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

3.
Transfus Med Rev ; 2021 Oct 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1517488

ABSTRACT

Current evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews on the utility of convalescent plasma (CP) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) suggests a lack of benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of RCTs with trial sequential analysis to investigate whether convalescent plasma is futile in reducing mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We searched 6 databases from December 1, 2019 to August 1, 2021 for RCTs comparing the use of CP with standard of care or transfusion of non-CP standard plasma in patients with COVID-19. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool. Random effects (DerSimonian and Laird) meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcome was the aggregate risk for in-hospital mortality between both arms. We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) based on the pooled relative risks (RRs) for in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the pooled RR for receipt of mechanical ventilation and mean difference in hospital length of stay. We included 18 RCTs (8702 CP, 7906 control). CP was not associated with a significant mortality benefit (RR: 0.95, 95%-CI: 0.86-1.04, P = .27, high certainty). Subgroup analysis did not find any significant differences (pinteraction = 0.30) between patients who received CP within 8 days of symptom onset (RR: 0.97, 95%-CI: 0.79-1.19, P = .80), or after 8 days (RR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.57-1.10, P = .16). TSA based on a RR reduction of 10% from a baseline mortality of 20% found that CP was not effective, with the pooled effect within the boundary for futility. CP did not significantly reduce the requirement for mechanical ventilation (RR: 1.00, 95%-CI: 0.91-1.10, P = .99, moderate certainty) or hospital length of stay (+1.32, 95%-CI: -1.86 to +4.52, P = .42, low certainty). CP does not improve relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, especially in severe disease. The pooled effect of mortality was within the boundary of futility, suggesting the lack of benefit of CP in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

5.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): e1001-e1014, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475867

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Prone Position/physiology , COVID-19/mortality , Humans , Patient Positioning , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology
6.
PLoS One ; 16(10): e0257162, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1456080

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of medical technologies applied in life-threatening conditions, including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) requires appropriate preparation and training of medical personnel. The pandemic has accelerated the creation of new ECMO centers and has highlighted continuous training in adapting to new pandemic standards. To reach high standards of patients' care, we created the first of its kind, National Education Centre for Artificial Life Support (NEC-ALS) in 40 million inhabitants' country in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The role of the Center is to test and promote the novel or commonly used procedures as well as to develop staff skills on management of patients needing ECMO. METHOD: In 2020, nine approved and endorsed by ELSO courses of "Artificial Life Support with ECMO" were organized. Physicians participated in the three-day high-fidelity simulation-based training that was adapted to abide by the social distancing norms of the COVID-19 pandemic. Knowledge as well as crucial cognitive, behavioral and technical aspects (on a 5-point Likert scale) of management on ECMO were assessed before and after course completion. Moreover, the results of training in mechanical chest compression were also evaluated. RESULTS: There were 115 participants (60% men) predominantly in the age of 30-40 years. Majority of them (63%) were anesthesiologists or intensivists with more than 5-year clinical experience, but 54% had no previous ECMO experience. There was significant improvement after the course in all cognitive, behavioral, and technical self-assessments. Among aspects of management with ECMO that all increased significantly following the course, the most pronounced was related to the technical one (from approximately 1.0 to more 4.0 points). Knowledge scores significantly increased post-course from 11.4 ± SD to 13 ± SD (out of 15 points). The quality of manual chest compression relatively poor before course improved significantly after training. CONCLUSIONS: Our course confirmed that simulation as an educational approach is invaluable not only in training and testing of novel or commonly used procedures, skills upgrading, but also in practicing very rare cases. The implementation of the education program during COVID-19 pandemic may be helpful in founding specialized Advanced Life Support centers and teams including mobile ones. The dedicated R&D Innovation Ecosystem established in the "ECMO for Greater Poland" program, with developed National Education Center can play a crucial role in the knowledge and know-how transfer but future research is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Education, Distance , Education, Medical, Continuing , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Simulation Training , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male
7.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 292, 2021 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1351141

