Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Can J Anaesth ; 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1767708

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

2.
Crit Care Med ; 50(3): 353-362, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1708946

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has disrupted critical care services across the world. In anticipation of surges in the need for critical care services, governments implemented "lockdown" measures to preserve and create added critical care capacity. Herein, we describe the impact of lockdown measures on the utilization of critical care services and patient outcomes compared with nonlockdown epochs in a large integrated health region. DESIGN: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seventeen adult ICUs across 14 acute care hospitals in Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: All adult (age ≥ 15 yr) patients admitted to any study ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main exposure was ICU admission during "lockdown" occurring between March 16, 2020, and June 30, 2020. This period was compared with two nonpandemic control periods: "year prior" (March 16, 2019, to June 30, 2019) and "pre lockdown" immediately prior (November 30, 2019, to March 15, 2020). The primary outcome was the number of ICU admissions. Secondary outcomes included the following: daily measures of ICU utilization, ICU duration of stay, avoidable delay in ICU discharge, and occupancy; and patient outcomes. Mixed multilevel negative binomial regression and interrupted time series regression were used to compare rates of ICU admissions between periods. Multivariable regressions were used to compare patient outcomes between periods. During the lockdown, there were 3,649 ICU admissions (34.1 [8.0] ICU admissions/d), compared with 4,125 (38.6 [9.3]) during the prelockdown period and 3,919 (36.6 [8.7]) during the year prior. Mean bed occupancy declined significantly during the lockdown compared with the nonpandemic periods (78.7%, 95.9%, and 96.4%; p < 0.001). Avoidable ICU discharge delay also decreased significantly (42.0%, 53.2%, and 58.3%; p < 0.001). During the lockdown, patients were younger, had fewer comorbid diseases, had higher acuity, and were more likely to be medical admissions compared with the nonpandemic periods. Adjusted ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were significantly lower during the lockdown compared with nonpandemic periods. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown resulted in substantial changes to ICU utilization, including a reduction in admissions, occupancy, patient lengths of stay, and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , APACHE , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Alberta/epidemiology , Bed Occupancy , Comorbidity , Critical Care , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Public Health , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors
5.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(10): e0562, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494022

ABSTRACT

To create evidence-based consensus statements for restricted ICU visitation policies to support critically ill patients, families, and healthcare professionals during current and future pandemics. DESIGN: Three rounds of a remote modified Delphi consensus process. SETTING: Online survey and virtual polling from February 2, 2021, to April 8, 2021. SUBJECTS: Stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, decision-makers) admitted to or working in Canadian ICUs during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During Round 1, key stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate experiences (1-not significant, 9-significant impact on patients, families, healthcare professionals, or patient- and family-centered care) and strategies (1-not essential, 9-essential recommendation for inclusion in the development of restricted visitation policies) and used a free-text box to capture experiences/strategies we may have missed. Consensus was achieved if the median score was 7-9 or 1-3. During Round 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale to re-rate experiences/strategies that did not meet consensus during Round 1 (median score of 4-6) and rate new items identified in Round 1. During Rounds 2 and 3, participants ranked items that reached consensus by order of importance (relative to other related items and experiences) using a weighted ranking system (0-100 points). Participants prioritized 11 experiences (e.g., variability of family's comfort with technology, healthcare professional moral distress) and developed 21 consensus statements (e.g., communicate policy changes to the hospital staff before the public, permit visitors at end-of-life regardless of coronavirus disease 2019 status, creating a clear definition for end-of-life) regarding restricted visitation policies. CONCLUSIONS: We have formulated evidence-informed consensus statements regarding restricted visitation policies informed by diverse stakeholders, which could enhance patient- and family-centered care during a pandemic.

