ABSTRACT
Rationale: Family members of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have described increased symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Little is known about how these symptoms may change over time. Objectives: We studied changes in PTSD symptoms in family members of critically ill patients with COVID-19 over 12 months. Methods: This prospective, multisite observational cohort study recruited participants at 12 hospitals in five states. Calls were made to participants at 3-4 months, 6 months, and 12 months after patient admission to the intensive care unit. Results: There were 955 eligible family members, of whom 330 (53.3% of those reached) consented to participate. Complete longitudinal data was acquired for 115 individuals (34.8% consented). PTSD symptoms were measured by the IES-6 (Impact of Events Scale-6), with a score of at least 10 identifying significant symptoms. At 3 months, the mean IES-6 score was 11.9 ± 6.1, with 63.6% having significant symptoms, decreasing to 32.9% at 1 year (mean IES-6 score, 7.6 ± 5.0). Three clusters of symptom evolution emerged over time: persistent symptoms (34.8%, n = 40), recovered symptoms (33.0%, n = 38), and nondevelopment of symptoms (32.2%, n = 37). Although participants identifying as Hispanic demonstrated initially higher adjusted IES-6 scores (2.57 points higher [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-4.1; P < 0.001]), they also demonstrated a more dramatic improvement in adjusted scores over time (4.7 greater decrease at 12 months [95% CI, 3.2-6.3; P < 0.001]). Conclusions: One year later, some family members of patients with COVID-19 continue to experience significant symptoms of PTSD. Further studies are needed to better understand how various differences contribute to increased risk for these symptoms.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Humans , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Prospective Studies , Critical Illness , COVID-19/complications , FamilyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure (AERF) are associated with hospital mortality of 7% to 15%. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as salvage therapy for refractory AERF, but controlled studies showing its association with mortality have not been performed. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is treatment with ECMO associated with lower mortality in refractory AERF compared with standard care? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, epidemiologic, observational cohort study using a national, administrative data set from 2010 to 2020 that includes 25% of US hospitalizations. People were included if they were admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with an asthma exacerbation, and were treated with short-acting bronchodilators, systemic corticosteroids, and invasive ventilation. People were excluded for age < 18 years, no ICU stay, nonasthma chronic lung disease, COVID-19, or multiple admissions. The main exposure was ECMO vs No ECMO. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Key secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, time receiving invasive ventilation, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: The study analyzed 13,714 patients with AERF, including 127 with ECMO and 13,587 with No ECMO. ECMO was associated with reduced mortality in the covariate-adjusted (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64; P = .001), propensity score-adjusted (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.81; P = .01), and propensity score-matched models (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.98; P = .04) vs No ECMO. Sensitivity analyses showed that mortality reduction related to ECMO ranged from OR 0.34 to 0.61. ECMO was also associated with increased hospital costs in all three models (P < .0001 for all) vs No ECMO, but not with decreased ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or time receiving invasive ventilation. INTERPRETATION: ECMO was associated with lower mortality and higher hospital costs, suggesting that it may be an important salvage therapy for refractory AERF following confirmatory clinical trials.
ABSTRACT
Colorado issued a month long statewide lockdown on March 26, 2020, during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this mandate on non-COVID-19 ICU admission rates and outcomes is unclear. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis of all medical ICU admissions in the University of Colorado Health System in four predefined periods: 1) prepandemic (2 mo prior to lockdown period 1); 2) mandated lockdown from March 26 to April 26, 2020 (period 2); 3) between surges (period 3); and 4) nonmandated lockdown surge (between November 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, period 4). SETTING: Nonsurgical ICU admissions at the University of Colorado Health Systems, including 10 hospitals throughout Colorado. SUBJECTS: All ICU admissions in four predefined time periods. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 13,787 patients who were admitted during the four study periods. The 28-day mortality rates for non-COVID-19 ICU admissions following index ICU admission were 13.6%, 18.0%, 13.5%, and 16.0% across periods 1-4, respectively. However, the increased odds in non-COVID-19 ICU mortality during the mandated lockdown period relative to prepandemic 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.11-1.72; p = 0.0.04) was attenuated and nonsignificant after adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis flags, and severity (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89-1.48; p = 0.27). Similar results were found in time-to-event analyses. The most common diagnosis in each time period was acute respiratory failure (ARF), and we found it to have increased during lockdown (p < 0.001), whereas sepsis admissions increased during and decreased after lockdown (p = 0.004). Admissions for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) increased during lockdown and 6 months afterwards (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: For non-COVID-19-related ICU admissions, mortality rate was similar before, during, and after Colorado's month long lockdown after confounder adjustment, including typical ICU admission flags. Primary admission diagnoses shifted throughout the predefined study periods with more admissions for severe critical diagnoses (i.e., ARF, sepsis, AWS) occurring during the mandated lockdown and nonmandated lockdown periods compared with the prepandemic and between surge period. This would suggest that the perceived increase in mortality during the lockdown for non-COVID-19 ICU admissions may be related to a shift inpatient demographics.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments. SETTING: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States. SUBJECTS: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.
Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Physicians , Adult , Male , Humans , Child , United States/epidemiology , Female , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units , Adaptation, Psychological , Surveys and Questionnaires , North AmericaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Work-related psychological distress is common among health care professionals. We determined whether 4 creative arts therapy (CAT) programs were acceptable, feasible, and improved psychological distress and job turnover intention in health care professionals with burnout symptoms. METHODS: Health care professionals were enrolled during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic from September 2020 until July 2021. Participants attended in-person weekly 90-minute group session for 12 consecutive weeks. Intervention and control subjects completed surveys before the beginning and after the end of their cohort. The study outcomes were session attendance (feasibility), program satisfaction (acceptability), and change in symptoms of anxiety, depression, burnout, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and job turnover intention. RESULTS: We randomized 165 participants into 4 CAT interventions and 1 common control group across 3 sequential cohorts. Thirty-five randomized participants dropped out before the start of the cohort, and 16 were replaced from a waiting list. Therefore, the cohort consisted of 146 participants. On average, participants were 35 years old, white (85%), and female (92%). Overall, 52% were nurses, 10% were doctors, and 16% were behavioral health specialists. Participants attended a median of 9.5 [8-11] sessions. Program satisfaction was high with a median Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) score of 31 [17-32] out of a possible score of 32. Participants randomized to the intervention had improvements in anxiety (P < .0001) and depression scores (P = .0007), total posttraumatic stress disorder score (P =.0002), burnout scores (P = .001, .003, .008), and turnover intention (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: A CAT program is feasible, acceptable, and may reduce psychological distress and turnover intention for health care professionals.
Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Burnout, Professional/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Personnel Turnover , Stress, Psychological/prevention & controlABSTRACT
Importance: The psychological symptoms associated with having a family member admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic are not well defined. Objective: To examine the prevalence of symptoms of stress-related disorders, primarily posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in family members of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 approximately 90 days after admission. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multisite, mixed-methods observational cohort study assessed 330 family members of patients admitted to the ICU (except in New York City, which had a random sample of 25% of all admitted patients per month) between February 1 and July 31, 2020, at 8 academic-affiliated and 4 community-based hospitals in 5 US states. Exposure: Having a family member in the ICU with COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: Symptoms of PTSD at 3 months, as defined by a score of 10 or higher on the Impact of Events Scale 6 (IES-6). Results: A total of 330 participants (mean [SD] age, 51.2 [15.1] years; 228 [69.1%] women; 150 [52.8%] White; 92 [29.8%] Hispanic) were surveyed at the 3-month time point. Most individuals were the patients' child (129 [40.6%]) or spouse or partner (81 [25.5%]). The mean (SD) IES-6 score at 3 months was 11.9 (6.1), with 201 of 316 respondents (63.6%) having scores of 10 or higher, indicating significant symptoms of PTSD. Female participants had an adjusted mean IES-6 score of 2.6 points higher (95% CI, 1.4-3.8; P < .001) than male participants, whereas Hispanic participants scored a mean of 2.7 points higher compared with non-Hispanic participants (95% CI, 1.0-4.3; P = .002). Those with graduate school experience had an adjusted mean score of 3.3 points lower (95% CI, 1.5-5.1; P < .001) compared with those with up to a high school degree or equivalent. Qualitative analyses found no substantive differences in the emotional or communication-related experiences between those with high vs low PTSD scores, but those with higher scores exhibited more distrust of practitioners. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, symptoms of PTSD among family members of ICU patients with COVID-19 were high. Hispanic ethnicity and female gender were associated with higher symptoms. Those with higher scores reported more distrust of practitioners.