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) improves oxygenation and respiratory mechanics and is associated with lower mortality in patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Despite this, some patients develop refractory hypoxemia and hypercapnia requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) support and are usually cared for in supine position. The physiologic and outcome benefits of routine PP of patients during VV ECMO remains unclear. Hence, we conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcome benefits of PP for patients with ARDS being treated with VV ECMO. METHODS: After registration with PROSPERO (CRD42020199723), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant studies that reported PP in more than 10 adult patients supported with VV ECMO from origin to 1 March 2021. Studies were reviewed for quality using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. The random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird) was used. The primary outcome of interest was cumulative survival. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) and ECMO duration. Changes in arterial blood gas (ABG) values, ventilator mechanics and complication rates were also studied. RESULTS: Of 812 potentially relevant publications, 12 studies (640 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Due to overlapping study populations, 11 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Cumulative survival in patients that underwent PP was 57% (95% CI 41.9-71.4, high certainty). Patients that underwent PP had longer ICU LOS (+ 14.5 days, 95% CI 3.4-25.7, p = 0.01) and ECMO duration (+ 9.6 days, 95% CI 5.5-13.7, p < 0.0001). After PP, patients had significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower PaCO2 and reduced ventilator driving pressure, and no major complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: PP during VV ECMO appears safe with a cumulative survival of 57% and may result in longer ECMO runs and ICU LOS. However, evidence from appropriately designed randomized trials is needed prior to widespread adoption of PP on VV ECMO.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Humans , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Retrospective Studies
8.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 2021 Sep 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1439746

ABSTRACT

Severe COVID-19 patients demonstrate hypercoagulability, necessitating thromboprophylaxis. However, less is known about the haemostatic profile in mild COVID-19 patients. We performed an age and gender-matched prospective study of 10 severe and 10 mild COVID-19 patients. Comprehensive coagulation profiling together with Thromboelastography and Clot Waveform Analysis were performed. FBC, PT, APTT, D-dimer, fibrinogen and CWA were repeated every 3 days for both groups and repeat TEG was performed for severe patients up till 15 days. On recruitment, severe patients had markers reflecting hypercoagulability including raised median D-dimer 1.0 µg/mL (IQR 0.6, 1.4) (p = 0.0004), fibrinogen 5.6 g/L (IQR 4.9, 6.6) (p = 0.002), Factor VIII 206% (IQR 171, 203) and vWF levels 265.5% (IQR 206, 321). Mild patients had normal values of PT, aPTT, fibrinogen and D-dimer, and slightly elevated median Factor VIII and von Willebrand factor (vWF) levels. Repeated 3-day assessments for both groups showed declining trends in D-dimer and Fibrinogen. CWA of severe COVID-19 group demonstrated hypercoagulability with an elevated median values of aPTT delta change 78.8% (IQR 69.8, 85.2) (p = 0.001), aPTT clot velocity (min1) 7.8%/s (IQR 6.7, 8.3) (p = 0.001), PT delta change 22.4% (IQR 19.4, 29.5) (p = 0.004), PT min1 7.1%/s (IQR 6.3, 9.0) (p = 0.02), PT clot acceleration (min 2) 3.6%/s2 (IQR 3.2, 4.5) (p = 0.02) and PT clot deceleration (max2) 2.9%/s2 (IQR 2.5, 3.5) (p = 0.02). TEG of severe patients reflected hypercoagulability with significant increases in the median values of CFF MA 34.6 mm (IQR 27.4,38.6) (p = 0.003), CRT Angle 78.9° (IQR 78.3, 80.0) (p = 0.0006), CRT A10 67.6 mm (IQR 65.8, 69.6) (p = 0.007) and CFF A10 32.0 mm (IQR 26.8, 34.0) (p = 0.003). Mild COVID-19 patients had absent hypercoagulability in both CWA and TEG. 2 severe patients developed thromboembolic events while none occurred in the mild COVID-19 group. Mild COVID-19 patients show absent parameters of hypercoagulability in global haemostatic tests while those with severe COVID-19 demonstrated parameters associated with hypercoagulability on the global haemostatic tests together with raised D-Dimer, fibrinogen, Factor VIII and vWF levels.

