Post-intensive care syndrome and pulmonary fibrosis in patients surviving ARDS-pneumonia of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 etiologies.

The purpose was to examine patient-centered outcomes and the occurrence of lung fibrotic changes on Chest computed tomography (CT) imaging following pneumonia-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We sought to investigate outpatient clinic chest CT imaging in survivors of COVID19-related ARDS and non-COVID-related ARDS, to determine group differences and explore relationships between lung fibrotic changes and functional outcomes. A retrospective practice analysis of electronic health records at an ICU Recovery Clinic in a tertiary academic medical center was performed in adult patients surviving ARDS due to COVID-19 and non-COVID etiologies. Ninety-four patients with mean age 53 ± 13 and 51% male were included (n = 64 COVID-19 and n = 30 non-COVID groups). There were no differences for age, sex, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, or sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores between the two groups. Fibrotic changes visualized on CT imaging occurred in a higher proportion of COVID-19 survivors (70%) compared to the non-COVID group (43%, p < 0.001). Across both groups, patients with fibrotic changes (n = 58) were older, had a lower BMI, longer hospital and ICU LOS, lower mean RASS scores, longer total duration of supplemental oxygen. While not statistically different, patients with fibrotic changes did have reduced respiratory function, worse performance on the six-minute walk test, and had high occurrences of anxiety, depression, emotional distress, and mild cognitive impairment regardless of initial presenting diagnosis. Patients surviving pneumonia-ARDS are at high risk of impairments in physical, emotional, and cognitive health related to Post-Intensive Care Syndrome. Of clinical importance, pulmonary fibrotic changes on chest CT occurred in a higher proportion in COVID-ARDS group; however, no functional differences were measured in spirometry or physical assessments at ICU follow-up. Whether COVID infection imparts a unique recovery is not evident from these data but suggest that long-term follow up is necessary for all survivors of ARDS.

Assessment of Symptom, Disability, and Financial Trajectories in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19 at 6 Months.

Importance: Individuals who survived COVID-19 often report persistent symptoms, disabilities, and financial consequences. However, national longitudinal estimates of symptom burden remain limited. Objective: To measure the incidence and changes over time in symptoms, disability, and financial status after COVID-19-related hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: A national US multicenter prospective cohort study with 1-, 3-, and 6-month postdischarge visits was conducted at 44 sites participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network's Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology: COVID-19 Observational (BLUE CORAL) study. Participants included hospitalized English- or Spanish-speaking adults without severe prehospitalization disabilities or cognitive impairment. Participants were enrolled between August 24, 2020, and July 20, 2021, with follow-up occurring through March 30, 2022. Exposure: Hospitalization for COVID-19 as identified with a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test. Main Outcomes and Measures: New or worsened cardiopulmonary symptoms, financial problems, functional impairments, perceived return to baseline health, and quality of life. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with new cardiopulmonary symptoms or financial problems at 6 months. Results: A total of 825 adults (444 [54.0%] were male, and 379 [46.0%] were female) met eligibility criteria and completed at least 1 follow-up survey. Median age was 56 (IQR, 43-66) years; 253 (30.7%) participants were Hispanic, 145 (17.6%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 360 (43.6%) were non-Hispanic White. Symptoms, disabilities, and financial problems remained highly prevalent among hospitalization survivors at month 6. Rates increased between months 1 and 6 for cardiopulmonary symptoms (from 67.3% to 75.4%; P = .001) and fatigue (from 40.7% to 50.8%; P < .001). Decreases were noted over the same interval for prevalent financial problems (from 66.1% to 56.4%; P < .001) and functional limitations (from 55.3% to 47.3%; P = .004). Participants not reporting problems at month 1 often reported new symptoms (60.0%), financial problems (23.7%), disabilities (23.8%), or fatigue (41.4%) at month 6. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study of people discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization suggest that recovery in symptoms, functional status, and fatigue was limited at 6 months, and some participants reported new problems 6 months after hospital discharge.

