In COVID-19 Patients Who Suffer In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Outcomes May Be Impacted by Arrest Etiology and Local Pandemic Conditions.

OBJECTIVES: The utility and risks to providers of performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest in COVID-19 patients have been questioned. Additionally, there are discrepancies in reported COVID-19 in-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates. We describe outcomes after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest in two COVID-19 patient cohorts. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, NY. PATIENTS: Those admitted with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020, as well as between March 1, 2021, and May 31, 2021, who received resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 103 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who were resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2020, most self-identified as Hispanic/Latino or African American, 35 (34.0%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, and 15 (14.6%) survived to 30 days post-arrest. Compared with nonsurvivors, 30-day survivors experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest later (day 22 vs day 7; p = 0.008) and were more likely to have had an acute respiratory event preceding in-hospital cardiac arrest (93.3% vs 27.3%; p < 0.001). Among 30-day survivors, 11 (73.3%) survived to hospital discharge, at which point 8 (72.7%) had Cerebral Performance Category scores of 1 or 2. Among 26 COVID-19 patients resuscitated after in-hospital cardiac arrest in spring 2021, 15 (57.7%) had return of spontaneous circulation for at least 20 minutes, 3 (11.5%) survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 2 (7.7%) survived to hospital discharge, both with Cerebral Performance Category scores of 2 or less. Those who survived to 30 days post in-hospital cardiac arrest were younger (46.3 vs 67.8; p = 0.03), but otherwise there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation after in-hospital cardiac arrest had low survival rates. Our findings additionally show return of spontaneous circulation rates in these patients may be impacted by hospital strain and that patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest preceded by acute respiratory events might be more likely to survive to 30 days, suggesting Advanced Cardiac Life Support efforts may be more successful in this subpopulation.

Ophthalmology and Ethics in the COVID-19 Era.

PURPOSE: The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), has disrupted the practice of ophthalmology and threatens to forever alter how we care for our patients. Physicians across the country encounter unique clinical dilemmas daily. This paper presents a curated set of ethical dilemmas facing ophthalmologists both during and following the pandemic. DESIGN: Perspective. METHODS: Case presentations drawn from actual clinical scenarios were presented during a virtual ophthalmology grand rounds and discussed with the director of clinical ethics at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. RESULTS: It has become routine to expect an ophthalmologist to be involved in many levels of care for patients critically ill with COVID-19. Ophthalmology patients, even those with chronic, progressive conditions, are being triaged, and vision-saving interventions are being postponed. Four questions were applied to each scenario, allowing for ethical conclusions to be reached. The following questions were posed: what is the imminence and severity of the harm expected without intervention? What is the efficacy of the intervention under consideration? What are the risks of treatment for the patient? What are the risks of treating the patient for the health care team? CONCLUSIONS: During this pandemic and for months, perhaps years, to come, it is critical to reconsider the ethical principles underlying modern medicine and ophthalmic care as well as the ramifications of our decisions and actions.

The COVID-19 Crisis and Clinical Ethics in New York City

The COVID-19 pandemic that struck New York City in the spring of 2020 was a natural experiment for the clinical ethics services of NewYork-Presbyterian (NYP). Two distinct teams at NYP's flagship academic medical centers-at NYP/Columbia University Medical Center (Columbia) and NYP/Weill Cornell Medical Center (Weill Cornell)-were faced with the same pandemic and operated under the same institutional rules. Each campus used time as an heuristic to analyze our collective response. The Columbia team compares consults during the pandemic with the same period during the year prior. The Weill Cornell service describes the phases of the pandemic to depict its temporal evolution and subsequent ethical challenges. Both sites report that the predominant ethical challenges centered around end-of-life decision making, setting goals of care, and medical futility, all complicated by resource allocation questions and the ambiguity of state law under crisis standards of care. The Columbia campus saw a statistically significant increase in ethics consultations provided to Hispanic patients, perhaps reflective of the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 suffered by this demographic. While Weill Cornell and Columbia saw a surge in clinical ethics consultations, the two services assumed a more expansive role than one normally played in institutional life. Serving as intermediaries between frontline clinicians and senior hospital administrators, consultants provided critical intelligence to hospital leadership about the evolution of the pandemic, disseminated information to clinicians, and attended to the moral distress of colleagues who were asked to provide care under truly extraordinary circumstances. The COVID-19 surge in New York City revealed latent capabilities in ethics consultation that may prove useful to the broader clinical ethics community as it responds to the current pandemic and reconceptualizes its potential for future service.

Clinical Ethics Consultations during the COVID-19 Pandemic Surge at a New York City Medical Center

The COVID-19 pandemic swept through New York City swiftly and with devastating effect. The crisis put enormous pressure on all hospital services, including the clinical ethics consultation team. This report describes the recent experience of the ethics consultants and Columbia University Irving Medical Center during the COVID-19 surge and compares the case load and characteristics to the corresponding period in 2019. By reporting this experience, we hope to supplement the growing body of COVID-19 scientific literature and provide details of the human toll the virus took on our hospitals and communities. We also aim to highlight the role of the clinical ethics consultant as well as areas of policy and law that may need to be addressed in order to be better prepared for a future public health crisis.