9.
Aust Crit Care ; 2021 Jul 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1361381

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines on infection control strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are incomprehensive and/or ambiguous may compromise HCWs' safety. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection control strategies in HCWs based on the guidelines published early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND OUTCOMES: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was performed. The tool was validated by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific, and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income. RESULTS: Overall consensus (≥75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The Delphi panel recommended an ideal infection control guideline should encompass six domains: general characteristics (domain 1), engineering recommendations (domain 2), personal protective equipment (PPE) use (domain 3), and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection control. The appraisal tool performed well across the six domains, and the inter-rater agreement was excellent for the 40 guidelines. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 than in domains 4-6, and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries. CONCLUSION: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Engineering recommendations aspects of infection control, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use, and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high-quality HCW infection control guidelines during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development.

10.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 211, 2021 06 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352668

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are several reports of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to guide clinical decision-making and future research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1 December 2019 to 10 January 2021 for observational studies or randomised clinical trials examining ECMO in adults with COVID-19 ARDS. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression, assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Survival outcomes were presented as pooled proportions while continuous outcomes were presented as pooled means, both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals [CIs]. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were duration of ECMO therapy and mechanical ventilation, weaning rate from ECMO and complications during ECMO. RESULTS: We included twenty-two observational studies with 1896 patients in the meta-analysis. Venovenous ECMO was the predominant mode used (98.6%). The pooled in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (22 studies, 1896 patients) supported with ECMO was 37.1% (95% CI 32.3-42.0%, high certainty). Pooled mortality in the venovenous ECMO group was 35.7% (95% CI 30.7-40.7%, high certainty). Meta-regression found that age and ECMO duration were associated with increased mortality. Duration of ECMO support (18 studies, 1844 patients) was 15.1 days (95% CI 13.4-18.7). Weaning from ECMO (17 studies, 1412 patients) was accomplished in 67.6% (95% CI 50.5-82.7%) of patients. There were a total of 1583 ECMO complications reported (18 studies, 1721 patients) and renal complications were the most common. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients received venovenous ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS. In-hospital mortality in patients receiving ECMO support for COVID-19 was 37.1% during the first year of the pandemic, similar to those with non-COVID-19-related ARDS. Increasing age was a risk factor for death. Venovenous ECMO appears to be an effective intervention in selected patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. PROSPERO CRD42020192627.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Risk Assessment
12.
Aust Crit Care ; 2021 Mar 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1126693

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections. OBJECTIVE: To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2. FINDINGS: Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.

13.
ASAIO J ; 66(7): 707-721, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-981428

ABSTRACT

Disclaimer: The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Guidelines have been developed to assist existing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) centers to prepare and plan provision of ECMO during the ongoing pandemic. The recommendations have been put together by a team of interdisciplinary ECMO providers from around the world. Recommendations are based on available evidence, existing best practice guidelines, ethical principles, and expert opinion. This is a living document and will be regularly updated when new information becomes available. ELSO is not liable for the accuracy or completeness of the information in this document. These guidelines are not meant to replace sound clinical judgment or specialist consultation but rather to strengthen provision and clinical management of ECMO specifically, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Consensus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Indian J Crit Care Med ; 24(10): 926-931, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-969516