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Cohort Studies , Family/psychology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychologySubject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Understanding of the complex pathways involved in lung injury pathogenesis, resolution, and repair has grown considerably in recent decades. Nevertheless, to date, only therapies targeting ventilation-induced lung injury have consistently proven beneficial, and despite these gains, ARDS morbidity and mortality remain high. Many candidate therapies with promise in preclinical studies have been ineffective in human trials, probably at least in part due to clinical and biological heterogeneity that modifies treatment responsiveness in human ARDS. A precision medicine approach to ARDS seeks to better account for this heterogeneity by matching therapies to subgroups of patients that are anticipated to be most likely to benefit, which initially might be identified in part by assessing for heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. In October 2019, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop of multidisciplinary experts to explore research opportunities and challenges for accelerating precision medicine in ARDS. Topics of discussion included the rationale and challenges for a precision medicine approach in ARDS, the roles of preclinical ARDS models in precision medicine, essential features of cohort studies to advance precision medicine, and novel approaches to clinical trials to support development and validation of a precision medicine strategy. In this Position Paper, we summarise workshop discussions, recommendations, and unresolved questions for advancing precision medicine in ARDS. Although the workshop took place before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for precision therapies for ARDS as the global scientific community grapples with many of the key concepts, innovations, and challenges discussed at this workshop.
Subject(s)
Precision Medicine , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19 , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS). MATERIALS/METHODS: In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall. RESULTS: Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.
Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Survivors , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Mental Recall , Patient Discharge , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Survivors/psychologySubject(s)
COVID-19 , Compassion Fatigue , Health Personnel , Occupational Stress , Psychosocial Support Systems , Stress, Psychological , Allied Health Personnel/organization & administration , Burnout, Professional/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/therapy , Compassion Fatigue/etiology , Compassion Fatigue/prevention & control , Health Personnel/ethics , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Moral Obligations , Occupational Stress/etiology , Occupational Stress/prevention & control , Psychosocial Functioning , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Stress, Psychological/prevention & controlABSTRACT
Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results: Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment FailureABSTRACT
The ORCHID (Outcomes Related to COVID-19 treated with Hydroxychloroquine among In-patients with symptomatic Disease) trial is a multicenter, blinded, randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for the treatment of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This document provides the rationale and background for the trial and highlights key design features. We discuss five novel challenges to the design and conduct of a large, multicenter, randomized trial during a pandemic, including 1) widespread, off-label use of the study drug before the availability of safety and efficacy data; 2) the need to adapt traditional procedures for documentation of informed consent during an infectious pandemic; 3) developing a flexible and robust Bayesian analysis incorporating significant uncertainty about the disease, outcomes, and treatment; 4) obtaining indistinguishable drug and placebo without delaying enrollment; and 5) rapidly obtaining administrative and regulatory approvals. Our goals in describing how the ORCHID trial progressed from study conception to enrollment of the first patient in 15 days are to inform the development of other high-quality, multicenter trials targeting COVID-19. We describe lessons learned to improve the efficiency of future clinical trials, particularly in the setting of pandemics. The ORCHID trial will provide high-quality, clinically relevant data on the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04332991).
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Hydroxychloroquine/administration & dosage , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Adult , Antimalarials/administration & dosage , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Single-Blind Method , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
At the time of writing this paper, there are over 11 million reported cases of COVID-19 worldwide. Health professionals involved in dysphagia care are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic in their day-to-day practices. Otolaryngologists, gastroenterologists, rehabilitation specialists, and speech-language pathologists are subject to virus exposure due to their proximity to the aerodigestive tract and reliance on aerosol-generating procedures in swallow assessments and interventions. Across the globe, professional societies and specialty associations are issuing recommendations about which procedures to use, when to use them, and how to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission during their use. Balancing safety for self, patients, and the public while maintaining adequate evidence-based dysphagia practices has become a significant challenge. This paper provides current evidence on COVID-19 transmission during commonly used dysphagia practices and provides recommendations for protection while conducting these procedures. The paper summarizes current understanding of dysphagia in patients with COVID-19 and draws on evidence for dysphagia interventions that can be provided without in-person consults and close proximity procedures including dysphagia screening and telehealth.