Worse survival in patients with right ventricular dysfunction and COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A multicenter study from the ORACLE Group.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the impact of right ventricular dysfunction on the outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. METHODS: Six academic centers conducted a retrospective analysis of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 stratified by support with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during the first wave of the pandemic (March to August 2020). Echocardiograms performed for clinical indications were reviewed for right and left ventricular function. Baseline characteristics, hospitalization characteristics, and survival were compared. RESULTS: The cohort included 424 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, 126 of whom were cannulated for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Right ventricular dysfunction was observed in 38.1% of patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and 27.4% of patients who did not receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with an echocardiogram. Biventricular dysfunction was observed in 5.5% of patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and non-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cohorts stratified by the presence of right ventricular dysfunction. In the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cohort, right ventricular dysfunction was associated with increased inotrope use (66.7% vs 24.4%, P < .001), bleeding complications (77.1% vs 53.8%, P = .015), and worse survival independent of left ventricular dysfunction (39.6% vs 64.1%, P = .012). There was no significant difference in days ventilated before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, hours on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, duration of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, inhaled pulmonary vasodilator use, infectious complications, clotting complications, or stroke. The cohort without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cohort demonstrated no statistically significant differences in in-hospital outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of right ventricular dysfunction in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome supported with veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Additional studies are required to determine if mitigating right ventricular dysfunction in patients requiring veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation improves mortality.

Functional, imaging, and respiratory evaluation (FIRE) of patients post-hospitalization for COVID-19: protocol for a pilot observational study.

INTRODUCTION: We describe a protocol for FIRE CORAL, an observational cohort study that examines the recovery from COVID-19 disease following acute hospitalization with an emphasis on functional, imaging, and respiratory evaluation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: FIRE CORAL is a multicenter prospective cohort study of participants recovering from COVID-19 disease with in-person follow-up for functional and pulmonary phenotyping conducted by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network. FIRE CORAL will include a subset of participants enrolled in Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology of PETAL COVID-19 Observational Study (BLUE CORAL), an NHLBI-funded prospective cohort study describing the clinical characteristics, treatments, biology, and outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across the PETAL Network. FIRE CORAL consists of a battery of in-person assessments objectively measuring pulmonary function, abnormalities on lung imaging, physical functional status, and biospecimen analyses. Participants will attend and perform initial in-person testing at 3 to 9 months after hospitalization. The primary objective of the study is to determine the feasibility of longitudinal assessments investigating multiple domains of recovery from COVID-19. Secondarily, we will perform descriptive statistics, including the prevalence and characterization of abnormalities on pulmonary function, chest imaging, and functional status. We will also identify potential clinical and biologic factors that predict recovery or the occurrence of persistent impairment of pulmonary function, chest imaging, and functional status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: FIRE CORAL is approved via the Vanderbilt University central institutional review board (IRB) and via reliance agreement with the site IRBs. Results will be disseminated via the writing group for the protocol committee and reviewed by the PETAL Network publications committee prior to publication. Data obtained via the study will subsequently be made publicly available via NHLBI's biorepository. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY: Strengths: First US-based multicenter cohort of pulmonary and functional outcomes in patients previously hospitalized for COVID-19 infection Longitudinal biospecimen measurement allowing for biologic phenotyping of abnormalities Geographically diverse cohort allowing for a more generalizable understanding of post-COVID pulmonary sequela Limitations: Selected cohort given proximity to a participating center Small cohort which may be underpowered to identify small changes in pulmonary function.

APTA Cross Sections and Academies Recommendations for COVID-19 Core Outcome Measures.

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged as a major health concern within the United States in early 2020. Because this is a novel virus, little guidance exists for best practice to evaluate this population within the field of physical therapy. Methods: An expert task force appointed by the leadership of 9 different academies or sections of the American Physical Therapy Association was formed to develop recommendations for a set of core outcome measures for individuals with or recovering from COVID-19. Results: This perspective provides guidance on a best practice recommendation to physical therapists and researchers regarding the use of core outcome measures for individuals with or recovering from COVID-19. The process for the selection of core measures for this population is presented and discussed. Conclusions: Core outcome measures improve the ability to track progress and change across the continuum of care at both the patient and population levels.

Early posthospitalization recovery after extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in survivors of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the influence of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) on outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 during the first 120 days after hospital discharge. METHODS: Five academic centers conducted a retrospective analysis of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 admitted during March through May 2020. Survivors had access to a multidisciplinary postintensive care recovery clinic. Physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits were measured using validated instruments and compared based on ECMO status. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty two mechanically ventilated patients were compared with 46 patients cannulated for venovenous ECMO. Patients receiving ECMO were younger and traveled farther but there was no significant difference in gender, race, or body mass index. ECMO patients were mechanically ventilated for longer durations (median, 26 days [interquartile range, 19.5-41 days] vs 13 days [interquartile range, 7-20 days]) and were more likely to receive inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, neuromuscular blockade, investigational COVID-19 therapies, blood transfusions, and inotropes. Patients receiving ECMO experienced greater bleeding and clotting events (P < .01). However, survival at discharge was similar (69.6% vs 70.6%). Of the 217 survivors, 65.0% had documented follow-up within 120 days. Overall, 95.5% were residing at home, 25.7% had returned to work or usual activity, and 23.1% were still using supplemental oxygen; these rates did not differ significantly based on ECMO status. Rates of physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that COVID-19 survivors experience significant physical, psychological, and cognitive deficits following intensive care unit admission. Despite a more complex critical illness course, longer average duration of mechanical ventilation, and longer average length of stay, patients treated with venovenous ECMO had similar survival at discharge and outcomes within 120 days of discharge.