6.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 347, 2021 09 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438304

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Critical Care , Family , Health Policy , Inpatients , Physical Distancing , Visitors to Patients , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Communication , Family/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Inpatients/psychology , Mental Health Services , Pandemics , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2 , Telephone , Visitors to Patients/psychology
7.
BMJ Open ; 11(9): e048227, 2021 09 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438083

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Flexible visitation policies in hospitals are an important component of care that contributes to reduced stress and increased satisfaction among patients and their family members. Early evidence suggests restricted visitation policies enacted in hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic are having unintended consequences on patients, family members and healthcare providers. There is a need for a comprehensive summary of the impacts of restricted visitation policies on key stakeholders and approaches to mitigate that impact. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review as per the Arksey-O'Malley 5-stage scoping review method and the Scoping Review Methods Manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We will search relevant electronic databases (eg, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO), grey literature and preprint repositories. We will include all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding protocols) as well as reports, opinions and editorials, to identify the broad impact of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members or healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches taken or proposed to mitigate this impact. Two reviewers will calibrate the screening criteria and data abstraction form and will independently screen studies and abstract the data. Narrative synthesis with thematic analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable as this review will be conducted on published literature only. This scoping review will identify, describe and categorise impacts of restricted hospital visitation policies due to the COVID-19 pandemic on patients, family members and healthcare providers of hospitalised patients, and approaches that have been taken to mitigate impact. We will provide a comprehensive synthesis by developing a framework of restricted visitation policies and associated impacts. Our results will inform the development of consensus statements on restricted visitation policies to be implemented in future pandemics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020221662.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Family , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , Policy , Research Design , Review Literature as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Crit Care Med ; 50(3): 353-362, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398157

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has disrupted critical care services across the world. In anticipation of surges in the need for critical care services, governments implemented "lockdown" measures to preserve and create added critical care capacity. Herein, we describe the impact of lockdown measures on the utilization of critical care services and patient outcomes compared with nonlockdown epochs in a large integrated health region. DESIGN: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seventeen adult ICUs across 14 acute care hospitals in Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: All adult (age ≥ 15 yr) patients admitted to any study ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main exposure was ICU admission during "lockdown" occurring between March 16, 2020, and June 30, 2020. This period was compared with two nonpandemic control periods: "year prior" (March 16, 2019, to June 30, 2019) and "pre lockdown" immediately prior (November 30, 2019, to March 15, 2020). The primary outcome was the number of ICU admissions. Secondary outcomes included the following: daily measures of ICU utilization, ICU duration of stay, avoidable delay in ICU discharge, and occupancy; and patient outcomes. Mixed multilevel negative binomial regression and interrupted time series regression were used to compare rates of ICU admissions between periods. Multivariable regressions were used to compare patient outcomes between periods. During the lockdown, there were 3,649 ICU admissions (34.1 [8.0] ICU admissions/d), compared with 4,125 (38.6 [9.3]) during the prelockdown period and 3,919 (36.6 [8.7]) during the year prior. Mean bed occupancy declined significantly during the lockdown compared with the nonpandemic periods (78.7%, 95.9%, and 96.4%; p < 0.001). Avoidable ICU discharge delay also decreased significantly (42.0%, 53.2%, and 58.3%; p < 0.001). During the lockdown, patients were younger, had fewer comorbid diseases, had higher acuity, and were more likely to be medical admissions compared with the nonpandemic periods. Adjusted ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were significantly lower during the lockdown compared with nonpandemic periods. CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown resulted in substantial changes to ICU utilization, including a reduction in admissions, occupancy, patient lengths of stay, and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , APACHE , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Alberta/epidemiology , Bed Occupancy , Comorbidity , Critical Care , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Discharge , Public Health , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Factors
9.
Can J Anaesth ; 68(10): 1474-1484, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1392019

