Critical Care Clinicians' Experiences of Patient Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown how hospital- and systems-level factors have impacted patient safety in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand how the pandemic has exacerbated preexisting patient safety issues and created novel patient safety challenges in ICUs in the United States. METHODS: We performed a national, multi-institutional, mixed-methods survey of critical care clinicians to elicit experiences related to patient safety during the pandemic. The survey was disseminated via email through the Society of Critical Care Medicine listserv. Data were reported as valid percentages, compared by COVID caseload and peak of the pandemic; free-text responses were analyzed and coded for themes. RESULTS: We received 335 survey responses. On general patient safety, 61% felt that conditions were more hazardous when compared with the prepandemic period. Those who took care of mostly COVID-19 patients were more likely to perceive that care was more hazardous (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.49-9.59) compared with those who took care of mostly non-COVID-19 or no COVID-19 patients. In free-text responses, providers identified patient safety risks related to pandemic adaptations, such as ventilator-related lung injury, medication and diagnostic errors, oversedation, oxygen device removal, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Increased COVID-19 case burden was significantly associated with perceptions of a less safe patient care environment by frontline ICU clinicians. Results of the qualitative analysis identified specific patient safety hazards in ICUs across the United States as downstream consequences of hospital and provider strain during periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Latent Class Analysis Reveals COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Subgroups with Differential Responses to Corticosteroids.

Rationale: Two distinct subphenotypes have been identified in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but the presence of subgroups in ARDS associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is unknown. Objectives: To identify clinically relevant, novel subgroups in COVID-19-related ARDS and compare them with previously described ARDS subphenotypes. Methods: Eligible participants were adults with COVID-19 and ARDS at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups with baseline clinical, respiratory, and laboratory data serving as partitioning variables. A previously developed machine learning model was used to classify patients as the hypoinflammatory and hyperinflammatory subphenotypes. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between subgroups. Heterogeneity of treatment effect for corticosteroid use in subgroups was tested. Measurements and Main Results: From March 2, 2020, to April 30, 2020, 483 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS met study criteria. A two-class latent class analysis model best fit the population (P = 0.0075). Class 2 (23%) had higher proinflammatory markers, troponin, creatinine, and lactate, lower bicarbonate, and lower blood pressure than class 1 (77%). Ninety-day mortality was higher in class 2 versus class 1 (75% vs. 48%; P < 0.0001). Considerable overlap was observed between these subgroups and ARDS subphenotypes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RT-PCR cycle threshold was associated with mortality in the hypoinflammatory but not the hyperinflammatory phenotype. Heterogeneity of treatment effect to corticosteroids was observed (P = 0.0295), with improved mortality in the hyperinflammatory phenotype and worse mortality in the hypoinflammatory phenotype, with the caveat that corticosteroid treatment was not randomized. Conclusions: We identified two COVID-19-related ARDS subgroups with differential outcomes, similar to previously described ARDS subphenotypes. SARS-CoV-2 PCR cycle threshold had differential value for predicting mortality in the subphenotypes. The subphenotypes had differential treatment responses to corticosteroids.

