Pneumothorax in critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection: Incidence, clinical characteristics and outcomes in a case control multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical features and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who develop a pneumothorax has not been rigorously described or compared to those who do not develop a pneumothorax. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients who developed a pneumothorax with those who did not develop a pneumothorax. METHODS: This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of all adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who were admitted to intensive care units in 4 tertiary care centers in the United States. RESULTS: A total of 842 critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection were analyzed, out of which 594 (71%) were mechanically ventilated. The overall incidence of pneumothorax was 85/842 (10%), and 80/594 (13%) in those who were mechanically ventilated. As compared to mechanically ventilated patients in the non-pneumothorax group, mechanically ventilated patients in the pneumothorax group had worse respiratory parameters at the time of intubation (mean PaO2:FiO2 ratio 105 vs 150, P<0.001 and static respiratory system compliance: 30ml/cmH2O vs 39ml/cmH2O, P = 0.01) and significantly higher in-hospital mortality (63% vs 49%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The overall incidence of pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection was 13%. Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax had worse gas exchange and respiratory mechanics at the time of intubation and had a higher mortality compared to those who did not develop pneumothorax.

Safety, tolerability, and outcomes of losartan use in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies on the use of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System blockade in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been informative but conflicting, and prospective studies are required to demonstrate the safety, tolerability, and outcomes of initiating these agents in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hypertension. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a single center feasibility study encompassing two cohorts: (1) prospective cohort (April 21, 2020 to May 29, 2020) and (2) retrospective cohort (March 7, 2020 to April 1, 2020) of hospitalized patients with real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal swab. Key inclusion criteria include BP > 130/80 and a requirement of supplemental oxygen with FiO2 of 25% or higher to maintain SpO2 > 92%. Key exclusion criteria included hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury (AKI) at the time of enrollment. Prospective cohort consisted of de novo initiation of losartan and continuation for a minimum of 7 days and assessed for adverse events (AKI, hyperkalemia, transaminitis, hypotension) and clinical outcomes (change in SpO2/FiO2 and inflammatory markers, need for ICU admission and mechanical ventilation). Retrospective cohort consisted of continuation of losartan (prior-to-hospitalization) and assessment of similar outcomes. In the prospective cohort, a total of 250 hospitalized patients were screened and inclusion/exclusion criteria were met in 16/250 patients and in the retrospective cohort, a total of 317 hospitalized patients were screened and inclusion/exclusion criteria were met in 14/317 patients. Most common adverse event was hypotension, leading to discontinuation in 3/16 (19%) and 2/14 (14%) patients in the prospective and retrospective cohort. No patients developed AKI in the prospective cohort as compared to 1/14 (7%) patients in the retrospective cohort, requiring discontinuation of losartan. Hyperkalemia occurred in 1/16 (6%) and 0/14 patients in the prospective and retrospective cohorts, respectively. In the prospective cohort, 3/16 (19%) and 2/16 (13%) patients required ICU admission and mechanical ventilation. In comparison, 3/14 (21%) required ICU admission and mechanical ventilation in the retrospective cohort. A majority of patients in both cohorts (14/16 (88%) and 13/14 (93%) patients from the prospective and retrospective cohort) were discharged alive from the hospital. A total of 9/16 (prospective) and 5/14 (retrospective) patients completed a minimum 7 days of losartan. In these 9 patients in the prospective cohort, a significant improvement in SpO2/FiO2 ratio was observed from day 1 to 7. No significant changes in inflammatory markers (initiation, peak, and day 7) were observed in either cohort. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study we demonstrate that losartan was well-tolerated among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hypertension. We also demonstrate the feasibility of patient recruitment and the appropriate parameters to assess the outcomes and safety of losartan initiation or continuation, which provides a framework for future randomized clinical trials.

Outcomes Associated with the Use of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade in Hospitalized Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the benefits or harm associated with the continuation of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers (ARBs), especially the impact on inflammation, in hypertensive, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States is unclear. METHODS: This is a single-center cohort study of sequentially hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at Stony Brook University Medical Center from March 7, 2020 to April 1, 2020, inclusive of these dates. Data collection included history of known comorbidities, medications, vital signs and laboratory values (admission and during the hospitalization). Outcomes include inflammatory burden (composite scores for multiple markers of inflammation), acute kidney injury (AKI), admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients in the study cohort, 80 patients (26.7%) had history of ACEI or ARB use prior to admission, with 61.3% (49/80) of these patients continuing the medications during hospitalization. Multivariable analysis revealed that the history of ACEI or ARB use prior to hospitalization was not associated with worse outcomes. In addition, the continuation of these agents during hospitalization was not associated with an increase in adverse outcomes and predicted fewer ICU admissions (OR=0.25, 0.08-0.81) with a decrease in the severity of inflammatory burden (peak CRP (6.9±3.1mg/dl, p=0.03) and peak inflammation score (2.3±1.1unit reduction, p=0.04)). CONCLUSION: Use of ACEI or ARBs prior to hospitalization was not associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 and the therapeutic benefits of continuing ACEI or ARB in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not offset by adverse outcomes.

Tracheobronchial Slough, a Potential Pathology in Endotracheal Tube Obstruction in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Intensive Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: A novel coronavirus (COVID-19) erupted in the latter part of 2019. The virus, SARS-CoV-2 can cause a range of symptoms ranging from mild through fulminant respiratory failure. Approximately 25% of hospitalized patients require admission to the intensive care unit, with the majority of those requiring mechanical ventilation. High density consolidations in the bronchial tree and in the pulmonary parenchyma have been described in the advanced phase of the disease. We noted a subset of patients who had a sudden, significant increase in peak airway, plateau and peak inspiratory pressures. Partial or complete ETT occlusion was noted to be the culprit in the majority of these patients. METHODS: With institutional IRB approval, we examined a subset of our mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. All of the patients were admitted to one of our COVID-19 ICUs. Each was staffed by a board certified intensivist. During multidisciplinary rounds, all arterial blood gas (ABG) results, ventilator settings and ventilator measurements are discussed and addressed. ARDSNet Protocols are employed. In patients with confirmed acute occlusion of the endotracheal tube (ETT), acute elevation in peak airway and peak inspiratory pressures are noted in conjunction with desaturation. Data was collected retrospectively and demographics, ventilatory settings and ABG results were recorded. RESULTS: Our team has observed impeded ventilation in intubated patients who are several days into the critical course. Pathologic evaluation of the removed endotracheal tube contents from one of our patients demonstrated a specimen consistent with sloughed tracheobronchial tissues and inflammatory cells in a background of dense mucin. Of 110 patients admitted to our adult COVID-19 ICUs, 28 patients required urgent exchange of their ETT. CONCLUSION: Caregivers need to be aware of this pathological finding, recognize, and to treat this aspect of the COVID-19 critical illness course, which is becoming more prevalent.

Barrier Techniques to Reduce Aerosolization During Extubation.

Preventing exposure of virulent pathogens during aerosolizing procedures such as intubations has been a cause of concern during the coronavirus pandemic. As such, protocols have been adjusted and precautions implemented in order to minimize the risk to the proceduralist. As patients improve, we face another high-risk aerosolizing procedure-extubation. We illustrate a protocol to help minimize the exposure risk during extubation. We describe a barrier technique during extubation which contained aerosolized particulates into a non-rebreather mask at time of extubation. Our protocol allows providers to perform extubations while minimizing exposure to aerosolized particles.