Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296085

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Frailty is often used in clinical decision-making for patients with COVID-19, yet studies have found variable influence of frailty on outcomes in those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we evaluated the characteristics, and outcomes of frail patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19. Methods: : We contacted the corresponding authors of sixteen eligible studies published between December 1 st 2019 and February 28 th 2021 reporting the clinical frailty scale (CFS) in patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICU. Individual patient data was obtained from 7 studies. We classified patients as non-frail (CFS=1-4) or frail (CFS=5-8). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. We also compared the use of mechanical ventilation (MV) and the proportion of ICU bed-days between frailty categories. Results: : Of the 2001 patients admitted to ICU, 388 (19.4%) were frail. Increasing age and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, CFS ≥4, use of MV, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy and hyperlactatemia were risk factors for death in a multivariable analysis. Hospital mortality was higher in frail patients (65.2% vs. 41.8%;p<0.001), with adjusted mortality increasing with a rising CFS score beyond 3. Younger and non-frail patients were more likely to receive MV. Frail patients spent less time on MV (median days [IQR] 9 [5-16] vs. 11 [6-18];p=0.012) and accounted for only 12.3% of total ICU bed-days. Conclusion: Frail patients with COVID-19 were commonly admitted to ICU and had greater hospital mortality but spent relatively fewer days in ICU when compared with non-frail patients. Frail patients receiving MV were at greater risk of death than non-frail patients. Systematic review registration: Registration protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42020224255).

2.
Intern Med J ; 51(11): 1773-1780, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526371

ABSTRACT

The objective of the present study is to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients who were readmitted to hospital emergency departments or required re-hospitalisation following an index hospitalisation with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and pre-print websites was conducted between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Studies reporting on the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who represent or require hospital admission were included. Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. Data were synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Six studies reporting on 547 readmitted patients were included. The overall incidence was 4.4%, most common in males (57.2%), and due to respiratory distress or prolonged COVID-19. Readmitted patients had a shorter initial hospital length of stay (LOS) compared with those with a single hospitalisation (8.1 ± 10.6 vs 13.9 ± 10.2 days). The mean time to readmission was 7.6 ± 6.0 days; the mean LOS on re-hospitalisation was 6.3 ± 5.6 days. Hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69-2.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.38-2.27; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and chronic renal failure (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.09-5.14; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were more common in these patients. Intensive care admission rates were similar between the two groups; 12.8% (22/172) of readmitted patients died. In summary, readmitted patients following an index hospitalisation for COVID-19 were more commonly males with multiple comorbidities. Shorter initial hospital LOS and unresolved primary illness may have contributed to readmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Patient Readmission , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Survivors
4.
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
5.
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
6.
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.

7.
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
10.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 887-895, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1279406

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has increased during the course of the pandemic. As uncertainty existed regarding patient's outcomes, early guidelines recommended against establishing new ECMO centers. We aimed to explore the epidemiology and outcomes of ECMO for COVID-19 related cardiopulmonary failure in five countries in the Middle East and India and to evaluate the results of ECMO in 5 new centers. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter international, observational study conducted in 19 ECMO centers in five countries in the Middle East and India from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. We included patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO for refractory hypoxemia and severe respiratory acidosis with or without circulatory failure. Data collection included demographic data, ECMO-related specific data, pre-ECMO patient condition, 24 h post-ECMO initiation data, and outcome. The primary outcome was survival to home discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality during ECMO, survival to decannulation, and outcomes stratified by center type. RESULTS: Three hundred and seven COVID-19 patients received ECMO support during the study period, of whom 78 (25%) were treated in the new ECMO centers. The median age was 45 years (interquartile range IQR 37-52), and 81% were men. New center patients were younger, were less frequently male, had received higher PEEP, more frequently inotropes and prone positioning before ECMO and were less frequently retrieved from a peripheral center on ECMO. Survival to home discharge was 45%. In patients treated in new and established centers, survival was 55 and 41% (p = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable analysis retained only a SOFA score < 12 at ECMO initiation as associated with survival (odds ratio, OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.05-3.58), p = 0.034), but not treatment in a new center (OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.75-3.67)). CONCLUSIONS: During pandemics, ECMO may provide favorable outcomes in highly selected patients as resources allow. Newly formed ECMO centers with appropriate supervision of regional experts may have satisfactory results.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , India/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Middle East , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Crit Care Med ; 49(6): 901-911, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266195

