Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo₂) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo₂ target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).

Pulse Oximetry and Race in Critically Ill Adults.

For critically ill adults, oxygen saturation is continuously monitored using pulse oximetry (Spo2) as a surrogate for arterial oxygen saturation (Sao2). Skin pigmentation may affect accuracy of Spo2 by introducing error from statistical bias, variance, or both. We evaluated relationships between race, Spo2, Sao2, and hypoxemia (Sao2 < 88%) or hyperoxemia (Pao2 > 150 mm Hg) among adults receiving mechanical ventilation in a medical ICU. DESIGN: Single-center, observational study. SETTING: Medical ICU at an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation from July 2018 to February 2021, excluding patients with COVID-19, with race documented as Black or White in the electronic medical record, who had a pair of Spo2 and Sao2 measurements collected within 10 minutes of each other. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: We included 1,024 patients with 5,557 paired measurements within 10 minutes, of which 3,885 (70%) were within 1 minute. Of all pairs, 769 (14%) were from Black patients and 4,788 (86%) were from White patients. In analyses using a mixed-effects model, we found that across the range of Spo2 values of 92-98%, the associated Sao2 value was approximately 1% point lower for Black patients compared with White patients. Among patients with a Spo2 value between 92% and 96%, Black patients were more likely to have both hypoxemia (3.5% vs 1.1%; p = 0.002) and hyperoxemia (4.7% vs 2.4%; p = 0.03), compared with White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a measured Spo2 of 92-96%, greater variation in Sao2 values at a given Spo2 resulted in a higher occurence rate of both hypoxemia and hyperoxemia for Black patients compared with White patients.

Radiographic Findings and Association With Clinical Severity and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To describe evolution and severity of radiographic findings and assess association with disease severity and outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 62 COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinical data was obtained from electronic medical records. A total of 270 chest radiographs were reviewed and qualitatively scored (CXR score) using a severity scale of 0-30. Radiographic findings were correlated with clinical severity and outcome. RESULTS: The CXR score increases from a median initial score of 10 at hospital presentation to the median peak CXR score of 18 within a median time of 4 days after hospitalization, and then slowly decreases to a median last CXR score of 15 in a median time of 12 days after hospitalization. The initial and peak CXR score was independently associated with invasive MV after adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, smoking, and comorbidities (Initial, odds ratio [OR]: 2.11 per 5-point increase, confidence interval [CI] 1.35-3.32, P= 0.001; Peak, OR: 2.50 per 5-point increase, CI 1.48-4.22, P= 0.001). Peak CXR scores were also independently associated with vasopressor usage (OR: 2.28 per 5-point increase, CI 1.30-3.98, P= 0.004). Peak CXR scores strongly correlated with the duration of invasive MV (Rho = 0.62, P< 0.001), while the initial CXR score (Rho = 0.26) and the peak CXR score (Rho = 0.27) correlated weakly with the sequential organ failure assessment score. No statistically significant associations were found between radiographic findings and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Evolution of radiographic features indicates rapid disease progression and correlate with requirement for invasive MV or vasopressors but not mortality, which suggests potential nonpulmonary pathways to death in COVID-19.

The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on ICU Organization, Care Processes, and Frontline Clinician Experiences: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented adjustments to ICU organization and care processes globally. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: Did hospital emergency responses to the COVID-19 pandemic differ depending on hospital setting? Which strategies worked well to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Between August and November 2020, we carried out semistructured interviews of intensivists from tertiary and community hospitals across six regions in the United States that experienced early or large surges of COVID-19 patients, or both. We identified themes of hospital emergency responses using the four S framework of acute surge planning: space, staff, stuff, system. RESULTS: Thirty-three intensivists from seven tertiary and six community hospitals participated. Clinicians across both settings believed that canceling elective surgeries was helpful to increase ICU capabilities and that hospitals should establish clearly defined thresholds at which surgeries are limited during future surge events. ICU staff was the most limited resource; staff shortages were improved by the use of tiered staffing models, just-in-time training for non-ICU clinicians, designated treatment teams, and deployment of trainees. Personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages and reuse were widespread, causing substantial distress among clinicians; hands-on PPE training was helpful to reduce clinicians' anxiety. Transparency and involvement of frontline clinicians as stakeholders were important components of effective emergency responses and helped to maintain trust among staff. INTERPRETATION: We identified several strategies potentially to mitigate strain as perceived by intensivists working in both tertiary and community hospital settings. Our study also demonstrated the importance of trust and transparency between frontline staff and hospital leadership as key components of effective emergency responses during public health crises.