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: In response to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals in Canada enacted temporary visitor restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and preserve personal protective equipment supplies. This study describes the extent, variation, and fluctuation of Canadian adult intensive care unit (ICU) visitation policies before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of Canadian hospital visitation policies throughout the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a two-phased study analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: We collected 257 documents with reference to visitation policies (preCOVID, 101 [39%]; midCOVID, 71 [28%]; and lateCOVID, 85 [33%]). Of these 257 documents, 38 (15%) were ICU-specific and 70 (27%) referenced the ICU. Most policies during the midCOVID/lateCOVID pandemic period allowed no visitors with specific exceptions (e.g., end-of-life). Framework analysis revealed five overarching themes: 1) reasons for restricted visitation policies; 2) visitation policies and expectations; 3) exceptions to visitation policy; 4) patient and family-centred care; and 5) communication and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian hospitals had public-facing visitor restriction policies with specific exception categories, most commonly for patients at end-of-life, patients requiring assistance, or COVID-19 positive patients (varying from not allowed to case-by-case). Further studies are needed to understand the consistency with which visitation policies were operationalized and how they may have impacted patient- and family-centred care.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: En réponse à la propagation rapide du SRAS-CoV-2, les hôpitaux du Canada ont adopté des restrictions temporaires pour les visites afin de limiter la propagation de la COVID-19 et de préserver les stocks d'équipements de protection individuelle. Cette étude décrit l'ampleur, les variations et fluctuations des politiques canadiennes concernant les visites aux unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes avant et pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de milieu des politiques hospitalières canadiennes concernant les visites tout au long de la première vague de la pandémie. Nous avons mené une étude en deux phases analysant des données quantitatives et qualitatives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recueilli 257 documents faisant référence aux politiques de visites (pré-COVID, 101 [39 %]; mid-COVID, 71 [28 %]; et COVID-tardif, 85 [33 %]). Sur ces 257 documents, 38 (15 %) étaient spécifiques aux USI et 70 (27 %) faisaient référence aux USI. La plupart des politiques au cours de la période pandémique mid-COVID/COVID-tardif ne permettaient aucune visite sauf exception spécifique (p. ex., fin de vie). L'analyse du cadre a révélé cinq thèmes généraux : 1) les raisons des restrictions des politiques de visites; 2) les politiques et attentes en matière de visites; 3) les exceptions aux politiques de visites; 4) les soins aux patients et centrés sur la famille; et 5) la communication et la transparence. CONCLUSION: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la plupart des hôpitaux canadiens avaient des politiques de restriction des visites s'appliquant au public avec des catégories d'exception spécifiques, le plus souvent pour les patients en fin de vie, les patients nécessitant de l'aide ou les patients COVID-positifs (variant d'une interdiction au cas par cas). D'autres études sont nécessaires pour comprendre l'uniformité avec laquelle les politiques de visites ont été mises en œuvre et comment elles ont pu avoir une incidence sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Canada , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Organizational Policy , Policy , SARS-CoV-2 , Visitors to Patients
10.
Can J Anaesth ; 68(10): 1474-1484, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1290444

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: In response to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals in Canada enacted temporary visitor restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and preserve personal protective equipment supplies. This study describes the extent, variation, and fluctuation of Canadian adult intensive care unit (ICU) visitation policies before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of Canadian hospital visitation policies throughout the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a two-phased study analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: We collected 257 documents with reference to visitation policies (preCOVID, 101 [39%]; midCOVID, 71 [28%]; and lateCOVID, 85 [33%]). Of these 257 documents, 38 (15%) were ICU-specific and 70 (27%) referenced the ICU. Most policies during the midCOVID/lateCOVID pandemic period allowed no visitors with specific exceptions (e.g., end-of-life). Framework analysis revealed five overarching themes: 1) reasons for restricted visitation policies; 2) visitation policies and expectations; 3) exceptions to visitation policy; 4) patient and family-centred care; and 5) communication and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian hospitals had public-facing visitor restriction policies with specific exception categories, most commonly for patients at end-of-life, patients requiring assistance, or COVID-19 positive patients (varying from not allowed to case-by-case). Further studies are needed to understand the consistency with which visitation policies were operationalized and how they may have impacted patient- and family-centred care.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: En réponse à la propagation rapide du SRAS-CoV-2, les hôpitaux du Canada ont adopté des restrictions temporaires pour les visites afin de limiter la propagation de la COVID-19 et de préserver les stocks d'équipements de protection individuelle. Cette étude décrit l'ampleur, les variations et fluctuations des politiques canadiennes concernant les visites aux unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes avant et pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de milieu des politiques hospitalières canadiennes concernant les visites tout au long de la première vague de la pandémie. Nous avons mené une étude en deux phases analysant des données quantitatives et qualitatives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recueilli 257 documents faisant référence aux politiques de visites (pré-COVID, 101 [39 %]; mid-COVID, 71 [28 %]; et COVID-tardif, 85 [33 %]). Sur ces 257 documents, 38 (15 %) étaient spécifiques aux USI et 70 (27 %) faisaient référence aux USI. La plupart des politiques au cours de la période pandémique mid-COVID/COVID-tardif ne permettaient aucune visite sauf exception spécifique (p. ex., fin de vie). L'analyse du cadre a révélé cinq thèmes généraux : 1) les raisons des restrictions des politiques de visites; 2) les politiques et attentes en matière de visites; 3) les exceptions aux politiques de visites; 4) les soins aux patients et centrés sur la famille; et 5) la communication et la transparence. CONCLUSION: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la plupart des hôpitaux canadiens avaient des politiques de restriction des visites s'appliquant au public avec des catégories d'exception spécifiques, le plus souvent pour les patients en fin de vie, les patients nécessitant de l'aide ou les patients COVID-positifs (variant d'une interdiction au cas par cas). D'autres études sont nécessaires pour comprendre l'uniformité avec laquelle les politiques de visites ont été mises en œuvre et comment elles ont pu avoir une incidence sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Canada , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Organizational Policy , Policy , SARS-CoV-2 , Visitors to Patients
11.
Crit Care Clin ; 37(2): 409-432, 2021 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1176558