Characteristics of Post-ICU and Post-COVID Recovery Clinics in 29 U.S. Health Systems

OBJECTIVES: The multifaceted long-term impairments resulting from critical illness and COVID-19 require interdisciplinary management approaches in the recovery phase of illness. Operational insights into the structure and process of recovery clinics (RCs) from heterogeneous health systems are needed. This study describes the structure and process characteristics of existing and newly implemented ICU-RCs and COVID-RCs in a subset of large health systems in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirty-nine RCs, representing a combined 156 hospitals within 29 health systems participated. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: RC demographics, referral criteria, and operating characteristics were collected, including measures used to assess physical, psychologic, and cognitive recoveries. Thirty-nine RC surveys were completed (94% response rate). ICU-RC teams included physicians, pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, and advanced practice providers. Funding sources for ICU-RCs included clinical billing (n = 20, 77%), volunteer staff support (n = 15, 58%), institutional staff/space support (n = 13, 46%), and grant or foundation funding (n = 3, 12%). Forty-six percent of RCs report patient visit durations of 1 hour or longer. ICU-RC teams reported use of validated scales to assess psychologic recovery (93%), physical recovery (89%), and cognitive recovery (86%) more often in standard visits compared with COVID-RC teams (psychologic, 54%;physical, 69%;and cognitive, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Operating structures of RCs vary, though almost all describe modest capacity and reliance on volunteerism and discretionary institutional support. ICU- and COVID-RCs in the United States employ varied funding sources and endorse different assessment measures during visits to guide care coordination. Common features include integration of ICU clinicians, interdisciplinary approach, and focus on severe critical illness. The heterogeneity in RC structures and processes contributes to future research on the optimal structure and process to achieve the best postintensive care syndrome and postacute sequelae of COVID outcomes.

Patients Surviving Critical COVID-19 have Impairments in Dual-task Performance Related to Post-intensive Care Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to examine Dual Task (DT) performance in patients surviving severe and critical COVID-19 compared to patients with chronic lung disease (CLD). Secondarily, we aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test in patients surviving COVID-19. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional, observational study. SETTING: Academic medical center within United States. PATIENTS: Ninety-two patients including 36 survivors of critical COVID-19 that required mechanical ventilation (critical-COVID), 20 patients recovering from COVID-19 that required supplemental oxygen with hospitalization (severe-COVID), and 36 patients with CLD serving as a control group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients completed the TUG, DT-TUG, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT) 1-month after hospital discharge. A subset of patients returned at 3-months and repeated testing to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC). Critical-COVID group (16.8 ± 7.3) performed the DT-TUG in significantly slower than CLD group (13.9 ± 4.8 s; P = .024) and Severe-COVID group (13.1 ± 5.1 s; P = .025). Within-subject difference between TUG and DT-TUG was also significantly worse in critical-COVID group (-21%) compared to CLD (-10%; P = .012), even despite CLD patients having a higher comorbid burden (P < .003) and older age (P < .001). TUG and DT-TUG demonstrated strong to excellent construct validity to the chair rise test, gait speed, and 6MWT for both COVID-19 groups (r = -0.84to 0.73, P < .05). One- and 3-months after hospital discharge there was a floor effect of 14% (n = 5/36) and 5.2% (n = 1/19), respectively for patients in the critical-COVID group. Ceiling effects were noted in four (11%) critical-COVID, six (30%) severe-COVID patients for the TUG and DT-TUG at 1-month. CONCLUSION: The ability to maintain mobility performance in the presence of a cognitive DT is grossly impaired in patients surviving critical COVID-19. DT performance may subserve the understanding of impairments related to Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) for survivors of critical illness.

Safety and Feasibility of an Interdisciplinary Treatment Approach to Optimize Recovery From Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Examine the safety and feasibility of a multimodal in-person or telehealth treatment program, administered in acute recovery phase for patients surviving critical coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: Pragmatic, pre-post, nonrandomized controlled trial with patients electing enrollment into one of the two recovery pathways. SETTING: ICU Recovery Clinic in an academic medical center. PATIENTS: Adult patients surviving acute respiratory failure due to critical coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients participated in combined ICU Recovery clinic and 8 weeks of physical rehabilitation delivered: 1) in-person or 2) telehealth. Patients received medical care by an ICU Recovery Clinic interdisciplinary team and physical rehabilitation focused on aerobic, resistance, and respiratory muscle training. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two patients enrolled with mean age 57 ± 12, 62% were male, and the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 9.5. There were no differences between the two groups except patients in telehealth pathway (n = 10) lived further from clinic than face-to-face patients (162 ± 60 vs 31 ± 47 kilometers, t = 6.06, p < 0.001). Four safety events occurred: one minor adverse event in the telehealth group, two minor adverse events, and one major adverse event in the in-person group. Three patients did not complete the study (two in-person and one telehealth). Six-minute walk distance increased to 101 ± 91 meters from pre to post (n = 29, t = 6.93, p < 0.0001), which was similar between the two groups (110 vs 80 meters, t = 1.34, p = 0.19). Self-reported levels of anxiety, depression, and distress were high in both groups with similar self-report quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal treatment program combining care from an interdisciplinary team in an ICU Recovery Clinic with physical rehabilitation is safe and feasible in patients surviving the ICU for coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory failure.

Physical Therapy Management of an Individual With Post-COVID Syndrome: A Case Report.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case report is to provide the clinical presentation and physical therapist management for a patient with post-COVID syndrome. Secondarily, the report highlights the importance of assessing cognitive and emotional health in patients with post-COVID syndrome. METHODS (CASE DESCRIPTION): A 37-year-old woman tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and developed mild COVID-19 disease but did not require supplemental oxygen or hospitalization. The patient experienced persistent symptoms, including dyspnea, headaches, and cognitive fog. On day 62, they participated in an outpatient physical therapist evaluation that revealed deficits in exercise capacity, obtaining 50% of their age-predicted 6-minute walk distance. They had minor reductions in muscle strength and cognitive function. Self-reported quality of life was 50, and they scored above established cut-off scores for provisional diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RESULTS: The patient participated in biweekly physical therapist sessions for 8 weeks, which included aerobic training, strengthening exercises, diaphragmatic breathing techniques, and mindfulness training. Metabolic equivalent for task levels increased with variability over the course of the program. The patient's muscle strength, physical function, and exercise capacity improved. 6-Minute walk distance increased by 199 m, equating to 80% of their age-predicted distance. Quality of life and PTSD scores did not improve. At evaluation after physical therapy, the patient was still experiencing migraines, dyspnea, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction. CONCLUSION: This case report described the clinical presentation and physical therapist management of a person with post-COVID syndrome, a novel health condition for which little evidence exists to guide rehabilitation examination and interventions. Physical therapists should consider cognitive function and emotional health in their plan of care for patients with post-COVID syndromes. IMPACT: This case alerts physical therapists to post-COVID syndrome-which can include debilitating symptoms of decreased aerobic tolerance, anxiety, PTSD, and cognitive dysfunction-and to the role that therapists can play in assessing these symptoms and managing these patients.

Recovery from COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome: the potential role of an intensive care unit recovery clinic: a case report.

BACKGROUND: In this case report, we describe the trajectory of recovery of a young, healthy patient diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome. The purpose of this case report is to highlight the potential role of intensive care unit recovery or follow-up clinics for patients surviving acute hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019. CASE PRESENTATION: Our patient was a 27-year-old Caucasian woman with a past medical history of asthma transferred from a community hospital to our medical intensive care unit for acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to bilateral pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen, 180). On day 2 of her intensive care unit admission, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. Her clinical status gradually improved, and she was extubated on intensive care unit day 5. She had a negative test result for coronavirus disease 2019 twice with repeated reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction before being discharged to home after 10 days in the intensive care unit. Two weeks after intensive care unit discharge, the patient returned to our outpatient intensive care unit recovery clinic. At follow-up, the patient endorsed significant fatigue and exhaustion with difficulty walking, minor issues with sleep disruption, and periods of memory loss. She scored 10/12 on the short performance physical battery, indicating good physical function. She did not have signs of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder through self-report questionnaires. Clinically, she was considered at low risk of developing post-intensive care syndrome, but she required follow-up services to assist in navigating the healthcare system, addressing remaining symptoms, and promoting return to her pre-coronavirus disease 2019 societal role. CONCLUSION: We present this case report to suggest that patients surviving coronavirus disease 2019 with subsequent development of acute respiratory distress syndrome will require more intense intensive care unit recovery follow-up. Patients with a higher degree of acute illness who also have pre-existing comorbidities and those of older age who survive mechanical ventilation for coronavirus disease 2019 will require substantial post-intensive care unit care to mitigate and treat post-intensive care syndrome, promote reintegration into the community, and improve quality of life.