ABSTRACT

Background: About 5% of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients will need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring oxygen support. The choice between early mechanical ventilation and noninvasive oxygen therapies, such as, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and/or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has to balance the contradictory priorities of protecting healthcare workers by minimizing aerosol-generation and optimizing resource management. This survey over two timeframes aimed to explore the controversial issue of location and noninvasive oxygen therapy in non-intubated ICU patients using a clinical vignette. Materials and methods: An online survey was designed, piloted, and distributed electronically to Indian intensivists/anesthetists, from private hospitals, government hospitals, and medical college hospitals (the latter two referred to as first-responder hospitals), who are directly responsible for admitting/managing patients in ICU. Results: Of the 204 responses (125/481 in phase 1 and 79/320 in phase 2), 183 responses were included. Respondents from first-responder hospitals were more willing to manage non-intubated hypoxemic patients in neutral pressure rooms, while respondents from private hospitals preferred negative-pressure rooms (p < 0.001). In both the phases, private hospital doctors were less comfortable to use any form of noninvasive oxygen therapies in neutral-pressure rooms compared to first-responder hospitals (low-flow oxygen therapy: 72 vs 50%, p < 0.01; HFNO: 47 vs 24%, p < 0.01 and NPPV: 38 vs 28%, p = 0.20). Interpretation: Variations existed in practices among first-responder and private intensivists/anesthetists. The resource optimal private hospital intensivists/anesthetists were less comfortable using noninvasive oxygen therapies in managing COVID-19 patients. This may reflect differential resource availability necessitating resolution at national, state, and local levels. How to cite this article: Subramaniam A, Haji JY, Kumar P, Ramanathan K, Rajamani A. Noninvasive Oxygen Strategies to Manage Confirmed COVID-19 Patients in Indian Intensive Care Units: A Survey. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(10):926-931.

15.
Aust Crit Care ; 34(2): 135-141, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-935432

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge in coronavirus disease 2019 admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia-Pacific countries. Because ICU healthcare workers are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures, ensuring optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate PPE preparedness across ICUs in six Asia-Pacific countries during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as guideline adherence, training healthcare workers, procuring stocks, and responding appropriately to suspected cases. METHODS: A cross-sectional Web-based survey was circulated to 633 level II/III ICUs of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India, and the Philippines. FINDINGS: Two hundred sixty-three intensivists responded, representing 231 individual ICUs eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. Ninety-seven percent of ICUs either conformed to or exceeded World Health Organization recommendations for PPE practice. Fifty-nine percent ICUs used airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol generation procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow nasal oxygenation and noninvasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7% and 83.3%, respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50% and 80%, respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. Thirty-eight percent ICUs reported not having specialised airway teams. Showering and "buddy systems" were underused. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Many ICUs in the Asia-Pacific reported suboptimal PPE preparedness in several domains, particularly related to PPE training, practice, and stock awareness, which requires remediation. Adoption of low-cost approaches such as buddy systems should be encouraged. The complete avoidance of high-flow nasal oxygenation reported by several intensivists needs reconsideration. Consideration must be given to standardise PPE guidelines to minimise practice variations. Urgent research to evaluate PPE preparedness and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission is required.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Infection Control/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Personal Protective Equipment , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Humans , India/epidemiology , New Zealand/epidemiology , Pandemics , Philippines/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
16.
Indian J Crit Care Med ; 24(9): 809-816, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-883964