ABSTRACT

Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a core organ support in critical care settings. In patients suitable for escalation in support, who develop acute kidney injury (AKI) complications and urgent indications, there is consensus that KRT should be promptly initiated. In the absence of such urgent indications, the optimal timing has been less certain. Current clinical practice guidelines do not present strong recommendations for when to start KRT for patients with AKI in the absence of life-threatening and urgent indications. This article discusses how best to provide KRT to critically ill patients with severe AKI.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury , Renal Replacement Therapy , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Critical Care , Critical Illness , Humans
12.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e042008, 2021 01 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1011003

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In December 2019, the first cases of COVID-19 associated with SARS-CoV-2 viral infection were described in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. Since then, it has spread rapidly affecting 188 countries and was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020. Preliminary reports suggest up to 30% of patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and case fatality rate estimate is 2.3%-7.2%. The primary reason for ICU admission is hypoxaemic respiratory failure, while factors associated with ICU admission include increased age, presence of comorbidities and cytokine storm. Case series and retrospective trials initially assessed proposed treatments with randomised controlled trials now reporting early outcomes. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify epidemiological factors, treatments and complications that predict mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our comprehensive search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian. We will search electronic databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Wiley Cochrane Library. The search strategy combines concepts from COVID-19, validated COVID-19 search filters and geographical locations of large outbreaks. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. Clinically homogenous epidemiological characteristics, interventions and complications will be pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Within the framework of a living systematic review, the search and data analysis will be updated every 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our systematic review will synthesise literature on risk factors and interventions associated with mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Results will be presented at national and international conferences and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. The pooled analysis can provide guidance to inform clinical guidelines for care of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Iterative updates will be made public through open access. Research ethics approval is not required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020176672.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Comorbidity , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Can J Anaesth ; 68(4): 541-545, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-996470

ABSTRACT

Many patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) will develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prone positioning is an important non-pharmacologic strategy that should be considered for all invasively ventilated patients with moderate to severe ARDS (including those with COVID-19). Prone positioning offers several physiologic and clinical benefits, including improving hypoxemia, matching ventilation with perfusion, reducing regional hyperinflation, and improving survival. To safely offer prone positioning, appropriate training, simulation, and health system planning should be undertaken. In this review, we offer ten tips, based on the Alberta provincial prone positioning strategy during COVID-19, to safely implement and improve the appropriate use of prone positioning. We provide special considerations for its use during the COVID-19 pandemic or future respiratory pandemics.


