Review of clonal hematopoiesis, subtypes and its role in neoplasia and different morbidities.

Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) is the development of a certain cell lineage which is the cornerstone of hematologic malignancy especially myeloid neoplasms, however, can also be found in old age (6th-7th decade). CH is caused by many different somatic mutations most commonly in DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1, SF3B1 and TP53. It is detected by different sequencing methods, the most commonly used ones are next generation sequencing (NGS) which can be whole exome, whole genome sequencing or a panel for certain genes. CH is divided into multiple categories depending on the clinical picture associated with it into: clonal monocytosis of undetermined significance (CMUS), clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate significance (CHIP), clonal cytopenia and monocytosis of undetermined significance (CCMUS) and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS). In order to diagose CH, first other hematologic malignancies must be ruled out CH is also associated with many different entities including lung cancer and some studies have shown that COVID-19 infections are affected by CH. Certain traits and infections are associated with CH including smoking, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. A minority of patients with CH progress to a malignant process (between 0.5 %-2 %) which do not require treatment, however, any patient with CH should be kept under surveillance in order to detect any malignancy early and be treated accordingly. SIMPLE SUMMARY: Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) is considered to be the predisposing factor for development of different hematologic neoplasms. With the help of NGS, patients with CH can be monitored more closely. Several studies have shown that these patients might develop hematologic neoplasms in their lifetime. It has been subdivided into multiple groups according to the clinical picture and/or blood counts.

Impact of conducting hand hygiene audit in COVID-19 care locations of India-A large scale national multicentric study - HHAC study.

PURPOSE: Hand hygiene (HH), the core element in infection prevention in healthcare, especially for multidrug resistant organism's transmission. The role of HH audits and HH adherence rates in the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in resource limited settings, are yet to be established. METHODS: A nationwide multicenter study was conducted in India, involving public, private, teaching and non-teaching COVID healthcare facilities (COVID-HCFs) using the IBhar mobile application based on WHO's hand hygiene audit tool. The HH adherence rates (HHAR) such as complete HHAR (HHCAR), total HHAR (HHTAR), profession specific HHAR, WHO's 5 HH moment specific HHAR and associated variables were measured over 6 month duration (June-December 2021). RESULTS: A total of 2,01,829 HH opportunities were available and the HHCAR and HHTAR were 27.3% and 59.7%. The HHTAR was significantly higher in the west zone (72.2%), private institutes (65.6%), non-teaching institutes (67.7%), nurses (61.6%), HH moments 2 (71.8%) and 3 (72.1%), and morning shift (61.4%). The HHTAR was better in non-COVID HCFs (65.4%) than COVID-HCFs (57.8%) as well as non-COVID ICUs (68.1%) than COVID ICUs (58.7%). The HHTAR was increased from month 1 to month 6 except a small decrease in the month of December. CONCLUSIONS: The hand hygiene adherence is comparable with adherence rate during COVID-19 pandemic in western countries as well as the resource limited settings. The use of gloves during the pandemic and simplified HH techniques and their influence over the HH adherence to be studied further. The sustainable adherence rate over long duration needs to be ensured by continuing the HH audit using multimodal interventions.

Comparison of hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers in Intensive care units and wards of COVID-19: A large scale multicentric study in India.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene is a significant component involved in preventing transmission of health care associated infections including COVID-19. Compliance to hand hygiene among the health care workers (HCWs) requires evaluation and timely feedback. "You can't improve what you can't measure" is a famous saying and this multicentric study was designed to measure hand hygiene compliance and have birds eye view on hand hygiene compliance in COVID Intensive care units (ICUs) and wards across India. METHODS: A prospective multicentric observational study was conducted for a period of 6 months in 92 health care facility across India which included varied type of public and private hospitals. Hand hygiene audit was conducted in COVID ICU and COVID non-ICU wards in all these facilities by their HCWs using the IBHAR mobile application based on WHO's hand hygiene audit tool. Hand hygiene total adherence rate (HHTAR) and hand hygiene complete adherence rate (HHCAR) were analyzed and compared between 2 locations. Adherence rates were analyzed based on the zones, institute type, profession and for each WHO moments. RESULTS: A total of 1,61,056 hand hygiene opportunities were documented and adherence rates were recorded higher in COVID wards (HHTAR-61.4%; HHCAR-28.8%) than COVID ICUs (HHTAR-57.8%; HHCAR-25.6%). Overall, the adherence rates were observed higher in COVID wards (HHTAR- 68.1%; HHCAR-38.3%) of private hospitals, COVID wards of the west zone (HHTAR- 70.2%; HHCAR-36.8%), cleaning staffs of the COVID ward scores better compliance than all other professions in COVID ICUs and COVID wards. HHTAR was found to be the higher in moment 3 (After body fluid exposure-76.3%) followed by moment 4 (after touching patient-73.7%) done in COVID wards compared to moments done in ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the practice of hand hygiene in COVID care locations across India. Effective strategies need to be implemented in COVID ICUs across the facilities to improve the compliance.

Incidence and Clinical Outcomes of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Critically lll Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study - New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation and COVID-19.

Atrial fibrillation (Afib) can contribute to a significant increase in mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients. Thus, our study aims to investigate the incidence and clinical outcomes associated with the new-onset Afib in critically ill patients with COVID-19. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) from March, 2020 to July, 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups (new-onset Afib vs control). The primary outcome was the in-hospital mortality. Other outcomes were secondary, such as mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and complications during stay. After propensity score matching (3:1 ratio), 400 patients were included in the final analysis. Patients who developed new-onset Afib had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 2.76; 95% CI: 1.49-5.11, P = .001). However, there was no significant differences in the 30-day mortality. The MV duration, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were longer in patients who developed new-onset Afib (beta coefficient 0.52; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77; P < .0001,beta coefficient 0.29; 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; P < .001, and beta coefficient 0.35; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52; P < .0001; respectively). Moreover, the control group had significantly lower odds of major bleeding, liver injury, and respiratory failure that required MV. New-onset Afib is a common complication among critically ill patients with COVID-19 that might be associated with poor clinical outcomes; further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Evaluation of Early Tocilizumab Effect on Multiorgan Dysfunction in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

Background: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has been proposed as potential rescue therapy for severe COVID-19. No previous study has primarily assessed the role of TCZ in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction. Hence, this multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of TCZ early use versus standard of care in preventing severe COVID-19-related multiorgan dysfunction in COVID-19 critically ill patients during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study includes critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICUs. Patients were categorized into two groups, the treatment group includes patients who received early TCZ therapy within 24 hours of ICU admission and the control group includes patients who received standard of care. The primary outcome was the multiorgan dysfunction on day three of the ICU admission. The secondary outcomes were 30-day, and in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and ICU-related complications. Results: After propensity score matching, 300 patients were included in the analysis based on predefined criteria with a ratio of 1:2. Patients who received TCZ had lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission compared to the control group (beta coefficient: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.26, -0.01, P-value = 0.04). Moreover, respiratory failure requiring MV was statistically significantly lower in patients who received early TCZ compared to the control group (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.31, 0.91, P-value = 0.02). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in patients who received TCZ than those who did not (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37, 0.85, P-value = 0 .006 and HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.36, 0.82, P-value = 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In addition to the mortality benefits associated with early TCZ use within 24 hours of ICU admission, the use of TCZ was associated with a significantly lower multiorgan dysfunction score on day three of ICU admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in COVID-19 Intensive Care Patients: Identification of IncL-VIM-1 Plasmid in Previously Non-Predominant Sequence Types.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICUs) operated at or above capacity, and the number of ICU patients coinfected by nosocomial microorganisms increased. Here, we characterize the population structure and resistance mechanisms of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (CP-Kpn) from COVID-19 ICU patients and compare them to pre-pandemic populations of CP-Kpn. We analyzed 84 CP-Kpn isolates obtained during the pandemic and 74 CP-Kpn isolates obtained during the pre-pandemic period (2019) by whole genome sequencing, core genome multilocus sequence typing, plasmid reconstruction, and antibiotic susceptibility tests. More CP-Kpn COVID-19 isolates produced OXA-48 (60/84, 71.4%) and VIM-1 (18/84, 21.4%) than KPC (8/84, 9.5%). Fewer pre-pandemic CP-Kpn isolates produced VIM-1 (7/74, 9.5%). Cefiderocol (97.3-100%) and plazomicin (97.5-100%) had the highest antibiotic activity against pandemic and pre-pandemic isolates. Sequence type 307 (ST307) was the most widely distributed ST in both groups. VIM-1-producing isolates belonging to ST307, ST17, ST321 and ST485, (STs infrequently associated to VIM-1) were detected during the COVID-19 period. Class 1 integron Int1-blaVIM-1-aac(6')-1b-dfrB1-aadAI-catB2-qacEΔ1/sul1, found on an IncL plasmid of approximately 70,000 bp, carried blaVIM-1 in ST307, ST17, ST485, and ST321 isolates. Thus, CP-Kpn populations from pandemic and pre-pandemic periods have similarities. However, VIM-1 isolates associated with atypical STs increased during the pandemic, which warrants additional monitoring and surveillance.

