Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 37
Filter
2.
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.

3.
Can J Anaesth ; 69(3): 293-297, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1712366

Subject(s)
Pandemics , Canada , Humans
4.
ERJ Open Res ; 8(1)2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690978

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-312984

ABSTRACT

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been responsible for over 3.4 million deaths globally and over 25 million cases in India. As part of the response, India imposed a nation-wide lockdown and prioritized COVID-19 care in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs). Leveraging data from the Indian Registry of IntenSive care, we sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care service utilization, case-mix, and clinical outcomes in non-COVID ICUs.  Methods: We included all consecutive patients admitted between 1 st October 2019 and 27 th September 2020. Data were extracted from the registry database and included patients admitted to the non-COVID or general ICUs at each of the sites. Outcomes included measures of resource-availability, utilisation, case-mix, acuity, and demand for ICU beds. We used a Mann-Whitney test to compare the pre-pandemic period (October 2019 - February 2020) to the pandemic period (March-September 2020). In addition, we also compared the period of intense lockdown (March-May 31 st 2020) with the pre-pandemic period. Results: There were 3424 patient encounters in the pre-pandemic period and 3524 encounters in the pandemic period. Comparing these periods, weekly admissions declined (median [Q1 Q3] 160 [145,168] to 113 [98.5,134];p=0.00002);unit turnover declined (median [Q1 Q3] 12.1 [11.32,13] to 8.58 [7.24,10], p<0.00001), and APACHE II score increased (median [Q1 Q3] 19 [19,20] to 21 [20,22] ;p<0.00001). Unadjusted ICU mortality increased (9.3% to 11.7%, p=0.01519) and the length of ICU stay was similar (median [Q1 Q3] 2.11 [2, 2] vs. 2.24 [2, 3] days;p=0.15096). Conclusion: Our registry-based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID critical care demonstrates significant disruptions to healthcare utilization during the pandemic and an increase in the severity of illness.

6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307500

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 enters cells by binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), and COVID-19 infection may therefore induce changes in the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). To determine the effects of COVID-19 on plasma RAS components, we measured plasma ACE, ACE2, and angiotensins I, (1-7), and II in 46 adults with COVID-19 at hospital admission and on days 2, 4, 7 and 14, compared to 50 blood donors (controls). We compared survivors vs. non-survivors, males vs. females, ventilated vs. not ventilated, and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-exposed vs. not exposed. At admission, COVID-19 patients had higher plasma levels of ACE (p=0.012), ACE2 (p=0.001) and angiotensin-(1-7) (p<0.001) than controls. Plasma ACE and ACE2 remained elevated for 14 days in COVID-19 patients, while plasma angiotensin-(1-7) decreased after 7 days. In adjusted analyses, plasma ACE was higher in males vs. females (p=0.042), and plasma angiotensin I was significantly lower in ventilated vs. non-ventilated patients (p=0.001). In summary, plasma ACE and ACE2 are increased for at least 14 days in patients with COVID-19 infection. Angiotensin-(1-7) levels are also elevated, but decline after 7 days. The results indicate dysregulation of the RAS with COVID-19, with increased circulating ACE2 throughout the course of infection. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ Unique Identifier: NCT04510623

7.
J Proteome Res ; 21(4): 975-992, 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1683912

ABSTRACT

The host response to COVID-19 pathophysiology over the first few days of infection remains largely unclear, especially the mechanisms in the blood compartment. We report on a longitudinal proteomic analysis of acute-phase COVID-19 patients, for which we used blood plasma, multiple reaction monitoring with internal standards, and data-independent acquisition. We measured samples on admission for 49 patients, of which 21 had additional samples on days 2, 4, 7, and 14 after admission. We also measured 30 externally obtained samples from healthy individuals for comparison at baseline. The 31 proteins differentiated in abundance between acute COVID-19 patients and healthy controls belonged to acute inflammatory response, complement activation, regulation of inflammatory response, and regulation of protein activation cascade. The longitudinal analysis showed distinct profiles revealing increased levels of multiple lipid-associated functions, a rapid decrease followed by recovery for complement activation, humoral immune response, and acute inflammatory response-related proteins, and level fluctuation in the regulation of smooth muscle cell proliferation, secretory mechanisms, and platelet degranulation. Three proteins were differentiated between survivors and nonsurvivors. Finally, increased levels of fructose-bisphosphate aldolase B were determined in patients with exposure to angiotensin receptor blockers versus decreased levels in those exposed to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Data are available via ProteomeXchange PXD029437.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Biomarkers , Humans , Plasma , Proteomics , Retrospective Studies
8.
ERJ open research ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1610380

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe COVID-19, many were treated outside of the traditional walls of the ICU, and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside of the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC WHO COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes, and vasopressors. A logistic Generalised Additive Model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted and not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median [IQR], 67 years [55, 78]), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 days (5–19) and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those that were cared for outside of ICU (12 [6–23] versus 8 [4–15] days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% [5797/18831] versus 39.0% [7532/19295], p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR:0.70, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside of an ICU.

9.
Wellcome Open Res ; 6: 159, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1594307

ABSTRACT

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been responsible for over 3.4 million deaths globally and over 25 million cases in India. As part of the response, India imposed a nation-wide lockdown and prioritized COVID-19 care in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs). Leveraging data from the Indian Registry of IntenSive care, we sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care service utilization, case-mix, and clinical outcomes in non-COVID ICUs.  Methods: We included all consecutive patients admitted between 1 st October 2019 and 27 th September 2020. Data were extracted from the registry database and included patients admitted to the non-COVID or general ICUs at each of the sites. Outcomes included measures of resource-availability, utilisation, case-mix, acuity, and demand for ICU beds. We used a Mann-Whitney test to compare the pre-pandemic period (October 2019 - February 2020) to the pandemic period (March-September 2020). In addition, we also compared the period of intense lockdown (March-May 31 st 2020) with the pre-pandemic period. Results: There were 3424 patient encounters in the pre-pandemic period and 3524 encounters in the pandemic period. Comparing these periods, weekly admissions declined (median [Q1 Q3] 160 [145,168] to 113 [98.5,134]; p=0.00002); unit turnover declined (median [Q1 Q3] 12.1 [11.32,13] to 8.58 [7.24,10], p<0.00001), and APACHE II score increased (median [Q1 Q3] 19 [19,20] to 21 [20,22] ; p<0.00001). Unadjusted ICU mortality increased (9.3% to 11.7%, p=0.01519) and the length of ICU stay was similar (median [Q1 Q3] 2.11 [2, 2] vs. 2.24 [2, 3] days; p=0.15096). Conclusion: Our registry-based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID critical care demonstrates significant disruptions to healthcare utilization during the pandemic and an increase in the severity of illness.

10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-294249

ABSTRACT

Background: Evidence on the association between HIV infection and the risk of poor clinical outcomes in people with COVID-19 remains inconclusive. The World Health Organization (WHO) has established a Global Clinical Platform aimed to assess clinical features and risk factors for severe/fatal COVID-19 among individuals hospitalized with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.<br><br>Methods: Between January 2020-June 2021 anonymized individual-level clinical data from 338,566 patients hospitalized in 38 countries were reported to the WHO Clinical Platform using a standardized set of variables including demographics, vital signs, underlying conditions, laboratory values, therapeutics and medical care received, and clinical outcomes. Descriptive and regression analyses whether HIV status was a risk factor for severity at admission and in-hospital mortality among people hospitalized for COVID-19.<br><br>Findings: Of 197,479 patients reporting HIV status, 8.6% (16,955) were living with HIV (PLHIV), and 94.6% (16,283) were from Africa. Among those, 37.1% were male, mean age was 45.5 years, 38.3% were admitted with severe or critical illness and 24.7% died in-hospital. Among 10,166 individuals with information about antiretroviral therapy (ART) status, 91.5% were on ART. When compared to those without HIV, PLHIV had 15% increased odds of severe/critical presentation (aOR=1.15, 95%CI 1.10–1.20) and 38% more likely to die in-hospital (aHR=1.38, 95%CI 1.34-1.41). Among PLHIV, being male, age 45-75 years, having chronic cardiac disease or hypertension increased the odds of severe/critical COVID-19;male sex, age>18 years, having diabetes, hypertension, malignancy, TB, or chronic kidney disease increased the risk of in-hospital mortality.<br><br>Interpretation: In this sample of hospitalized people contributing data to the WHO Global Clinical Platform for COVID-19, HIV was a significant independent risk factor for both severe/critical COVID-19 at admission and in-hospital mortality. These findings have informed the WHO COVID-19 Clinical Management Guidelines and SAGE recommendations around COVID-19 vaccination prioritization among vulnerable groups.<br><br>Funding Information: None.<br><br>Declaration of Interests: R.H. received funding from the Wellcome Trust, CIHR UKRI/MRC and ICODA. None of the other authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.<br><br>Ethics Approval Statement: The analysis plan25 was submitted to the WHO Ethical Review Committee which granted a waiver from ethical review clearance as this was passive, anonymized clinical surveillance. Ethical clearance was obtained, where necessary, by relevant institutional or national bodies.<br><br>

11.
CMAJ Open ; 9(4): E1114-E1119, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1547694

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The detailed extent of neuroinvasion or deleterious brain changes resulting from COVID-19 and their time courses remain to be determined in relation to "long-haul" COVID-19 symptoms. Our objective is to determine whether there are alterations in functional brain imaging measures among people with COVID-19 after hospital discharge or self-isolation. METHODS: This paper describes a protocol for NeuroCOVID-19, a longitudinal observational study of adults aged 20-75 years at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario, that began in April 2020. We aim to recruit 240 adults, 60 per group: people who contracted COVID-19 and were admitted to hospital (group 1), people who contracted COVID-19 and self-isolated (group 2), people who experienced influenza-like symptoms at acute presentation but tested negative for COVID-19 and self-isolated (group 3, control) and healthy people (group 4, control). Participants are excluded based on premorbid neurologic or severe psychiatric illness, unstable cardiovascular disease, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contraindications. Initial and 3-month follow-up assessments include multiparametric brain MRI and electroencephalography. Sensation and cognition are assessed alongside neuropsychiatric assessments and symptom self-reports. We will test the data from the initial and follow-up assessments for group differences based on 3 outcome measures: MRI cerebral blood flow, MRI resting state fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation and electroencephalography spectral power. INTERPRETATION: If neurophysiologic alterations are detected in the COVID-19 groups in our NeuroCOVID-19 study, this information could inform future research regarding interventions for long-haul COVID-19. The study results will be disseminated to scientists, clinicians and COVID-19 survivors, as well as the public and private sectors to provide context on how brain measures relate to lingering symptoms.


Subject(s)
Brain/physiopathology , COVID-19/complications , Patient Discharge , Adult , Aged , Brain/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/physiopathology , Electroencephalography/methods , Female , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario , Patient Isolation/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
12.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(5): 522-532, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. METHODS: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. FINDINGS: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference -1·7 [-9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [-6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI -7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized , COVID-19 , Cytokine Release Syndrome , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/adverse effects , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Cytokine Release Syndrome/drug therapy , Cytokine Release Syndrome/etiology , Cytokine Release Syndrome/immunology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Humans , Immunologic Factors/administration & dosage , Immunologic Factors/adverse effects , International Cooperation , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome
13.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-292198

ABSTRACT

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been responsible for over 3.4 million deaths globally and over 25 million cases in India. As part of the response, India imposed a nation-wide lockdown and prioritized COVID-19 care in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs). Leveraging data from the Indian Registry of IntenSive care, we sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care service utilization, case-mix, and clinical outcomes in non-COVID ICUs.  Methods: We included all consecutive patients admitted between 1 st October 2019 and 27 th September 2020. Data were extracted from the registry database and included patients admitted to the non-COVID or general ICUs at each of the sites. Outcomes included measures of resource-availability, utilisation, case-mix, acuity, and demand for ICU beds. We used a Mann-Whitney test to compare the pre-pandemic period (October 2019 - February 2020) to the pandemic period (March-September 2020). In addition, we also compared the period of intense lockdown (March-May 31 st 2020) with the pre-pandemic period. Results: There were 3424 patient encounters in the pre-pandemic period and 3524 encounters in the pandemic period. Comparing these periods, weekly admissions declined (median [Q1 Q3] 160 [145,168] to 113 [98.5,134];p<0.001);unit turnover declined (median [Q1 Q3] 12.1 [11.32,13] to 8.58 [7.24,10], p<0.001), and APACHE II score increased (median [Q1 Q3] 19 [19,20] to 21 [20,22] ;p<0.001). Unadjusted ICU mortality increased (9.3% to 11.7%, p=0.015) and the length of ICU stay was similar (median [Q1 Q3] 2.11 [2, 2] vs. 2.24 [2, 3] days;p=0.151). Conclusion: Our registry-based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID critical care demonstrates significant disruptions to healthcare utilization during the pandemic and an increase in the severity of illness.

14.
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.

15.
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
16.
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
17.
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
18.
Chest ; 161(2): 418-428, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363121

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Critical Illness , Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adult , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
19.
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
20.
CJC Open ; 3(7): 965-975, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174145

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and/or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors could alter mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but existing meta-analyses that combined crude and adjusted results may be confounded by the fact that comorbidities are more common in ARB/ACE inhibitor users. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE/Embase for cohort studies and meta-analyses reporting mortality by preexisting ARB/ACE inhibitor treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Random effects meta-regression was used to compute pooled odds ratios for mortality adjusted for imbalance in age, sex, and prevalence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease between users and nonusers of ARBs/ACE inhibitors at the study level during data synthesis. RESULTS: In 30 included studies of 17,281 patients, 22%, 68%, 25%, and 11% had cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. ARB/ACE inhibitor use was associated with significantly lower mortality after controlling for potential confounding factors (odds ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.62, 0.96]). In contrast, meta-analysis of ARB/ACE inhibitor use was not significantly associated with mortality when all studies were combined with no adjustment made for confounders (0.87 [95% confidence interval: 0.71, 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: ARB/ACE inhibitor use was associated with decreased mortality in cohorts of COVID-19 patients after adjusting for age, sex, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Unadjusted meta-analyses may not be appropriate for determining whether ARBs/ACE inhibitors are associated with mortality from COVID-19 because of indication bias.


INTRODUCTION: Les antagonistes des récepteurs de l'angiotensine (ARA) et/ou les inhibiteurs de l'enzyme de conversion de l'angiotensine (IECA) feraient varier la mortalité liée à la COVID-19, mais il est possible que les méta-analyses actuelles qui combinaient les résultats bruts et ajustés soient invalidées du fait que les comorbidités sont plus fréquentes chez les utilisateurs d'ARA/IECA. MÉTHODES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données PubMed/MEDLINE/Embase pour trouver des études de cohorte et des méta-analyses qui portent sur la mortalité associée à un traitement préexistant par ARA/IECA chez les patients hospitalisés atteints de la COVID-19. Nous avons utilisé la métarégression à effets aléatoires pour calculer les rapports de cotes regroupés de mortalité ajustés en fonction du déséquilibre de l'âge, du sexe, et de la prévalence des maladies cardiovasculaires, de l'hypertension, du diabète sucré et de l'insuffisance rénale chronique entre les utilisateurs et les non-utilisateurs d'ARA/IECA dans le cadre de l'étude durant la synthèse des données. RÉSULTATS: Dans les 30 études portant sur 17 281 patients, 22 %, 68 %, 25 % et 11 % avaient respectivement une maladie cardiovasculaire, de l'hypertension, le diabète sucré et de l'insuffisance rénale chronique. L'utilisation des ARA/IECA a été associée à une mortalité significativement plus faible après avoir tenu compte des facteurs confusionnels potentiels (rapport de cotes 0,77 [intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 0,62, 0,96]). En revanche, la méta-analyse sur l'utilisation des ARA/IECA n'a pas été associée de façon significative à la mortalité lorsque toutes les études ont été combinées sans ajustement sur les facteurs confusionnels (0,87 [intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 0,71, 1,08]). CONCLUSIONS: L'utilisation des ARA/IECA a été associée à la diminution de la mortalité au sein des cohortes de patients atteints de la COVID-19 après l'ajustement en fonction de l'âge, du sexe, des maladies cardiovasculaires, de l'hypertension, du diabète et de l'insuffisance rénale chronique. Les méta-analyses non ajustées peuvent ne pas permettre de déterminer si les ARA/IECA sont associés à la mortalité liée à la COVID-19 en raison du biais d'indication.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL