End-of-life care in patients with a highly transmissible respiratory virus: implications for COVID-19.

Symptom management and end-of-life care are core skills for all physicians, although in ordinary times many anesthesiologists have fewer occasions to use these skills. The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant mortality over a short time and has necessitated an increase in provision of both critical care and palliative care. For anesthesiologists deployed to units caring for patients with COVID-19, this narrative review provides guidance on conducting goals of care discussions, withdrawing life-sustaining measures, and managing distressing symptoms.

RéSUMé: La prise en charge des symptômes et les soins de fin de vie sont des compétences de base pour tous les médecins, bien qu'en temps ordinaire, de nombreux anesthésiologistes n'ont que peu d'occasions de mettre en pratique ces compétences. La pandémie actuelle de coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a provoqué un taux de mortalité significatif dans un court intervalle et a nécessité une augmentation des besoins en soins intensifs et en soins palliatifs. Destiné aux anesthésiologistes déployés dans les unités prenant soin de patients atteints de la COVID-19, ce compte rendu narratif offre des recommandations quant à la façon de mener les discussions à propos des objectifs de soins, du retrait des thérapies de soutien vital, et de la prise en charge de symptômes de détresse.

Oxygen therapy limiting peripheral oxygen saturation to 89-93% is associated with a better survival prognosis for critically ill COVID-19 patients at high altitudes.

Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure automatically receive oxygen therapy to improve inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2). Supplemental oxygen is the most prescribed drug for critically ill patients regardless of altitude of residence. In high altitude dwellers (i.e. in La Paz [≈3,400 m] and El Alto [≈4,150 m] in Bolivia), a peripheral oxygen saturation (SatpO2) of 89-95% and an arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) of 50-67 mmHg (lower as altitude rises), are considered normal values ​​for arterial blood. Consequently, it has been suggested that limiting oxygen therapy to maintain SatpO2 around normoxia may help avoid episodes of hypoxemia, hyperoxemia, intermittent hypoxemia, and ultimately, mortality. In this study, we evaluated the impact of oxygen therapy on the mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients who permanently live at high altitudes. A multicenter cross-sectional descriptive observational study was performed on 100 patients admitted to the ICU at the "Clinica Los Andes" (in La Paz city) and "Agramont" and "Del Norte" Hospitals (in El Alto city). Our results show that: 1) as expected, fatal cases were detected only in patients who required intubation and connection to invasive mechanical ventilation as a last resort to overcome their life-threatening desaturation; 2) among intubated patients, prolonged periods in normoxia are associated with survival, prolonged periods in hypoxemia are associated with death, and time spent in hyperoxemia shows no association with survival or mortality; 3) the oxygenation limits required to effectively support the intubated patients' survival in the ICU are between 89% and 93%; 4) among intubated patients with similar periods of normoxemic oxygenation, those with better SOFA scores survive; and 5) a lower frequency of observable reoxygenation events is not associated with survival. In conclusion, our findings indicate that high-altitude patients entering an ICU at altitudes of 3,400 - 4,150 m should undergo oxygen therapy to maintain oxygenation levels between 89 and 93 %.

Protocol to assess performance of crisis standards of care guidelines for clinical triage.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically identify and critically assess the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 with the AGREE II instrument. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and grey literature from November 2019 - November 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. One reviewer independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, and a second reviewer confirmed the decisions. Full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any guideline that provided recommendations on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. We descriptively summarized CPGs characteristics. We assessed the quality with the AGREE II instrument and we summarized relevant therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,907 records and 71 CPGs were included. Means (Standard Deviations) of the scores for the 6 domains of the AGREE II instrument were 65%(SD19.56%), 39%(SD19.64%), 27%(SD19.48%), 70%(SD15.74%), 26%(SD18.49%), 42%(SD34.91) for the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence domains, respectively. Most of the CPGs showed a low overall quality (less than 40%). CONCLUSION: Future CPGs for COVID-19 need to rely, for their development, on standard evidence-based methods and tools.

The outcomes of severe COVID-19 pneumonia managed with supportive care in Palestine: an experience from a developing country.

INTRODUCTION: About 14% of COVID-19 patients experience severe symptoms and require hospitalization. Managing these patients could be challenging for limited-resource countries, such as Palestine. This study aimed to evaluate hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients' treatment outcomes managed with supportive care and steroids. METHODOLOGY: This was a single-center observational retrospective cohort study that enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted to the "Martyrs medical military complex- COVID Hospital" in Palestine. The managing physicians manually collected data through chart reviews, including patients' characteristics, complications, outcomes, and different management modalities. Continuous and categorical variables between those who were discharged alive and who died were compared using t-test and Chi-squares test, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 334 patients were included in this study. Median (IQR) age was 62(11) years, 49.1% were males, and 29.6% were ICU status patients. The median (IQR) PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 76 (67), and 67.6% of these patients had moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, and 4.8% of the patients received invasive mechanical ventilation. Most of the patients (78.7%) had at least one comorbidity, and 18.3% developed at least one complication. The overall mortality was 12.3% (95% CI 8.9-16.2%), and the median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 11 (8) days. Age (aOR 1.05, p = 0.08), smoking (aOR 4.12, p = 0.019), IMV (aOR 27.4, p < 0.001) and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (aOR 1.03, p < 0.001) were found to predict higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Supportive care for patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a Palestinian hospital with limited resources was associated with in-hospital mortality of 12.3%.

Rationing With Respect to Age During a Pandemic: A Comparative Analysis of State Pandemic Preparedness Plans.

BACKGROUND: Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration. RESULTS: Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy. INTERPRETATION: Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.

COVID-19 pandemic preparedness: A practical guide from clinical pharmacists' perspective.

PURPOSE: To describe our hospital pharmacy department's preparation for an influx of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and offer guidance on clinical pharmacy services preparedness for similar crisis situations. SUMMARY: Personnel within the department of pharmacy at a medical center at the US epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic proactively prepared a staffing and pharmacotherapeutic action plan in anticipation of an expected surge in admissions of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and expansion of acute care and intensive care unit (ICU) capacity. Guidance documents focusing on supportive care and pharmacotherapeutic treatment options were developed. Repurposing of non-ICU-trained clinical pharmacotherapy specialists to work collaboratively with clinician teams in ICUs was quickly implemented; staff were prepared for these duties through use of shared tools to facilitate education and practice standardization. CONCLUSION: As challenges were encountered at the initial peak of the pandemic, interdisciplinary collaboration and teamwork was crucial to ensure that all patients were proactively assessed and that their respective pharmacotherapeutic regimens were optimized.

Safety and Feasibility of a Protocolized Daily Assessment of Readiness for Liberation From Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: Decannulation from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at the earliest and safest possible time may improve outcomes and reduce cost. Yet, no prospective studies have compared weaning strategies for liberation from ECMO. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is a protocolized daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO safe and feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-arm safety and feasibility study of a protocol for daily assessment of readiness to liberate from venovenous ECMO among consecutive adult patients receiving venovenous ECMO across four ICUs at a single center between June 20, 2020, and November 24, 2020. The ECMO-free protocol included three phases: (1) the safety screening, (2) non-ECMO Fio2 titration, and (3) the ECMO-free trial. Enrollment, interventions, and data collection were performed prospectively by trained study staff. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients received the ECMO-free protocol on 385 patient-days. The safety screening was passed during a total of 59 ECMO-free daily assessments (15.3%) among 20 patients. Every passed safety screening proceeded to an ECMO-free trial. Twenty-eight passed ECMO-free trials (47.5%) occurred among 16 patients (61.5%). No missed safety screenings, protocol deviations, or adverse events occurred. Of the 16 patients who passed an ECMO-free trial, 14 patients (87.5%) were decannulated. Among decannulated patients, 12 patients (85.7%) were decannulated on the same day as a passed ECMO-free trial, 6 patients (42.9%) were decannulated on the first day that they passed an ECMO-free trial, and 6 patients (42.9%) passed an ECMO-free trial at least twice consecutively before decannulation. The median time from first passed ECMO-free trial to decannulation was 2 days (interquartile range, 0-3 days). INTERPRETATION: The ECMO-free protocol is feasible and may identify patients for decannulation earlier than gradual approaches to weaning.

Decision Making and Interventions During Interfacility Transport of High-Acuity Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data regarding the typical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring interfacility transport or the clinical capabilities of the out-of-hospital transport clinicians required to provide safe transport. The objective of this study is to provide epidemiologic data and highlight the clinical skill set and decision making needed to transport critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of persons under investigation for COVID-19 transported during the first 6 months of the pandemic by Johns Hopkins Lifeline was performed. Patients who required interfacility transport and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by polymerase chain reaction assay were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (25.4%) required vasopressor support, 35 patients (13.1%) were pharmacologically paralyzed, 15 (5.60%) were prone, and 1 (0.75%) received an inhaled pulmonary vasodilator. At least 1 ventilator setting change occurred for 59 patients (22.0%), and ventilation mode was changed for 11 patients (4.10%) during transport. CONCLUSION: The safe transport of critically ill patients with COVID-19 requires experience with vasopressors, paralytic medications, inhaled vasodilators, prone positioning, and ventilator management. The frequency of initiated critical interventions and ventilator adjustments underscores the tenuous nature of these patients and highlights the importance of transport clinician reassessment, critical thinking, and decision making.