Standard dosing of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in critically ill patient with COVID-19: a multicenter propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and have been linked with COVID-19- induced hyperinflammatory state. In addition to anticoagulant effects, heparin and its derivatives have various anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties that may affect patient outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic standard-doses of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.  METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March 2020 and July 2021. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the type of pharmacological VTE thromboprophylaxis given in fixed doses (Enoxaparin 40 mg SQ every 24 hours versus UFH 5000 Units SQ every 8 hours) throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was all cases of thrombosis. Other endpoints were considered secondary. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to match patients (1:1 ratio) between the two groups based on the predefined criteria. Multivariable logistic, Cox proportional hazards, and negative binomial regression analysis were used as appropriate.  RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were eligible based on the eligibility criteria; 130 patients were included after PS matching (1:1 ratio). Patients who received UFH compared to enoxaparin had higher all thrombosis events at crude analysis (18.3% vs. 4.6%; p-value = 0.02 as well in logistic regression analysis (OR: 4.10 (1.05, 15.93); p-value = 0.04). Although there were no significant differences in all bleeding cases and major bleeding between the two groups (OR: 0.40 (0.07, 2.29); p-value = 0.31 and OR: 1.10 (0.14, 8.56); p-value = 0.93, respectively); however, blood transfusion requirement was higher in the UFH group but did not reach statistical significance (OR: 2.98 (0.85, 10.39); p-value = 0.09). The 30-day and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups at Cox hazards regression analysis. In contrast, hospital LOS was longer in the UFH group; however, it did not reach the statistically significant difference (beta coefficient: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.48; p-value = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic enoxaparin use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may significantly reduce all thrombosis cases with similar bleeding risk compared to UFH.

Investigation on the effectiveness of ventilation dilution on mitigating COVID-19 patients' secondary airway damage due to exposure to disinfectants.

Chlorine-containing disinfectants are widely used in hospitals to prevent hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Meanwhile, ventilation is a simple but effective means to maintain clean air. It is essential to explore the exposure level and health effects of coronavirus disease 2019 patients' inhalation exposure to by-products of chloride-containing disinfectants under frequent surface disinfection and understand the role of ventilation in mitigating subsequent airway damage. We determined ventilation dilution performance and indoor air quality of two intensive care unit wards of the largest temporary hospital constructed in China, Leishenshan Hospital. The chloride inhalation exposure levels, and health risks indicated by interleukin-6 and D-dimer test results of 32 patients were analysed. The mean ± standard deviation values of the outdoor air change rate in the two intensive care unit wards were 8.8 ± 1.5 h-1 (Intensive care unit 1) and 4.1 ± 1.4 h-1 (Intensive care unit 2). The median carbon dioxide and fine particulate matter concentrations were 480 ppm and 19 µg/m3 for intensive care unit 1, and 567 ppm and 21 µg/m3 for intensive care unit 2, all of which were around the average levels of those in permanent hospitals (579 ppm and 21 µg/m3). Of these patients, the median (lower quartile, upper quartile) chloride exposure time and calculated dose were 26.66 (2.89, 57.21) h and 0.357 (0.008, 1.317) mg, respectively. A statistically significant positive correlation was observed between interleukin-6 and D-dimer concentrations. To conclude, ventilation helped maintain ward air cleanliness and health risks were not observed.