Disorders of Consciousness in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: The Role of the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence and etiology of unconsciousness are uncertain in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We tested the hypothesis that increased inflammation in COVID-19 precedes coma, independent of medications, hypotension, and hypoxia. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 3203 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 from March 2 through July 30, 2020, in New York City with the Glasgow Coma Scale and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) scores. We applied hazard ratio (HR) modeling and mediation analysis to determine the risk of SIRS score elevation to precede coma, accounting for confounders. RESULTS: We obtained behavioral assessments in 3203 of 10,797 patients admitted to the hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of those patients, 1054 (32.9%) were comatose, which first developed on median hospital day 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-9). During their hospital stay, 1538 (48%) had a SIRS score of 2 or above at least once, and the median maximum SIRS score was 2 (IQR 1-2). A fivefold increased risk of coma (HR 5.05, 95% confidence interval 4.27-5.98) was seen for each day that patients with COVID-19 had elevated SIRS scores, independent of medication effects, hypotension, and hypoxia. The overall mortality in this population was 13.8% (n = 441). Coma was associated with death (odds ratio 7.77, 95% confidence interval 6.29-9.65) and increased length of stay (13 days [IQR 11.9-14.1] vs. 11 [IQR 9.6-12.4]), accounting for demographics. CONCLUSIONS: Disorders of consciousness are common in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 and are associated with increased mortality and length of hospitalization. The underlying etiology of disorders of consciousness in this population is uncertain but, in addition to medication effects, may in part be linked to systemic inflammation.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Crisis Standards of Care.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed extraordinary strain on global healthcare systems. Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe respiratory or cardiac failure attributed to COVID-19 has been debated due to uncertain survival benefit and the resources required to safely deliver ECMO support. We retrospectively investigated adult patients supported with ECMO for COVID-19 at our institution during the first 80 days following New York City's declaration of a state of emergency. The primary objective was to evaluate survival outcomes in patients supported with ECMO for COVID-19 and describe the programmatic adaptations made in response to pandemic-related crisis conditions. Twenty-two patients with COVID-19 were placed on ECMO during the study period. Median age was 52 years and 18 (81.8%) were male. Twenty-one patients (95.4%) had severe ARDS and seven (31.8%) had cardiac failure. Fifteen patients (68.1%) were managed with venovenous ECMO while 7 (31.8%) required arterial support. Twelve patients (54.5%) were transported on ECMO from external institutions. Twelve patients were discharged alive from the hospital (54.5%). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used successfully in patients with respiratory and cardiac failure due to COVID-19. The continued use of ECMO, including ECMO transport, during crisis conditions was possible even at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rapid implementation of a mobile prone team during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning improves mortality in moderate-to-severe ARDS. Strategies to increase prone positioning under crisis conditions are needed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We describe the development of a mobile prone team during the height of the crisis in New York City and describe characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients who received prone positioning between April 2, 2020 and April 30, 2020. RESULTS: Ninety patients underwent prone positioning for moderate-to-severe ARDS. Sixty-six patients (73.3%) were men, with a median age of 64 years (IQR 53-71), and the median PaO2:FiO2 ratio was 107 (IQR 85-140) prior to prone positioning. Patients required an average of 3 ± 2.2 prone sessions and the median time of each prone session was 19 h (IQR 17.5-20.75). By the end of the study period, proning was discontinued in sixty-seven (65.1%) cases due to clinical improvement, twenty (19.4%) cases due to lack of clinical improvement, six (5.8%) cases for clinical worsening, and ten (9.7%) cases due to a contraindication. CONCLUSION: The rapid development of a mobile prone team safely provided prone positioning to a large number of COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.

Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Over 40 000 patients with COVID-19 have been hospitalised in New York City (NY, USA) as of April 28, 2020. Data on the epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this setting are needed. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study took place at two NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals affiliated with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in northern Manhattan. We prospectively identified adult patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to both hospitals from March 2 to April 1, 2020, who were diagnosed with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and were critically ill with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and collected clinical, biomarker, and treatment data. The primary outcome was the rate of in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, frequency of vasopressor use and renal replacement therapy, and time to in-hospital clinical deterioration following admission. The relation between clinical risk factors, biomarkers, and in-hospital mortality was modelled using Cox proportional hazards regression. Follow-up time was right-censored on April 28, 2020 so that each patient had at least 28 days of observation. FINDINGS: Between March 2 and April 1, 2020, 1150 adults were admitted to both hospitals with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, of which 257 (22%) were critically ill. The median age of patients was 62 years (IQR 51-72), 171 (67%) were men. 212 (82%) patients had at least one chronic illness, the most common of which were hypertension (162 [63%]) and diabetes (92 [36%]). 119 (46%) patients had obesity. As of April 28, 2020, 101 (39%) patients had died and 94 (37%) remained hospitalised. 203 (79%) patients received invasive mechanical ventilation for a median of 18 days (IQR 9-28), 170 (66%) of 257 patients received vasopressors and 79 (31%) received renal replacement therapy. The median time to in-hospital deterioration was 3 days (IQR 1-6). In the multivariable Cox model, older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1·31 [1·09-1·57] per 10-year increase), chronic cardiac disease (aHR 1·76 [1·08-2·86]), chronic pulmonary disease (aHR 2·94 [1·48-5·84]), higher concentrations of interleukin-6 (aHR 1·11 [95%CI 1·02-1·20] per decile increase), and higher concentrations of D-dimer (aHR 1·10 [1·01-1·19] per decile increase) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. INTERPRETATION: Critical illness among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in New York City is common and associated with a high frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation, extrapulmonary organ dysfunction, and substantial in-hospital mortality. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, and the Columbia University Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Research.