Review of Anesthesia Versus Intensive Care Unit Ventilators and Ventilatory Strategies: COVID-19 Patient Management Implications.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) respiratory illness has increased the amount of people needing airway rescue and the support of mechanical ventilators. In doing so, the pandemic has increased the demand of healthcare professionals to manage these critically ill individuals. Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs), who are trained experts in airway management and mechanical ventilation with experience in intensive care units (ICUs), rise to this challenge. However, many CRNAs may be unfamiliar with advancements in critical care ventilators. The purpose of this review is to provide a resource for CRNAs returning to the ICU to manage patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. The most common ventilator modes found in anesthesia machine ventilators and ICU ventilators are reviewed, as are the lung-protective ventilation strategies, including positive end-expiratory pressure, used to manage patients with COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. Adjuncts to mechanical ventilation, recruitment maneuvers, prone positioning, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are also reviewed. More research is needed concerning the management of COVID-19-infected patients, and CRNAs must become familiar with their ICU units' individual ventilator machine, but this brief review provides a good place to start for those returning to the ICU.

Allocating scarce intensive care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic: practical challenges to theoretical frameworks.

The COVID-19 pandemic strained health-care systems throughout the world. For some, available medical resources could not meet the increased demand and rationing was ultimately required. Hospitals and governments often sought to establish triage committees to assist with allocation decisions. However, for institutions operating under crisis standards of care (during times when standards of care must be substantially lowered in the setting of crisis), relying on these committees for rationing decisions was impractical-circumstances were changing too rapidly, occurring in too many diverse locations within hospitals, and the available information for decision making was notably scarce. Furthermore, a utilitarian approach to decision making based on an analysis of outcomes is problematic due to uncertainty regarding outcomes of different therapeutic options. We propose that triage committees could be involved in providing policies and guidance for clinicians to help ensure equity in the application of rationing under crisis standards of care. An approach guided by egalitarian principles, integrated with utilitarian principles, can support physicians at the bedside when they must ration scarce resources.

Processes for Trauma Care at Six Level I Trauma Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: As the COVID-19 pandemic spread, patient care guidelines were published and elective surgeries postponed. However, trauma admissions are not scheduled and cannot be postponed. There is a paucity of information available on continuing trauma care during the pandemic. The study purpose was to describe multicenter trauma care process changes made during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This descriptive survey summarized the response to the COVID-19 pandemic at six Level I trauma centers. The survey was completed in 05/2020. Questions were asked about personal protective equipment, ventilators, intensive care unit (ICU) beds, and negative pressure rooms. Data were summarized as proportions. RESULTS: The survey took an average of 5 days. Sixty-seven percent reused N-95 respirators; 50% sanitized them with 25% using ultraviolet light. One hospital (17%) had regional resources impacted. Thirty-three percent created ventilator allocation protocols. Most hospitals (83%) designated more beds to the ICU; 50% of hospitals designated an ICU for COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients were isolated in negative pressure rooms at all hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Level I trauma centers created processes to provide optimal trauma patient care and still protect providers. Other centers can use the processes described to continue care of trauma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 associated respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: The outcomes of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 remain poorly defined. We sought to determine clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 managed with invasive mechanical ventilation in an appropriately resourced US health care system. METHODS: Outcomes of COVID-19 infected patients requiring mechanical ventilation treated within the Inova Health System between March 5, 2020 and April 26, 2020 were evaluated through an electronic medical record review. RESULTS: 1023 COVID-19 positive patients were admitted to the Inova Health System during the study period. Of these, 164 (16.0%) were managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. All patients were followed to definitive disposition. 70/164 patients (42.7%) had died and 94/164 (57.3%) were still alive. Deceased patients were older (median age of 66 vs. 55, p <0.0001) and had a higher initial d-dimer (2.22 vs. 1.31, p = 0.005) and peak ferritin levels (2998 vs. 2077, p = 0.016) compared to survivors. 84.3% of patients over 70 years old died in the hospital. Conversely, 67.4% of patients age 70 or younger survived to hospital discharge. Younger age, non-Caucasian race and treatment at a tertiary care center were all associated with survivor status. CONCLUSION: Mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is high, with particularly daunting mortality seen in patients of advanced age, even in a well-resourced health care system. A substantial proportion of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were not of advanced age, and this group had a reasonable chance for recovery.

Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in New Orleans and Care With an Evidence-Based Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in an academic safety net hospital and the effect of evidence-based practices in these patients are unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to a network of hospitals in New Orleans, Louisiana, and what is an evidence-based protocol for care associated with improved outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of ICUs in four hospitals in New Orleans, Louisiana, we collected data on adults admitted to an ICU and tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between March 9, 2020 and April 14, 2020. The exposure of interest was admission to an ICU that implemented an evidence-based protocol for COVID-19 care. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days. RESULTS: The initial 147 patients admitted to any ICU and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 constituted the cohort for this study. In the entire network, exposure to an evidence-based protocol was associated with more ventilator-free days (25 days; 0-28) compared with non-protocolized ICUs (0 days; 0-23, P = .005), including in adjusted analyses (P = .02). Twenty patients (37%) admitted to protocolized ICUs died compared with 51 (56%; P = .02) in non-protocolized ICUs. Among 82 patients admitted to the academic safety net hospital's ICUs, the median number of ventilator-free days was 22 (interquartile range, 0-27) and mortality rate was 39%. INTERPRETATION: Care of critically ill COVID-19 patients with an evidence-based protocol is associated with increased time alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation. In-hospital survival occurred in most critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to an academic safety net hospital's ICUs despite a high rate of comorbidities.

Simulation-Based Up-Training in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STATEMENT: The dramatic outbreak of COVID-19 placed unprecedented strain on the critical care workforce of New York City. The enhanced precautions required to safely care for COVID-19 patients impacted the performance of even routine critical care procedures. Meanwhile, staff were stretched to care for exponentially rising case volume as COVID intensive care units (ICUs) expanded. Simulation was used to bridge these gaps-first to familiarize personnel within the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care with revised COVID-19 care procedures, then to orient noncritical care clinicians volunteering from other specialties for COVID ICU deployment to general critical care and COVID-19 care principles. Using mannequin-based simulation scenarios followed by comprehensive debriefing sessions, simulation participants received high-intensity, high-fidelity training in respiratory failure, circulatory failure, bedside ultrasound, bedside ICU procedures, and elements of COVID-19-specific care. More than 200 physicians and advanced practice practitioners completed simulation training in preparation for deployment, supplementing and enhancing the ICU workforce at a decisive time during the outbreak.

Guiding Principles for the Conduct of Observational Critical Care Research for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemics and Beyond: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Use of observational data to inform the response and care of patients during a pandemic faces unique challenges. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID 2019 Registry Core data and research methodology team convened over virtual meetings throughout March to June 2020 to determine best practice goals for development of a pandemic disease registry to support rapid data collection and analysis. SETTING: International, multi-center registry of hospitalized patients. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Large-scale observational data collection requires: 1) quality assurance and harmonization across many sites; 2) a transparent process for selecting from among many potential research questions; 3) the use of best practices in design of descriptive, predictive, and inferential studies; (4) innovative approaches to characterize random error in the setting of constantly updated data; (5) rapid peer-review and reporting; and (6) transitions from a focus on discovery to implementation. Herein, we describe the guiding principles to best practices and suggestions for innovations to study design and reporting within the coronavirus disease 2019 Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study pandemic registry. CONCLUSIONS: Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry sought to develop and implement prespecified best practices combined with grassroots efforts from clinical sites worldwide in order to develop clinically useful knowledge in response to a pandemic.

Perspective of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign on the Management of Pediatric Sepsis in the Era of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.

National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force Guidance for Management of Psoriatic Disease During the Pandemic: Version 1.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance about management of psoriatic disease during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: A task force (TF) of 18 physician voting members with expertise in dermatology, rheumatology, epidemiology, infectious diseases, and critical care was convened. The TF was supplemented by nonvoting members, which included fellows and National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) staff. Clinical questions relevant to the psoriatic disease community were informed by questions received by the NPF. A Delphi process was conducted. RESULTS: The TF approved 22 guidance statements. The average of the votes was within the category of agreement for all statements. All guidance statements proposed were recommended, 9 with high consensus and 13 with moderate consensus. LIMITATIONS: The evidence behind many guidance statements is limited in quality. CONCLUSION: These statements provide guidance for the management of patients with psoriatic disease on topics ranging from how the disease and its treatments impact COVID-19 risk and outcome, how medical care can be optimized during the pandemic, what patients should do to lower their risk of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and what they should do if they develop COVID-19. The guidance is intended to be a living document that will be updated by the TF as data emerge.