Evaluation of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) treatment for moderate-to-severe ARDS in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is used as rescue therapy in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) despite the recommendation against the use of this treatment. To date, the effect of iNO on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS remains arguable. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the use of iNO in critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated from March 01, 2020, until July 31, 2021. Eligible patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were subsequently categorized into two groups based on inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) use throughout their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the improvement in oxygenation parameters 24 h after iNO use. Other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used based on the predefined criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1598 patients were screened, and 815 were included based on the eligibility criteria. Among them, 210 patients were matched based on predefined criteria. Oxygenation parameters (PaO2, FiO2 requirement, P/F ratio, oxygenation index) were significantly improved 24 h after iNO administration within a median of six days of ICU admission. However, the risk of 30-day and in-hospital mortality were found to be similar between the two groups (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.82; p = 0.45 and HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94, 2.11; p= 0.10, respectively). On the other hand, ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly fewer, and  ICU and hospital LOS were significantly longer in the iNO group. In addition, patients who received iNO had higher odds of acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR (95% CI): 2.35 (1.30, 4.26), p value = 0.005) and hospital/ventilator-acquired pneumonia (OR (95% CI): 3.2 (1.76, 5.83), p value = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In critically ill COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS, iNO rescue therapy is associated with improved oxygenation parameters but no mortality benefits. Moreover, iNO use is associated with higher odds of AKI, pneumonia, longer LOS, and fewer VFDs.

The impact of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors use on the clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, cohort study.

Background: The cardiovascular complications of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be attributed to the hyperinflammatory state leading to increased mortality in patients with COVID-19. HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors (statins) are known to have pleiotropic and anti-inflammatory effects and may have antiviral activity along with their cholesterol-lowering activity. Thus, statin therapy is potentially a potent adjuvant therapy in COVID-19 infection. This study investigated the impact of statin use on the clinical outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all adult critically ill patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on the statin use during ICU stay and were matched with a propensity score based on patient's age and admission APACHE II and SOFA scores. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, while 30 day mortality, ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 30 days, and ICU complications were secondary endpoints. Results: A total of 1,049 patients were eligible; 502 patients were included after propensity score matching (1:1 ratio). The in-hospital mortality [hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.54, 0.89), P = 0.004] and 30-day mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (95% CI 0.58, 0.98), P = 0.03] were significantly lower in patients who received statin therapy on multivariable cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Moreover, patients who received statin therapy had lower odds of hospital-acquired pneumonia [OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.32, 0.69), P < 0.001], lower levels of inflammatory markers on follow-up, and no increased risk of liver injury. Conclusion: The use of statin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a beneficial role and survival benefit with a good safety profile.

Assessing Hospital Management Performance in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) During the COVID-19: A Study from the Pandemic Outbreak Perspective

In the early stages of the pandemic, both poor and developed nations lacked healthcare infrastructure capacity. ICUs had more patients than ordinary wards, and hospital resources for patients were minimal. The possibility of contamination and infection, as well as restricted resources, pose challenges to ICU staff. The circumstance posed a significant difficulty for ICU management to protect healthcare staff while providing healthcare services to patients. Similarly, technology participation in prevention and dissemination control was limited both within and outside of ICUs treating infected patients. The current study investigated the hospital management performance in intensive care units (ICUs) during the COVID-19. We used the PRISM statement 2020 to include and exclude the records in the study. In addition, the study used the VOS viewer software to identify key term occurrences and classification of literature. The major three categories find COVID-19, ICUs and performance management. The current study findings indicate that healthcare personnel such as physicians, nurses, and other support staff made significant contributions during the peak period of pandemic transmission. Nurses are the closest to the infected patients within the ICUs, and the findings show that a considerable percentage of nurses have been infected with the COVID-19 virus (Kramer et al., 2021). Aside from this, in ICUs, technology engagement and infrastructure are substantially lower than in pandemic control and management. Future pandemic damage control and minimising the strain on healthcare workers require advanced technologies and performance management mechanisms. Furthermore, AI and robotic technology can be utilised to address this challenge. © 2022. International journal of online and biomedical engineering. All Rights Reserved.

A systematic review of de-escalation strategies for redeployed staff and repurposed facilities in COVID-19 intensive care units (ICUs) during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care units (ICUs) experienced a surge in patient cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand was managed by redeploying healthcare workers (HCWs) and restructuring facilities. The rate of ICU admissions has subsided in many regions, with the redeployed workforce and facilities returning to usual functions. Previous literature has focused on the escalation of ICUs, limited research exists on de-escalation. This study aimed to identify the supportive and operational strategies used for the flexible de-escalation of ICUs in the context of COVID-19. METHODS: The systematic review was developed by searching eight databases in April and November 2021. Papers discussing the return of redeployed staff and facilities and the training, wellbeing, and operational strategies were included. Excluded papers were non-English and unrelated to ICU de-escalation. Quality was assessed using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) and authority, accuracy, coverage, objectivity, date, and significance (AACODS) checklist, findings were developed using narrative synthesis and thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Fifteen papers were included from six countries covering wellbeing and training themes encompassing; time off, psychological follow-up, gratitude, identification of training needs, missed training catch-up, and continuation of ICU and disaster management training. Operational themes included management of rotas, retainment of staff, division of ICU facilities, leadership changes, traffic light systems, and preparation for re-expansion. INTERPRETATION: The review provided an overview of the landscape of de-escalation strategies that have taken place in six countries. Limited empirical evidence was available that evaluated the effectiveness of such strategies. Empirical and evaluative research from a larger array of countries is needed to be able to make global recommendations on ICU de-escalation practices.

