A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study.

BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. RESULTS: 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.

Clinical characteristics and symptom duration among outpatients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of people with COVID-19 do not require hospitalization. Studies examining the outpatient experience have not tracked symptoms to resolution leading to unknown expected symptom duration. Our objectives were to (1) determine symptom duration among patients with COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization and (2) identify potential risk factors associated with prolonged symptom duration. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study conducted across an academic healthcare system including adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 18th and April 28th, 2020 who were not hospitalized. Symptom duration encompassed time from patient-reported symptom onset as documented in the chart until documented symptom resolution. We calculated the median symptom duration and tested if demographics, comorbidities, or reported symptoms were associated with symptom duration. KEY RESULTS: Of 294 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 178 (60.5%) had documented symptom resolution. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] symptom duration for included patients was 15 (8-24) days. No associations were found between comorbidities and symptom duration. Factors associated with prolonged symptom duration were presence vs lack of lower respiratory symptoms [median (IQR) 16.5 (10.75-33.5) vs 14.5 (7-21.75) days respectively, P < .001] and neurologic symptoms [median (IQR) 17 (9-28) vs 9.5 (4-17) days, P < .001] at disease onset. CONCLUSIONS: The median symptom duration in outpatients is 15 days and over 25% of patients have symptoms longer than 21 days.

The ED-AWARENESS Study: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study of Awareness With Paralysis in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Admitted From the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Awareness with paralysis is a devastating complication for patients receiving mechanical ventilation and risks long-term psychological morbidity. Data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate a high rate of longer-acting neuromuscular blocking agent use, delayed analgosedation, and a lack of sedation depth monitoring. These practices are discordant with recommendations for preventing awareness with paralysis. Despite this, awareness with paralysis has not been rigorously studied in the ED population. Our objective is to assess the prevalence of awareness with paralysis in ED patients receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study on 383 mechanically ventilated ED patients. After extubation, we assessed patients for awareness with paralysis by using the modified Brice questionnaire. Three expert reviewers independently adjudicated awareness with paralysis. We report the prevalence of awareness with paralysis (primary outcome); the secondary outcome was perceived threat, a mediator for development of posttraumatic stress disorder. RESULTS: The prevalence of awareness with paralysis was 2.6% (10/383). Exposure to rocuronium at any point in the ED was significantly different between patients who experienced awareness with paralysis (70%) versus the rest of the cohort (31.4%) (unadjusted odds ratio 5.1; 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 20.1). Patients experiencing awareness with paralysis had higher mean values on the threat perception scale, denoting a higher degree of perceived threat, compared with patients who did not experience awareness with paralysis (13.4 [SD 7.7] versus 8.5 [SD 6.2]; mean difference 4.9; 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 8.8). CONCLUSION: Awareness with paralysis occurs in a significant minority of ED patients who receive mechanical ventilation. Potential associations of awareness with paralysis with ED care and increased perceived threat warrant further evaluation.

Emergency physician stressors, concerns, and behavioral changes during COVID-19: A longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to provide a longitudinal assessment of anxiety levels and work and home concerns of U.S. emergency physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal, cross-sectional email survey of clinically active emergency physicians (attending, fellow, and resident) at seven academic emergency departments. Follow-up surveys were sent 4 to 6 weeks after the initial survey and assessed the following: COVID-19 patient exposure, availability of COVID-19 testing, levels of home and workplace anxiety/stress, changes in behaviors, and performance on a primary care posttraumatic stress disorder screen (PC-PTSD-5). Logistic regression explored factors associated with a high PC-PTSD-5 scale score (≥3), indicating increased risk for PTSD. RESULTS: Of the 426 surveyed initial respondents, 262 (61.5%) completed the follow-up survey. While 97.3% (255/262) reported treating suspected COVID-19 patients, most physicians (162/262, 61.8%) had not received testing themselves. In follow-up, respondents were most concerned about the relaxing of social distancing leading to a second wave (median score = 6, IQR = 4-7). Physicians reported a consistently high ability to order COVID-19 tests for patients (median score = 6, IQR = 5-7) and access to personal protective equipment (median score = 6, IQR = 5-6). Women physicians were more likely to score ≥ 3 than men on the PC-PTSD-5 screener on the initial survey (43.3% vs. 22.5%; Δ 20.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.3% to 31.5%), and despite decreases in overall proportions, this discrepancy remained in follow-up (34.7% vs. 16.8%; Δ 17.9%, 95% CI = 7.1% to 28.1%). In examining the relationship between demographics, living situations, and institution location on having a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3, only female sex was associated with a PC-PTSD-5 score ≥ 3 (adjusted odds ratio = 2.48, 95% CI = 1.28 to 4.79). CONCLUSIONS: While exposure to suspected COVID-19 patients was nearly universal, stress levels in emergency physicians decreased with time. At both initial and follow-up assessments, women were more likely to test positive on the PC-PTSD-5 screener compared to men.