ABSTRACT
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases the risk of thrombotic complications with unfractionated heparin (UFH) as a commonly used agent in managing venous thromboembolism (VTE). The optimal anticoagulation intensity and monitoring parameters in intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients remains controversial. The primary study aim was to evaluate the relationship between anti-Xa and thromboelastography (TEG) reaction (R) time in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving therapeutic UFH infusions. DESIGN: Single-center, retrospective study conducted over a 15-month period (2020-2021). SETTING: Academic medical center (Banner University Medical Center Phoenix). PATIENTS: Adult patients with severe COVID-19 administered therapeutic UFH infusions with one or more corresponding TEG, and anti-Xa assessments drawn within ≤2 hours of each other were included. The primary end point was the correlation between anti-Xa and TEG R time. Secondary aims were to describe the correlation between activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and TEG R time, as well as clinical outcomes. Pearson's coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation using a kappa measure of agreement.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has seen an increase in global cases of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with a concomitant increased demand for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Outcomes of patients with severe ARDS due to COVID-19 infection receiving ECMO support are evolving. The need for surge capacity, practical and ethical limitations on implementing ECMO, and the prolonged duration of ECMO support in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS has revealed limitations in organization and resource utilization. Coordination of efforts at multiple levels, from research to implementation, resulted in numerous innovations in the delivery of ECMO.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , PandemicsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures/standards , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Intensive Care Units/standards , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock/therapyABSTRACT
Beginning in March 2020, New York City began the fight against coronavirus disease 2019. Health care workers were faced with a disease that led to significant morbidity and mortality with no proven therapies. As hospitals became inundated with patients and underwent rapid expansion of capacity, resources such as drugs, protective and medical equipment, and hospital staff became limited. Pharmacists played a critical role in the management of clinical care and drug delivery during the pandemic. As members of the department of pharmacy within NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, we describe our experiences and processes to overcome challenges faced during the pandemic. Strict inventory management through the use of daily usage reports, frequent communication, and minimization of waste was critical for the management of drug shortages. The creation of guidelines, protocols, and restrictions were not only used to mitigate drug shortages, but also helped educate health care providers and guided medication use. Managing technology through setting up new automatic dispensing cabinets to address hospital expansions and modifying the electronic order entry system to include new protocols and drug shortage information were also vital. Additional key pharmacist functions included provision of investigational drug service support and training of pharmacists, prescribers, nurses, and respiratory therapists to educate and standardize medication use. Through implementation of operational and clinical processes, pharmacists managed critical drug inventory and guided patient treatment. As the pandemic continues, pharmacists will remain vital members of the multidisciplinary team dedicated to the fight against the virus.
ABSTRACT
The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Advisory Committees , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Drug Approval , Evidence-Based Medicine , Female , Humans , Interprofessional Relations , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Pregnancy , SARS-CoV-2 , Stakeholder Participation , United States , COVID-19 Drug TreatmentSubject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Pharmacists/organization & administration , Pharmacy Residencies/organization & administration , Pharmacy Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Professional RoleABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. Based on a living guideline model the recommendations will be updated as new evidence becomes available.
Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Dexamethasone/therapeutic use , Disease Management , Intensive Care Units , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Adenosine Monophosphate/therapeutic use , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants , Evidence-Based Medicine , Hemodynamics , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine , Immunization, Passive , Patient Positioning , Ventilation , COVID-19 SerotherapyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Although diffuse alveolar damage, a subtype of acute lung injury (ALI), is the most common microscopic pattern in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), other pathologic patterns have been described. The aim of the study was to review autopsies from COVID-19 decedents to evaluate the spectrum of pathology and correlate the results with clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings. METHODS: A comprehensive and quantitative review from 40 postmortem examinations was performed. The microscopic patterns were categorized as follows: "major" when present in more than 50% of cases and "novel" if rarely or not previously described and unexpected clinically. RESULTS: Three major pulmonary patterns were identified: ALI in 29 (73%) of 40, intravascular fibrin or platelet-rich aggregates (IFPAs) in 36 (90%) of 40, and vascular congestion and hemangiomatosis-like change (VCHL) in 20 (50%) of 40. The absence of ALI (non-ALI) was novel and seen in 11 (27%) of 40. Compared with ALI decedents, those with non-ALI had a shorter hospitalization course (P = .02), chest radiographs with no or minimal consolidation (P = .01), and no pathologically confirmed cause of death (9/11). All non-ALI had VCHL and IFPAs, and clinically most had cardiac arrest. CONCLUSIONS: Two distinct pulmonary phenotypic patterns-ALI and non-ALI-were noted. Non-ALI represents a rarely described phenotype. The cause of death in non-ALI is most likely COVID-19 related but requires additional corroboration.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Lung/pathology , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Autopsy , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Research Subjects/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Sepsis/therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/ethnology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/ethnology , SARS-CoV-2 , Sepsis/epidemiology , Sepsis/ethnology , Sex DistributionABSTRACT
Given the rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, clinicians and policy makers require urgent review and summary of the literature, and synthesis of evidence-based guidelines to inform practice. The WHO advocates for rapid reviews in these circumstances. The purpose of this rapid guideline is to provide recommendations on the organizational management of intensive care units caring for patients with COVID-19 including: planning a crisis surge response; crisis surge response strategies; triage, supporting families, and staff.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Care/standards , Equipment and Supplies, Hospital , Health Care Rationing/standards , Health Workforce , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units/standards , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , TriageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.