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heart Arrest/mortality , Heart Arrest/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Treatment Outcome , Cause of Death , Humans , Incidence
12.
ASAIO J ; 67(5): 485-495, 2021 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203774

ABSTRACT

DISCLAIMER: This is an updated guideline from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) for the role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe cardiopulmonary failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The great majority of COVID-19 patients (>90%) requiring ECMO have been supported using venovenous (V-V) ECMO for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). While COVID-19 ECMO run duration may be longer than in non-COVID-19 ECMO patients, published mortality appears to be similar between the two groups. However, data collection is ongoing, and there is a signal that overall mortality may be increasing. Conventional selection criteria for COVID-19-related ECMO should be used; however, when resources become more constrained during a pandemic, more stringent contraindications should be implemented. Formation of regional ECMO referral networks may facilitate communication, resource sharing, expedited patient referral, and mobile ECMO retrieval. There are no data to suggest deviation from conventional ECMO device or patient management when applying ECMO for COVID-19 patients. Rarely, children may require ECMO support for COVID-19-related ARDS, myocarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C); conventional selection criteria and management practices should be the standard. We strongly encourage participation in data submission to investigate the optimal use of ECMO for COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/mortality , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
13.
Crit Care Med ; 49(6): 901-911, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132594

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Heart Arrest/mortality , Heart Arrest/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Treatment Outcome , Cause of Death , Humans , Incidence
14.
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.

15.
Anaesth Intensive Care ; 49(2): 105-111, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1052354

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has required intensive care units to rapidly adjust and adapt their existing practices. Although there has a focus on expanding critical care infrastructure, equipment and workforce, plans have not emphasised the need to increase digital capabilities. The objective of this report was to recognise key areas of digital health related to the COVID-19 response. We identified and explored six focus areas relevant to intensive care, including using digital solutions to increase critical care capacity, developing surge capacity within an electronic health record, maintenance and downtime planning, training considerations and the role of data analytics. This article forms the basis of a framework for the intensive care digital health response to COVID-19 and other emerging infectious disease outbreaks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
17.
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
19.
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
20.
Resuscitation ; 157: 248-258, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-894192

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on pre-hospital and hospital services and hence on the prevalence and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) remain unclear. The review aimed to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence, process, and outcomes of OHCA. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and pre-print websites was performed. Studies reporting comparative data on OHCA within the same jurisdiction, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Study quality was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting data from 35,379 OHCA events were included. There was a 120% increase in OHCA events since the pandemic. Time from OHCA to ambulance arrival was longer during the pandemic (p = 0.036). While mortality (OR = 0.67, 95%-CI 0.49-0.91) and supraglottic airway use (OR = 0.36, 95%-CI 0.27-0.46) was higher during the pandemic, automated external defibrillator use (OR = 1.78 95%-CI 1.06-2.98), return of spontaneous circulation (OR = 1.63, 95%CI 1.18-2.26) and intubation (OR = 1.87, 95%-CI 1.12--3.13) was more common before the pandemic. More patients survived to hospital admission (OR = 1.75, 95%-CI 1.42-2.17) and discharge (OR = 1.65, 95%-CI 1.28-2.12) before the pandemic. Bystander CPR (OR = 1.18, 95%-CI 0.95-1.46), unwitnessed OHCA (OR = 0.84, 95%-CI 0.66-1.07), paramedic-resuscitation attempts (OR = 1.19 95%-CI 1.00-1.42) and mechanical CPR device use (OR = 1.57 95%-CI 0.55-4.55) did not defer significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and mortality following OHCA was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were significant variations in resuscitation practices during the pandemic. Research to define optimal processes of pre-hospital care during a pandemic is urgently required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020203371).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Emergency Medical Services , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/epidemiology , Pandemics , Registries , COVID-19/complications , Global Health , Humans , Incidence , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/etiology , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...