Evaluation of Low-Dose Aspirin use among Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is widely used as a cardioprotective agent due to its antiplatelet and anti-inflammatory properties. The literature has assessed and evaluated its role in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, no data are available regarding its role in COVID-19 critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the use of low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg) and its impact on outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHOD: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all critically ill adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between March 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021. Eligible patients were classified into two groups based on aspirin use during ICU stay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and other outcomes were considered secondary. Propensity score matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients were eligible, and 352 patients were included after propensity score matching. The in-hospital mortality (HR 0.73 [0.56, 0.97], p = 0.03) was lower in patients who received aspirin during stay. Conversely, patients who received aspirin had a higher odds of major bleeding than those in the control group (OR 2.92 [0.91, 9.36], p = 0.07); however, this was not statistically significant. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed a possible mortality benefit for patients who used aspirin therapy prior to hospitalization and continued during ICU stay (HR 0.72 [0.52, 1.01], p = 0.05), but not with the new initiation of aspirin (HR 1.22 [0.68, 2.20], p = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Continuation of aspirin therapy during ICU stay in critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were receiving it prior to ICU admission may have a mortality benefit; nevertheless, it may be associated with an increased risk of significant bleeding. Appropriate evaluation for safety versus benefits of utilizing aspirin therapy during ICU stay in COVID19 critically ill patients is highly recommended.

Factors Associated With Severity of Delirium Complicating COVID-19 in Intensive Care Units.

The clinical outcome of the disease provoked by the SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19, is largely due to the development of interstitial pneumonia accompanied by an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), often requiring ventilatory support therapy in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Current epidemiologic evidence is demonstrating that the COVID-19 prognosis is significantly influenced by its acute complications. Among these, delirium figures as one of the most frequent and severe, especially in the emergency setting, where it shows a significantly negative prognostic impact. In this regard, the aim of our study is to identify clinical severity factors of delirium complicating COVID-19 related-ARDS. We performed a comparative and correlation analysis using demographics, comorbidities, multisystemic and delirium severity scores and anti-delirium therapy in two cohorts of ARDS patients with delirium, respectively, due to COVID-19 (n = 40) or other medical conditions (n = 39). Our results indicate that delirium in COVID-19-related ARDS is more severe since its onset despite a relatively less severe systemic condition at the point of ICU admission and required higher dosages of antipsychotic and non-benzodiazepinic sedative therapy respect to non-COVID patients. Finally, the correlation analysis showed a direct association between the male gender and maximum dosage of anti-delirium medications needed within the COVID-19 group, which was taken as a surrogate of delirium severity. Overall, our results seem to indicate that pathogenetic factors specifically associated to severe COVID-19 are responsible for the high severity of delirium, paving the way for future research focused on the mechanisms of the cognitive alterations associated with COVID-19.

The Impact of COVID-19 On Comorbidities: A Review Of Recent Updates For Combating It.

Coronavirus disease is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The virus first appeared in Wuhan (China) in December 2019 and has spread globally. Till now, it affected 269 million people with 5.3 million deaths in 224 countries and territories. With the emergence of variants like Omicron, the COVID-19 cases grew exponentially, with thousands of deaths. The general symptoms of COVID-19 include fever, sore throat, cough, lung infections, and, in severe cases, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and death. SARS-CoV-2 predominantly affects the lung, but it can also affect other organs such as the brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system. It is observed that 75 % of hospitalized COVID-19 patients have at least one COVID-19 associated comorbidity. The most common reported comorbidities are hypertension, NDs, diabetes, cancer, endothelial dysfunction, and CVDs. Moreover, older and pre-existing polypharmacy patients have worsened COVID-19 associated complications. SARS-CoV-2 also results in the hypercoagulability issues like gangrene, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and other associated complications. This review aims to provide the latest information on the impact of the COVID-19 on pre-existing comorbidities such as CVDs, NDs, COPD, and other complications. This review will help us to understand the current scenario of COVID-19 and comorbidities; thus, it will play an important role in the management and decision-making efforts to tackle such complications.

