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.

Predictors and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism in COVID-19; insights from US National COVID cohort collaborative.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether COVID-19 patients with pulmonary embolism had higher mortality and assess the utility of D-dimer in predicting acute pulmonary embolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Collaborative COVID-19 retrospective cohort, a cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients was studied to compare 90-day mortality and intubation outcomes in patients with and without pulmonary embolism in a multivariable cox regression analysis. The secondary measured outcomes in 1:4 propensity score-matched analysis included length of stay, chest pain incidence, heart rate, history of pulmonary embolism or DVT, and admission laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Among 31,500 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 1117 (3.5%) patients were diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism were noted to have higher mortality (23.6% vs.12.8%; adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) = 1.36, 95% CI [1.20-1.55]), and intubation rates (17.6% vs. 9.3%, aHR = 1.38[1.18-1.61]). Pulmonary embolism patients had higher admission D-dimer FEU (Odds Ratio(OR) = 1.13; 95%CI [1.1-1.15]). As the D-dimer value increased, the specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of the test increased; however, sensitivity decreased (AUC 0.70). At cut-off D-dimer FEU 1.8 mcg/ml, the test had clinical utility (accuracy 70%) in predicting pulmonary embolism. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism had a higher incidence of chest pain and history of pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: Acute pulmonary embolism is associated with worse mortality and morbidity outcomes in COVID-19. We present D-dimer as a predictive risk tool in the form of a clinical calculator for the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism in COVID-19.

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.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Associated Coronavirus 2 Infection and Organ Dysfunction in the ICU: Opportunities for Translational Research.

OBJECTIVES: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, hundreds of thousands of patients have been treated in ICUs across the globe. The severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 virus enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor and activates several distinct inflammatory pathways, resulting in hematologic abnormalities and dysfunction in respiratory, cardiac, gastrointestinal renal, endocrine, dermatologic, and neurologic systems. This review summarizes the current state of research in coronavirus disease 2019 pathophysiology within the context of potential organ-based disease mechanisms and opportunities for translational research. DATA SOURCES: Investigators from the Research Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine were selected based on expertise in specific organ systems and research focus. Data were obtained from searches conducted in Medline via the PubMed portal, Directory of Open Access Journals, Excerpta Medica database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Web of Science from an initial search from December 2019 to October 15, 2020, with a revised search to February 3, 2021. The medRxiv, Research Square, and clinical trial registries preprint servers also were searched to limit publication bias. STUDY SELECTION: Content experts selected studies that included mechanism-based relevance to the severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 virus or coronavirus disease 2019 disease. DATA EXTRACTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve the care of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients should be centered on understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 infection affects organ function. This review articulates specific targets for further research.

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.