Assessment of Awake Prone Positioning in Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Awake prone positioning may improve hypoxemia among patients with COVID-19, but whether it is associated with improved clinical outcomes remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether the recommendation of awake prone positioning is associated with improved outcomes among patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemia who have not received mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted at 2 academic medical centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center and NorthShore University HealthSystem) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 501 adult patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation were enrolled from May 13 to December 11, 2020. Interventions: Patients were assigned 1:1 to receive either the practitioner-recommended awake prone positioning intervention (intervention group) or usual care (usual care group). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome analyses were performed using a bayesian proportional odds model with covariate adjustment for clinical severity ranking based on the World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale, which was modified to highlight the worst level of hypoxemia on study day 5. Results: A total of 501 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [15.3] years; 284 [56.7%] were male; and most [417 (83.2%)] were self-reported non-Hispanic or non-Latinx) were included. Baseline severity was comparable between the intervention vs usual care groups, with 170 patients (65.9%) vs 162 patients (66.7%) receiving oxygen via standard low-flow nasal cannula, 71 patients (27.5%) vs 62 patients (25.5%) receiving oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula, and 16 patients (6.2%) vs 19 patients (7.8%) receiving noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. Nursing observations estimated that patients in the intervention group spent a median of 4.2 hours (IQR, 1.8-6.7 hours) in the prone position per day compared with 0 hours (IQR, 0-0.7 hours) per day in the usual care group. On study day 5, the bayesian posterior probability of the intervention group having worse outcomes than the usual care group on the modified World Health Organization ordinal outcome scale was 0.998 (posterior median adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.63; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 1.16-2.31). However, on study days 14 and 28, the posterior probabilities of harm were 0.874 (aOR, 1.29; 95% CrI, 0.84-1.99) and 0.673 (aOR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.86), respectively. Exploratory outcomes (progression to mechanical ventilation, length of stay, and 28-day mortality) did not differ between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, prone positioning offered no observed clinical benefit among patients with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia who had not received mechanical ventilation. Moreover, there was substantial evidence of worsened clinical outcomes at study day 5 among patients recommended to receive the awake prone positioning intervention, suggesting potential harm. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04359797.

Factors Associated With Spontaneous Awakening Trial and Spontaneous Breathing Trial Performance in Adults With Critical Illness: Analysis of a Multicenter, Nationwide, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Broad-scale adoption of spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) into everyday practice has been slow, and uncertainty exists regarding what factors facilitate or impede their routine delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: What patient, practice, and pharmacologic factors are associated with SAT and SBT performance and to what extent do they predict overall SAT/SBT performance? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This secondary analysis used data collected from a national quality improvement collaborative composed of 68 diverse ICUs. Adults with critical illness adults who received mechanical ventilation and/or continuously infused sedative medications were included. We performed mixed-effects logistic regression modeling, created receiver operating characteristic curves, and calculated the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: Included in the SAT and SBT analysis were 4,847 and 4,938 patients, respectively. In multivariable models controlling for admitting patient characteristics, factors independently associated with higher odds of a next-day SAT and SBT included physical restraint use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.63; 95% CI, 1.42-1.87; AOR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.60-2.09), documented target sedation level (AOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.41-2.01; AOR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24-1.72), more frequent level of arousal assessments (AOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.43; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54), and dexmedetomidine administration (AOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45; AOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.27-1.80). Factors independently associated with lower odds of a next-day SAT and SBT included deep sedation/coma (AOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.80; AOR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28-0.37) and benzodiazepine (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95; AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59-0.77) or ketamine (AOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.16-0.71; AOR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.88) administration. Models incorporating admitting, daily, and unit variations displayed moderate discriminant accuracy in predicting next-day SAT (AUC, 0.73) and SBT (AUC, 0.72) performance. INTERPRETATION: There are a number of modifiable factors associated with SAT/SBT performance that are amenable to the development and testing of implementation interventions.

Hospital Ward Adaptation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Academic Medical Centers.

IMPORTANCE: Although intensive care unit (ICU) adaptations to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have received substantial attention , most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have been in general medical units. OBJECTIVE: To characterize inpatient adaptations to care for non-ICU COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A network of 72 hospital medicine groups at US academic centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 testing, approaches to personal protective equipment (PPE), and features of respiratory isolation units (RIUs). RESULTS: Fifty-one of 72 sites responded (71%) between April 3 and April 5, 2020. At the time of our survey, only 15 (30%) reported COVID-19 test results being available in less than 6 hours. Half of sites with PPE data available reported PPE stockpiles of 2 weeks or less. Nearly all sites (90%) reported implementation of RIUs. RIUs primarily utilized attending physicians, with few incorporating residents and none incorporating students. Isolation and room-entry policies focused on grouping care activities and utilizing technology (such as video visits) to communicate with and evaluate patients. The vast majority of sites reported decreases in frequency of in-room encounters across provider or team types. Forty-six percent of respondents reported initially unrecognized non-COVID-19 diagnoses in patients admitted for COVID-19 evaluation; a similar number reported delayed identification of COVID-19 in patients admitted for other reasons. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has required medical wards to rapidly adapt with expanding use of RIUs and use of technology emerging as critical approaches. Reports of unrecognized or delayed diagnoses highlight how such adaptations may produce potential adverse effects on care.