Variation in Initial U.S. Hospital Responses to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has strained many healthcare systems. In response, U.S. hospitals altered their care delivery systems, but there are few data regarding specific structural changes. Understanding these changes is important to guide interpretation of outcomes and inform pandemic preparedness. We sought to characterize emergency responses across hospitals in the United States over time and in the context of local case rates early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN: We surveyed hospitals from a national acute care trials group regarding operational and structural changes made in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from January to August 2020. We collected prepandemic characteristics and changes to hospital system, space, staffing, and equipment during the pandemic. We compared the timing of these changes with county-level coronavirus disease 2019 case rates. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: U.S. hospitals participating in the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network Coronavirus Disease 2019 Observational study. Site investigators at each hospital collected local data. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five sites participated (94% response rate). System-level changes (incident command activation and elective procedure cancellation) occurred at nearly all sites, preceding rises in local case rates. The peak inpatient census during the pandemic was greater than the prior hospital bed capacity in 57% of sites with notable regional variation. Nearly half (49%) expanded ward capacity, and 63% expanded ICU capacity, with nearly all bed expansion achieved through repurposing of clinical spaces. Two-thirds of sites adapted staffing to care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, with 48% implementing tiered staffing models, 49% adding temporary physicians, nurses, or respiratory therapists, and 30% changing the ratios of physicians or nurses to patients. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic prompted widespread system-level changes, but front-line clinical care varied widely according to specific hospital needs and infrastructure. Linking operational changes to care delivery processes is a necessary step to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on patient outcomes.

Comparison of Clinical Features and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 versus Influenza.

Rationale: No direct comparisons of clinical features, laboratory values, and outcomes between critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and patients with influenza in the United States have been reported.Objectives: To evaluate the risk of mortality comparing critically ill patients with COVID-19 with patients with seasonal influenza.Methods: We retrospectively identified patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) at two academic medical centers with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or influenza A or B infections between January 1, 2019, and April 15, 2020. The clinical data were obtained by medical record review. All patients except one had follow-up to hospital discharge or death. We used relative risk regression adjusting for age, sex, number of comorbidities, and maximum sequential organ failure scores on Day 1 in the ICU to determine the risk of hospital mortality and organ dysfunction in patients with COVID-19 compared with patients with influenza.Results: We identified 65 critically ill patients with COVID-19 and 74 patients with influenza. The mean (±standard deviation) age in each group was 60.4 ± 15.7 and 56.8 ± 17.6 years, respectively. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be male, have a higher body mass index, and have higher rates of chronic kidney disease and diabetes. Of the patients with COVID-19, 37% identified as Hispanic, whereas 10% of the patients with influenza identified as Hispanic. A similar proportion of patients had fevers (∼40%) and lymphopenia (∼80%) on hospital presentation. The rates of acute kidney injury and shock requiring vasopressors were similar between the groups. Although the need for invasive mechanical ventilation was also similar in both groups, patients with COVID-19 had slower improvements in oxygenation, longer durations of mechanical ventilation, and lower rates of extubation than patients with influenza. The hospital mortality was 40% in patients with COVID-19 and 19% in patients with influenza (adjusted relative risk, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.63; P = 0.006).Conclusions: The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was common in patients in the ICU for COVID-19 and influenza. Compared with those with influenza, patients in the ICU with COVID-19 had worse respiratory outcomes, including longer duration of mechanical ventilation. In addition, patients with COVID-19 were at greater risk for in-hospital mortality, independent of age, sex, comorbidities, and ICU severity of illness.