Experiences of nurses providing care to patients with COVID-19 in intensive care units: A qualitative study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences of nurses providing care to intensive care unit patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Turkey. METHODS: The research employed the descriptive phenomenological approach. The interviews were analyzed with Colaizzi's seven-step method. RESULTS: The experiences of nurses providing care to COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit can be summarized under three themes. It was determined that all nurses experience physical, psychological, and social difficulties along with negative emotions during the care process for COVID-19 patients, for which nurses use coping processes. CONCLUSION: This study shows the difficulties faced by nurses who provide intensive care to patients with COVID-19. It is important to identify these challenges early to protect and improve the health of nurses.

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: Escalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Association between tocilizumab and emerging multidrug-resistant organisms in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab is an IgG1 class recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that directly inhibits the IL-6 receptor. Several randomized clinical trials have evaluated its safety and efficacy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and these studies demonstrate conflicting results. Our study aimed to determine the association between tocilizumab treatment and microbial isolation and emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria in critically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at two tertiary government hospitals in Saudi Arabia. All critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units with a positive COVID-19 PCR test between March 1 and December 31, 2020, who met study criteria were included. Patients who received tocilizumab were compared to those who did not receive it. RESULTS: A total of 738 patients who met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Of these, 262 (35.5%) received tocilizumab, and 476 (64.5%) were included in the control group. Patients who received tocilizumab had higher odds for microbial isolation (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.91-1.94, p = 0.13); however, the difference was not statistically significant. Development of resistant organisms (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51-1.98, p = 0.99) or detection of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.29-1.54, p = 0.34) was not statistically significant between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab use in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is not associated with higher microbial isolation, the emergence of resistant organisms, or the detection of CRE organisms.

Single versus multiple doses of Tocilizumab in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A two-center, retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the optimal tocilizumab dosing regimen. METHODS: A two-center, retrospective cohort study, for COVID19 critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs). We included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older who received tocilizumab during ICU stay. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of the received tocilizumab doses. The primary outcome was the in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:1 ratio) based on the selected criteria. RESULTS: A total of 298 patients were included in the study; 70.4% (210 patients) received a single dose of tocilizumab. After adjusting for possible confounders, the 30-day mortality (HR 0.79 95% CI 0.43-1.45 P = 0.44) and in-hospital mortality (HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.46-1.49; P = 0.53) were not significantly different between the two groups. On the flip side, patients who received multiple doses had higher pneumonia odds than a single dose (OR 3.81; 95% CI 1.79-8.12 P = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: Repeating tocilizumab doses were not associated with a mortality benefit in COVID-19 critically ill patients, but it was associated with higher odds of pneumonia compared to a single dose.

Evaluation of thiamine as adjunctive therapy in COVID-19 critically ill patients: a two-center propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Thiamine is a precursor of the essential coenzyme thiamine pyrophosphate required for glucose metabolism; it improves the immune system function and has shown to reduce the risk of several diseases. The role of thiamine in critically ill septic patient has been addressed in multiple studies; however, it's role in COVID-19 patients is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of thiamine as an adjunctive therapy on mortality in COVID-19 critically ill patients. METHODS: This is a two-center, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study for critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID19. All patients aged 18 years or older admitted to ICUs between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, with positive PCR COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. We investigated thiamine use as an adjunctive therapy on the clinical outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients after propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 738 critically ill patients with COVID-19 who had been admitted to ICUs were included in the study. Among 166 patients matched using the propensity score method, 83 had received thiamine as adjunctive therapy. There was significant association between thiamine use with in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.19-0.78; P value = 0.008) as well as the 30-day mortality (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.18-0.78; P value = 0.009). Moreover, patients who received thiamine as an adjunctive therapy were less likely to have thrombosis during ICU stay [OR (95% CI) 0.19 (0.04-0.88), P value = 0.03]. CONCLUSION: Thiamine use as adjunctive therapy may have potential survival benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Additionally, it was associated with a lower incidence of thrombosis. Further interventional studies are required to confirm these findings.