days; P = .18) and mortality (41% vs 41%; P = .95) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spontaneous awakening trial protocol implementation led to a higher trial completion rate and a shorter duration of continuous sedative infusion. Larger studies are needed to assess the impact of protocolized spontaneous awakening trials on cardiac intensive care unit patient outcomes.

Risk factors and outcomes associated with community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A multihospital cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the incidence of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to evaluate associated predictors and outcomes. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to August 2020 across 38 Michigan hospitals, we assessed prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfections. In-hospital and 60-day mortality, readmission, discharge to long-term care facility (LTCF), and mechanical ventilation duration were assessed for patients with versus without coinfection. RESULTS: Of 2,205 patients with COVID-19, 141 (6.4%) had a coinfection: 3.0% community onset and 3.4% hospital acquired. Of patients without coinfection, 64.9% received antibiotics. Community-onset coinfection predictors included admission from an LTCF (OR, 3.98; 95% CI, 2.34-6.76; P < .001) and admission to intensive care (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 2.87-6.55; P < .001). Hospital-acquired coinfection predictors included fever (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.15-5.27; P = .02) and advanced respiratory support (OR, 40.72; 95% CI, 13.49-122.93; P < .001). Patients with (vs without) community-onset coinfection had longer mechanical ventilation (OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 1.67-6.56; P = .001) and higher in-hospital mortality (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.06-3.40; P = .03) and 60-day mortality (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29; P = .03). Patients with (vs without) hospital-acquired coinfection had higher discharge to LTCF (OR, 8.48; 95% CI, 3.30-21.76; P < .001), in-hospital mortality (OR, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.37-7.33; P ≤ .001), and 60-day mortality (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.11-6.33; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Despite community-onset and hospital-acquired coinfection being uncommon, most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received antibiotics. Admission from LTCF and to ICU were associated with increased risk of community-onset coinfection. Future studies should prospectively validate predictors of COVID-19 coinfection to facilitate the reduction of antibiotic use.

Variation in COVID-19 disease severity at hospital admission over time and across hospitals: A multi-institution cohort of Michigan hospitals.

ABSTRACT: During the spring 2020 COVID-19 surge, hospitals in Southeast Michigan were overwhelmed, and hospital beds were limited. However, it is unknown whether threshold for hospital admission varied across hospitals or over time.Using a statewide registry, we performed a retrospective cohort study. We identified adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Southeast Michigan (3/1/2020-6/1/2020). We classified disease severity on admission using the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale. Our primary measure of interest was the proportion of patients admitted on room air. We also determined the proportion without acute organ dysfunction on admission or any point during hospitalization. We quantified variation across hospitals and over time by half-month epochs.Among 1315 hospitalizations across 22 hospitals, 57.3% (754/1,315) were admitted on room air, and 26.1% (343/1,315) remained on room air for the duration of hospitalization. Across hospitals, the proportion of COVID-19 hospitalizations admitted on room air varied from 32.3% to 80.0%. Across half-month epochs, the proportion ranged from 49.4% to 69.4% and nadired in early April 2020. Among patients admitted on room air, 75.1% (566/754) had no acute organ dysfunction on admission, and 35.3% (266/754) never developed acute organ dysfunction at any point during hospitalization; there was marked variation in both proportions across hospitals. In-hospital mortality was 13.7% for patients admitted on room air vs 26.3% for patients requiring nasal cannula oxygen.Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the spring 2020 surge in Southeast Michigan, more than half were on room air and a third had no acute organ dysfunction upon admission, but experienced high rates of disease progression and in-hospital mortality.

Empiric Antibacterial Therapy and Community-onset Bacterial Coinfection in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibacterials may be initiated out of concern for bacterial coinfection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We determined prevalence and predictors of empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A randomly sampled cohort of 1705 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 38 Michigan hospitals between 3/13/2020 and 6/18/2020. Data were collected on early (within 2 days of hospitalization) empiric antibacterial therapy and community-onset bacterial coinfections (positive microbiologic test ≤3 days). Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to assess predictors. RESULTS: Of 1705 patients with COVID-19, 56.6% were prescribed early empiric antibacterial therapy; 3.5% (59/1705) had a confirmed community-onset bacterial infection. Across hospitals, early empiric antibacterial use varied from 27% to 84%. Patients were more likely to receive early empiric antibacterial therapy if they were older (adjusted rate ratio [ARR]: 1.04 [1.00-1.08] per 10 years); had a lower body mass index (ARR: 0.99 [0.99-1.00] per kg/m2), more severe illness (eg, severe sepsis; ARR: 1.16 [1.07-1.27]), a lobar infiltrate (ARR: 1.21 [1.04-1.42]); or were admitted to a for-profit hospital (ARR: 1.30 [1.15-1.47]). Over time, COVID-19 test turnaround time (returned ≤1 day in March [54.2%, 461/850] vs April [85.2%, 628/737], P < .001) and empiric antibacterial use (ARR: 0.71 [0.63-0.81] April vs March) decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of confirmed community-onset bacterial coinfections was low. Despite this, half of patients received early empiric antibacterial therapy. Antibacterial use varied widely by hospital. Reducing COVID-19 test turnaround time and supporting stewardship could improve antibacterial use.