ABSTRACT

Background: Optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is key to minimize healthcare workers (HCW) infection with COVID-19. This two-phase survey evaluated PPE preparedness (adherence to Ministry of Health India (MoH) PPE-recommendations; HCW-training; PPE-inventory; PPE-breach management) in Indian intensive care units (ICU). Materials and methods: The phase 1 survey was distributed electronically to intensivists from 481 Indian hospitals between March 25, 2020, and April 06, 2020, as part of a multinational survey. Phase 2 was repeated in 320 Indian hospitals between April 20, 2020, and April 30, 2020. Results: Response rate was 25% from 22 states. PPE practice varied between states and between private, government, and medical colleges. Between phase 1 and phase 2, all aspects of PPE training improved: donning/doffing 43% vs 66%, respectively; p value <0.01); safe waste disposal practices (38% vs 52%; p value = 0.09); intubation training (18% vs 31%; p value = 0.05); and transport (18% vs 31%; p value = 0.05). Perception of confidence for adequate PPE-training improved from 39 to 53% (p value = 0.26). In all, 47 to 60% ICUs adhered to MoH recommendations. Wearing N95-masks at all times increased from 47 to 60% (p value = 0.89). Very few ICUs provided quantitative/qualitative N95 masks fit testing (12% vs 29%; p value <0.01). Low-cost practices like "buddy-system" for donning-doffing (27% vs 44%; p value = 0.02) and showering after PPE breach (10% vs 8%; p value = 0.63) were underutilized. There was reluctance to PPE reuse. In all, 71% were unaware/diffident about PPE inventory. Conclusion: Despite interstate variability, most ICUs conformed to MoH recommendations. This survey conducted during initial pandemic phase demonstrated improved PPE preparedness uniformly across India with scope for further improvement. We suggest implementation of quality improvement measures to improve pandemic preparedness and minimize HCW infection rates, focused on regular PPE training, buddy system, and PPE-breach management. How to cite this article: Haji JY, Subramaniam A, Kumar P, Ramanathan K, Rajamani A. State of Personal Protective Equipment Practice in Indian Intensive Care Units amidst COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(9):809-816.

17.
Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann ; 29(3): 165-169, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-808571

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been used for COVID-19 patients with refractory hypoxemia. METHODS: We share our institution's experience in organizing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation services in Singapore during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also share our first COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation case report. RESULTS: We encountered initial difficulties in providing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation services in Singapore in view of the considerations of managing COVID-19 patients. By adopting rigorous planning, patient selection, staff training, adhering to infection control measures and preparing transport essentials, we were able to reorganize the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation services to serve the nation's needs. This culminated in our first successful COVID-19 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation retrieval case. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an option for COVID-19 patients but preparation must be taken to prepare the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation teams to deal with this pandemic and future challenges.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
18.
Surgeon ; 19(1): e1-e8, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696084

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 presented an unprecedented challenge for healthcare workers and systems around the world. Healthcare systems have adapted differently in terms of pandemic planning of regular services, adopting infection control measures and prioritising essential hospital services in the context of a burgeoning COVID-19 patient load and inevitable surge. METHODS: We performed a review on current evidence and share our practices at a teaching hospital in Singapore. RESULTS: We outline principles and make recommendations for continuity of delivering essential thoracic surgical services during this current outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: The maintenance and provision of thoracic surgery services in this context requires good preplanning and vigilance to infection control measures across all levels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Continuity of Patient Care/standards , Infection Control/standards , Thoracic Surgical Procedures/standards , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Lancet Respir Med ; 8(5): 518-526, 2020 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-13760

ABSTRACT

WHO interim guidelines recommend offering extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to eligible patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The number of patients with COVID-19 infection who might develop severe ARDS that is refractory to maximal medical management and require this level of support is currently unknown. Available evidence from similar patient populations suggests that carefully selected patients with severe ARDS who do not benefit from conventional treatment might be successfully supported with venovenous ECMO. The need for ECMO is relatively low and its use is mostly restricted to specialised centres globally. Providing complex therapies such as ECMO during outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases has unique challenges. Careful planning, judicious resource allocation, and training of personnel to provide complex therapeutic interventions while adhering to strict infection control measures are all crucial components of an ECMO action plan. ECMO can be initiated in specialist centres, or patients can receive ECMO during transportation from a centre that is not specialised for this procedure to an expert ECMO centre. Ensuring that systems enable safe and coordinated movement of critically ill patients, staff, and equipment is important to improve ECMO access. ECMO preparedness for the COVID-19 pandemic is important in view of the high transmission rate of the virus and respiratory-related mortality.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Communicable Diseases, Emerging/epidemiology , Communicable Diseases, Emerging/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...