Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

CVVHD results in longer filter life than pre-filter CVVH: Results of a quasi-randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Filter clotting is a major issue in continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) that interrupts treatment, reduces delivered effluent dose, and increases cost of care. While a number of variables are involved in filter life, treatment modality is an understudied factor. We hypothesized that filters in pre-filter continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) would have shorter lifespans than in continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD). METHODS: This was a single center, pragmatic, unblinded, quasi-randomized cluster trial conducted in critically ill adult patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) between March 2020 and December 2020. Patients were quasi-randomized by time block to receive pre-filter CVVH (convection) or CVVHD (diffusion). The primary outcome was filter life, and secondary outcomes were number of filters used, number of filters reaching 72 hours, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, filter life in pre-filter CVVH was 79% of that observed in CVVHD (mean ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97, p = 0.02). Median filter life (with interquartile range) in pre-filter CVVH was 21.8 (11.4-45.3) and was 26.6 (13.0-63.5) for CVVHD. In addition, 11.8% of filters in pre-filter CVVH were active for >72 hours, versus 21.2% in the CVVHD group. Finally, filter clotting accounted for the loss of 26.7% of filters in the CVVH group compared to 17.5% in the CVVHD group. There were no differences in overall numbers of filters used or mortality between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically patients with severe AKI requiring CKRT, use of pre-filter CVVH resulted in significantly shorter filter life compared to CVVHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04762524. Registered 02/21/21-Retroactively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04762524?cond=The+Impact+of+CRRT+Modality+on+Filter+Life&draw=2&rank=1.

Association between job role and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare personnel, Iowa, 2021.

We describe the association between job roles and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare personnel. A wide range of hazard ratios were observed across job roles. Medical assistants had higher hazard ratios than nurses, while attending physicians, food service workers, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, residents and fellows, and temporary workers had lower hazard ratios.

Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses. CONCLUSIONS: Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Prevalence of maternal obesity at delivery and association with maternal and neonatal outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal obesity has been linked to adverse outcomes for mothers and their offspring, including, but not limited to gestational hypertension (gHTN), gestational diabetes (GDM), pre-eclampsia, fetal macrosomia, and emergency cesarean section. Recent investigations have also shown that obesity, as defined by a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30, especially severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40), is a risk factor for both hospitalization and death from COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and association of maternal obesity at delivery with adverse antenatal, intrapartum, and neonatal outcomes in a cohort of consecutive delivering patients at a tertiary care center in Iowa from May to September 2020. A secondary objective is to determine if maternal obesity has any relationship to past or current COVID-19 infection status at the time of delivery. This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study to analyze obstetric outcomes among COVID-19 infected and uninfected patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study using demographic and clinical data obtained from the electronic medical record. Excess plasma was collected from routine blood samples obtained at delivery admission to determine the seroprevalence of COVID-19 antibody using the DiaSorin and Roche antibody assays. Frequency variables were each calculated separately, and a comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes was conducted using the generalized linear mixed modeling (GLMM) framework to account for varying distributions (normal and binary). RESULTS: 1001 women delivered during the study period and 89.7% met criteria for being overweight or obese; 17.9% met criteria for severe obesity. Women with obesity had 49.8% lower odds of possessing private insurance, and women with severe obesity were less than half as likely to plan to breastfeed at the time of discharge. Women with obesity of any kind had a significantly increased odds of GDM and gHTN, and an increased risk of an infant with macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and NICU admission. No significant association was found between BMI and COVID-19 infection or disease severity. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into obstetric complications facing women with obesity, especially those with severe obesity. This report serves to highlight potential challenges, such as insurance status and labor complications, that impact women of high BMI to a greater degree when compared to their normal-weight counterparts.

Standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults with severe COVID-19: A multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with coagulopathy but the optimal prophylactic anticoagulation therapy remains uncertain and may depend on COVID-19 severity. OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes in hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19 treated with standard prophylactic versus intermediate dose enoxaparin. METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing standard prophylactic dose versus intermediate dose enoxaparin in adults who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) and/or had laboratory evidence of coagulopathy. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin or intermediate weight-adjusted dose enoxaparin. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included arterial or venous thromboembolism and major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients (99 males and 77 females) underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat population, all-cause mortality at 30 days was 15% for intermediate dose enoxaparin and 21% for standard prophylactic dose enoxaparin (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-1.45; P = .31 by Chi-square test). Unadjusted Cox proportional hazards modeling demonstrated no significant difference in mortality between intermediate and standard dose enoxaparin (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-1.37; P = .28). Arterial or venous thrombosis occurred in 13% of patients assigned to intermediate dose enoxaparin and 9% of patients assigned to standard dose enoxaparin. Major bleeding occurred in 2% of patients in each arm. CONCLUSION: In hospitalized adults with severe COVID-19, standard prophylactic dose and intermediate dose enoxaparin did not differ significantly in preventing death or thrombosis at 30 days.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection during Pregnancy in a Rural Midwest All-delivery Cohort and Associated Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) among pregnant patients at the time of delivery in a rural Midwest tertiary care hospital and to examine demographics, clinical factors, and maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective cohort study included all delivering patients between May 1 and September 22, 2020 at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Plasma SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing was performed. SARS-CoV-2 viral reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results and maternal and neonatal outcomes were collected from the electronic medical record. Data were analyzed using univariate statistical methods with clustering for multiple births. RESULTS: In total, 1,000 patients delivered between May 1 and September 22, 2020. Fifty-eight (5.8%) were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive. Twenty-three also tested viral positive during pregnancy. Three of 1,000 (0.3%) were viral positive on admission but antibody negative. The median age was 30 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-33 years) and body mass index was 31.75 kg/m2 (IQR 27.7-37.5 kg/m2). The cesarean delivery rate was 34.0%. The study population was primarily white (71.6%); however, 41.0% of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients identified as Black, 18.0% as Hispanic/Latino, 3.3% as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and only 27.9% as White (p < 0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 infection was more likely in patients without private insurance (p = 0.0243). Adverse maternal and/or neonatal outcomes were not more likely in patients with evidence of infection during pregnancy. Two SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. There were no maternal deaths during the study period. CONCLUSION: In this largely rural Midwest population, 6.1% of delivering patients had evidence of past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rates of SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy were higher among racial and ethnic minorities and patients without private insurance. The SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and their neonates were not found to be at increased risk for adverse outcomes. KEY POINTS: · SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate in pregnant population in Iowa is 5.8%.. · Infections are higher among minorities, non-English speakers, and patients without private insurance.. · No increased adverse maternal/neonatal outcomes observed for SARS-CoV-2 infected mothers..