RéSUMé: De nombreux patients atteints de la maladie du coronavirus (COVID-19) développeront un syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA, ARDS en anglais). Le positionnement ventral est une importante stratégie non pharmacologique qui devrait être envisagée pour tous les patients ventilés de manière invasive et souffrant d'un SDRA modéré à grave (y compris ceux atteints de la COVID-19). Le positionnement ventral offre plusieurs avantages physiologiques et cliniques, notamment l'amélioration de l'hypoxémie, une adéquation de la ventilation avec la perfusion, la réduction de l'hyperinflation régionale et l'amélioration de la survie. Pour offrir un positionnement ventral en toute sécurité, une formation, des simulations et une planification des ressources appropriées devraient être entreprises. Dans le cadre de ce compte rendu, nous proposons dix conseils, fondés sur la stratégie provinciale de positionnement ventral de l'Alberta au cours de la COVID-19, afin de mettre en œuvre et d'améliorer en toute sécurité l'utilisation appropriée du positionnement ventral. Nous décrivons des considérations particulières pour son utilisation pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 ou les futures pandémies respiratoires.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Alberta , Humans , Pandemics , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
14.
J Intensive Care Med ; 36(3): 319-326, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-955406

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The incidence and outcome of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced kidney injury have been variably described. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, correlates and outcomes of critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 671 critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 19 hospitals in China between January 1 to February 29, 2020. Data were captured on demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, acute physiology, laboratory parameters, interventions, and outcomes. The primary exposure was ICU admission for confirmed COVID-19 related critically illness. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with AKI, organ dysfunction, treatment intensity, and health services use. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 671 severe COVID-19 patients (median [IQR] 65 [56-73] years; male sex 65% (n = 434); hypertension 43% (n = 287) and APACHE II score 10 [7-14]), 39% developed AKI. Patients with AKI were older, had greater markers of inflammation and coagulation activation, and had greater acuity and organ dysfunction as presentation. Despite similar treatment with antivirals, patients with AKI had lower viral conversion negative rates than those without AKI. The 28-day mortality was much higher in AKI patients than patients without AKI (72% vs. 42%), and there was an increase in 28-day mortality according to the severity of AKI. Non-survivors were less likely to receive antiviral therapy [132 (70%) vs. 65 (88%)] compared with survivors and have lower viral negative conversion rate [17 (9%) vs. 47 (64%)]. CONCLUSIONS: Acute kidney injury was quite common in severe COVID-19 pneumonia, which associated with higher mortality.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Mortality , APACHE , Acute Kidney Injury/physiopathology , Acute Kidney Injury/therapy , Aged , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Case-Control Studies , China , Cohort Studies , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Humans , Incidence , Inflammation , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Proportional Hazards Models , Renal Replacement Therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
15.
J Am Soc Nephrol ; 32(1): 4-6, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-895179
16.
Blood Purif ; 50(1): 17-27, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-381787

ABSTRACT

Critically ill COVID-19 patients are generally admitted to the ICU for respiratory insufficiency which can evolve into a multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome requiring extracorporeal organ support. Ongoing advances in technology and science and progress in information technology support the development of integrated multi-organ support platforms for personalized treatment according to the changing needs of the patient. Based on pathophysiological derangements observed in COVID-19 patients, a rationale emerges for sequential extracorporeal therapies designed to remove inflammatory mediators and support different organ systems. In the absence of vaccines or direct therapy for COVID-19, extracorporeal therapies could represent an option to prevent organ failure and improve survival. The enormous demand in care for COVID-19 patients requires an immediate response from the scientific community. Thus, a detailed review of the available technology is provided by experts followed by a series of recommendation based on current experience and opinions, while waiting for generation of robust evidence from trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy/methods , Critical Illness/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Hemoperfusion/methods , Multiple Organ Failure/therapy , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/complications , Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy/instrumentation , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Cytokines/blood , Cytokines/isolation & purification , Equipment Design , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/instrumentation , Hemoperfusion/instrumentation , Humans , Multiple Organ Failure/blood , Multiple Organ Failure/etiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL