Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Crit Care Med ; 51(4): 445-459, 2023 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2238702

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened standard hospital operations. We sought to understand how this stress was perceived and manifested within individual hospitals and in relation to local viral activity. DESIGN: Prospective weekly hospital stress survey, November 2020-June 2022. SETTING: Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Severe Acute Respiratory Infection-Preparedness multicenter cohort study. SUBJECTS: Thirteen hospitals across seven U.S. health systems. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 839 hospital-weeks of data over 85 pandemic weeks and five viral surges. Perceived overall hospital, ICU, and emergency department (ED) stress due to severe acute respiratory infection patients during the pandemic were reported by a mean of 43% ( sd , 36%), 32% (30%), and 14% (22%) of hospitals per week, respectively, and perceived care deviations in a mean of 36% (33%). Overall hospital stress was highly correlated with ICU stress (ρ = 0.82; p < 0.0001) but only moderately correlated with ED stress (ρ = 0.52; p < 0.0001). A county increase in 10 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cases per 100,000 residents was associated with an increase in the odds of overall hospital, ICU, and ED stress by 9% (95% CI, 5-12%), 7% (3-10%), and 4% (2-6%), respectively. During the Delta variant surge, overall hospital stress persisted for a median of 11.5 weeks (interquartile range, 9-14 wk) after local case peak. ICU stress had a similar pattern of resolution (median 11 wk [6-14 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.59) while the resolution of ED stress (median 6 wk [5-6 wk] after local case peak; p = 0.003) was earlier. There was a similar but attenuated pattern during the Omicron BA.1 subvariant surge. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived care deviations were common and potentially avoidable patient harm was rare. Perceived hospital stress persisted for weeks after surges peaked.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , Cohort Studies , Prospective Studies , Hospitals
2.
Geroscience ; 2023 Jan 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2174842

ABSTRACT

In children and younger adults up to 39 years of age, SARS-CoV-2 usually elicits mild symptoms that resemble the common cold. Disease severity increases with age starting at 30 and reaches astounding mortality rates that are ~330 fold higher in persons above 85 years of age compared to those 18-39 years old. To understand age-specific immune pathobiology of COVID-19, we have analyzed soluble mediators, cellular phenotypes, and transcriptome from over 80 COVID-19 patients of varying ages and disease severity, carefully controlling for age as a variable. We found that reticulocyte numbers and peripheral blood transcriptional signatures robustly correlated with disease severity. By contrast, decreased numbers and proportion of naïve T-cells, reported previously as a COVID-19 severity risk factor, were found to be general features of aging and not of COVID-19 severity, as they readily occurred in older participants experiencing only mild or no disease at all. Single-cell transcriptional signatures across age and severity groups showed that severe but not moderate/mild COVID-19 causes cell stress response in different T-cell populations, and some of that stress was unique to old severe participants, suggesting that in severe disease of older adults, these defenders of the organism may be disabled from performing immune protection. These findings shed new light on interactions between age and disease severity in COVID-19.

3.
Circulation ; 146(18): 1344-1356, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2020592

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Thrombosis , Venous Thrombosis , Humans , Critical Illness , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Clopidogrel/therapeutic use , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Venous Thrombosis/drug therapy , Venous Thrombosis/epidemiology , Venous Thrombosis/prevention & control , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
4.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open ; 1(4): 521-526, 2020 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1898678

ABSTRACT

Objectives: This study evaluates aerosol production with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) compared to 6 L/min by low-flow nasal cannula. Methods: Two healthy volunteers were randomized to control (6 L/min by low-flow nasal cannula), NIPPV, or HFNC using block randomization. NIPPV conditions were studied using continuous positive airway pressures of 5, 10, and 15 cm H2O with an FiO2 of 1.0 delivered via full-face mask. HFNC conditions included flow rates of 30 and 40 L/min with an FiO2 of 1.0 with and without coughing. HFNC and low-flow nasal cannula conditions were repeated with and without participants wearing a surgical mask. Six aerosol sizes (0.3, 1.0, 2.5, 5, and 10 µm) and total aerosol mass were measured at 2 and 6 ft from the participant's nasopharynx. Results: There was no significant difference in aerosol production between either HFNC or NIPPV and control. There was also no significant difference with the use of a procedural mask over the HFNC. There was significant variation between the 2 participants, but in neither case was there a difference compared to control. There was an aerosol-time trend, but there does not appear to be a difference between either flow rate, pressure, or control. Furthermore, there was no accumulation of total aerosol particles over the total duration of the experiment in both HFNC and NIPPV conditions. Conclusions: HFNC and NIPPV did not increase aerosol production compared to 6 L/min by low-flow nasal cannula in this experiment involving healthy volunteers.

5.
Critical care explorations ; 4(3), 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1727724

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Acute respiratory failure is a common reason for ICU admission and imposes significant strain on patients and the healthcare system. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen are increasingly used as an alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation to treat acute respiratory failure. As such, there is a need to accurately cohort patients using large, routinely collected, clinical data to better understand utilization patterns and patient outcomes. The primary objective of this retrospective observational study was to externally validate our computable phenotyping algorithm for patients with acute respiratory failure requiring various sequences of respiratory support in real-world data from a large healthcare delivery network. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional observational study to validate our algorithm for phenotyping acute respiratory patients by method of respiratory support. We randomly selected 5% (n = 4,319) from each phenotype for manual validation. We calculated the algorithm performance and generated summary statistics for each phenotype and a priori defined clinical subgroups. SETTING: Data were extracted from a clinical data warehouse containing electronic health record data from 46 ICUs in the southwest United States. PATIENTS: All adult (≥ 18 yr) patient records requiring any type of oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation between November 1, 2013, and September 30, 2020, were extracted for the study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Micro- and macroaveraged multiclass specificities of the algorithm were 0.902 and 0.896, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of phenotypes individually were greater than 0.90 for all phenotypes except for those patients extubated from invasive to noninvasive ventilation. We successfully created clinical subgroups of common illnesses requiring ventilatory support and provide high-level comparison of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The electronic phenotyping algorithm is robust and provides a necessary tool for retrospective research for characterizing patients with acute respiratory failure across modalities of respiratory support.

6.
BMC Nephrol ; 23(1): 63, 2022 02 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690946

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 develop acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently, yet gaps remain in understanding why adults seem to have higher rates compared to children. Our objectives were to evaluate the epidemiology of SARS-CoV2-related AKI across the age spectrum and determine if known risk factors such as illness severity contribute to its pattern. METHODS: Secondary analysis of ongoing prospective international cohort registry. AKI was defined by KDIGO-creatinine only criteria. Log-linear, logistic and generalized estimating equations assessed odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AKI and mortality adjusting for sex, pre-existing comorbidities, race/ethnicity, illness severity, and clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses assessed different baseline creatinine estimators. RESULTS: Overall, among 6874 hospitalized patients, 39.6% (n = 2719) developed AKI. There was a bimodal distribution of AKI by age with peaks in older age (≥60 years) and middle childhood (5-15 years), which persisted despite controlling for illness severity, pre-existing comorbidities, or different baseline creatinine estimators. For example, the adjusted OR of developing AKI among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 was 2.74 (95% CI 1.66-4.56) for 10-15-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds and similarly was 2.31 (95% CI 1.71-3.12) for 70-75-year-olds, while adjusted OR dropped to 1.39 (95% CI 0.97-2.00) for 40-45-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV2-related AKI is common with a bimodal age distribution that is not fully explained by known risk factors or confounders. As the pandemic turns to disproportionately impacting younger individuals, this deserves further investigation as the presence of AKI and SARS-CoV2 infection increases hospital mortality risk.


Subject(s)
Acute Kidney Injury/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Inpatients/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Acute Kidney Injury/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Comorbidity , Confidence Intervals , Creatinine/blood , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Registries/statistics & numerical data , Severity of Illness Index
7.
Eur J Med Res ; 26(1): 117, 2021 Oct 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1448444

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-6 receptor antagonists (IL-6RAs) and steroids are emerging immunomodulatory therapies for severe and critical coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In this preliminary report, we aim to describe the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of adult critically ill COVID-19 patients, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV), and receiving IL-6RA and steroids therapy over the last 11 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International, multicenter, cohort study derived from Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study registry and conducted through Discovery Network, Society of Critical Care Medicine. Data were collected between March 01, 2020, and January 10, 2021. RESULTS: Of 860 patients who met eligibility criteria, 589 received steroids, 170 IL-6RAs, and 101 combinations. Patients who received IL-6RAs were younger (median age of 57.5 years vs. 61.1 and 61.8 years in the steroids and combination groups, respectively). The median C-reactive protein level was > 75 mg/L, indicating a hyperinflammatory phenotype. The median daily steroid dose was 7.5 mg dexamethasone or equivalent (interquartile range: 6-14 mg); 80.8% and 19.2% received low-dose and high-dose steroids, respectively. Of the patients who received IL-6RAs, the majority received one dose of tocilizumab and sarilumab (dose range of 600-800 mg for tocilizumab and 200-400 mg for sarilumab). Regarding the timing of administration, we observed that steroid and IL-6RA administration on day 0 of ICU admission was only 55.6% and 39.5%, respectively. By day 28, when compared with steroid use alone, IL-6RA use was associated with an adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) of 1.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88, 1.4) for ventilator-free days, while combination therapy was associated with an aIRR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.6, 1.14). IL-6RA use was associated with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.44, 1.07) for the 28-day mortality rate, while combination therapy was associated with an aOR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.67, 1.70). Liver dysfunction was higher in IL-6RA group (p = 0.04), while the bacteremia rate did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance was observed between the registry utilization patterns (i.e., timing of steroids and IL-6RA administration) and new evidence from the recent randomized controlled trials and guideline recommendations. These data will help us to identify areas of improvement in prescribing patterns and enhance our understanding of IL-6RA safety with different steroid regimens. Further studies are needed to evaluate the drivers of hospital-level variation and their impact on clinical outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04486521. Registered on July 2020.


Subject(s)
Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19/complications , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , Registries/statistics & numerical data , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/mortality , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Critical Illness , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , International Agencies , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/epidemiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Survival Rate , Young Adult
8.
J Med Virol ; 93(7): 4303-4318, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1118166

ABSTRACT

Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787). We find that COVID-19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality-rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e-52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e-8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e-5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow-up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Enoxaparin/therapeutic use , Healthcare Disparities , Heparin/therapeutic use , Thrombosis/prevention & control , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Coagulation/drug effects , COVID-19/blood , Enoxaparin/adverse effects , Female , Heparin/adverse effects , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombosis/drug therapy , COVID-19 Drug Treatment
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL