Factors affecting providers' comfort and fear during intubations of patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Providers performing endotracheal intubation are at high risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2. The objective was to assess various demographic, exposure and institutional preparedness factors affecting intubators' comfort and fear level during COVID-19 intubations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, survey-based study during the COVID-19 pandemic from September 2020 to January 2021 at a single academic medical centre in Washington, DC, USA. Inclusion criteria were healthcare providers who had an experience in intubating patients confirmed with or suspected of COVID-19. The survey assessed various factors related to the providers' comfort with intubation and fear during COVID-19 intubations. RESULTS: A total of 329 surveys from 55 hospitals were analysed. Of the respondents, 173 (52.6%) were from emergency medicine providers. Factors that were associated with a higher comfort level of intubating patients with COVID-19 included attending physician position (adjusted OR (aOR)=2.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.8; p=0.003), performing more than 20 COVID-19 intubations (aOR=3.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 6.6; p=0.002), participation in an intubation team (aOR=1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7; p=0.031) and adequate levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) (aOR=4.3, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8; p<0.0005). Compared with emergency physicians, anaesthesiology providers had higher fear levels of contracting SARS-CoV-2 during both first and subsequent SARS-CoV-2 intubations (first: OR=1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.6, p=0.006; subsequent: OR=2.0, 95% CI 1.4 to3.2, p<0.0005). CONCLUSION: A higher degree of comfort in intubating patients suspected of or confirmed with COVID-19 was demonstrated in more senior physicians, members of intubation teams, providers who performed a higher number of intubations and providers who reported adequate PPE. These findings highlight potential targets for improving the experience of providers in this setting.

Increased Endotoxin Activity in COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

OBJECTIVE: Endotoxin is a component of Gram-negative bacteria and can be measured in blood using the endotoxin activity assay (EAA). Endotoxin exposure initiates an inflammatory cascade that may contribute to organ dysfunction. Endotoxemia has been reported in previous viral pandemics and we investigated the extent of endotoxemia and its relationship to outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a Prospective Cohort Study of 96 critically-ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the George Washington University Hospital ICU from 25 Mar-6 Jun 2020. EAA and inflammatory markers (ferritin, d dimer, IL-6, CRP) were measured on ICU admission and at the discretion of the clinical team. Clinical outcomes (mortality, LOS, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), intubation) were measured. Statistical analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Comparisons were made using chi-square tests for categorical variables, and T-tests for continuous variables. RESULTS: A majority of patients (68.8%) had high EAA [≥ 0.60], levels seen in septic shock. Only 3 patients had positive bacterial cultures. EAA levels did not correlate with mortality, higher levels were associated with greater organ failure (cardiovascular, renal) and longer ICU LOS. Among 14 patients receiving RRT for severe AKI, one had EAA < 0.6 (p = 0.043). EAA levels did not directly correlate with other inflammatory markers. CONCLUSIONS: High levels of endotoxin activity were found in a majority of critically-ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU and were associated with greater risk for cardiovascular and renal failure. Further investigation is needed to determine if endotoxin reducing strategies are useful in treating severe COVID-19 infection.

Association of Early Aspirin Use With In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With Moderate COVID-19.

Importance: Prior observational studies suggest that aspirin use may be associated with reduced mortality in high-risk hospitalized patients with COVID-19, but aspirin's efficacy in patients with moderate COVID-19 is not well studied. Objective: To assess whether early aspirin use is associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality in patients with moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study of 112 269 hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19, enrolled from January 1, 2020, through September 10, 2021, at 64 health systems in the United States participating in the National Institute of Health's National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C). Exposure: Aspirin use within the first day of hospitalization. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. Odds of in-hospital mortality were calculated using marginal structural Cox and logistic regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to reduce bias from confounding and balance characteristics between groups. Results: Among the 2 446 650 COVID-19-positive patients who were screened, 189 287 were hospitalized and 112 269 met study inclusion. For the full cohort, Median age was 63 years (IQR, 47-74 years); 16.1% of patients were African American, 3.8% were Asian, 52.7% were White, 5.0% were of other races and ethnicities, 22.4% were of unknown race and ethnicity. In-hospital mortality occurred in 10.9% of patients. After inverse probability treatment weighting, 28-day in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in those who received aspirin (10.2% vs 11.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P < .001). The rate of pulmonary embolism, but not deep vein thrombosis, was also significantly lower in patients who received aspirin (1.0% vs 1.4%; OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.90; P = .004). Patients who received early aspirin did not have higher rates of gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.8% aspirin vs 0.7% no aspirin; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.33; P = .72), cerebral hemorrhage (0.6% aspirin vs 0.4% no aspirin; OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.92-1.88; P = .13), or blood transfusion (2.7% aspirin vs 2.3% no aspirin; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.99-1.32; P = .06). The composite of hemorrhagic complications did not occur more often in those receiving aspirin (3.7% aspirin vs 3.2% no aspirin; OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .054). Subgroups who appeared to benefit the most included patients older than 60 years (61-80 years: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87; P < .001; >80 years: OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91; P < .001) and patients with comorbidities (1 comorbidity: 6.4% vs 9.2%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.83; P < .001; 2 comorbidities: 10.5% vs 12.8%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.93; P = .003; 3 comorbidities: 13.8% vs 17.0%, OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P < .001; >3 comorbidities: 17.0% vs 21.6%; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US adults hospitalized with moderate COVID-19, early aspirin use was associated with lower odds of 28-day in-hospital mortality. A randomized clinical trial that includes diverse patients with moderate COVID-19 is warranted to adequately evaluate aspirin's efficacy in patients with high-risk conditions.

Impact of COVID-19 specific simulation training in improving intubators’ level of comfort during intubations of COVID-19 patients - Results from a USA national survey

Background Tracheal intubation is a hazardous aerosolizing procedure with a potential risk of spreading SAR-CoV-2 between patients and physicians. Aim The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of COVID-19 specific simulation training in improving provider level of comfort during the intubation of COVID-19 patients. Methods In this cross-sectional national study, an electronic survey was disseminated using a snowball sample approach to intubators from 55 hospitals across the United States. The survey assessed providers’ comfort of intubating and fear of contracting the virus during COVID-19 intubations. Results A total of 329 surveys from 55 hospitals were analyzed. Of 329 providers, 111 providers (33.7%) reported participating in simulation training. Of those, 86 (77.5%) reported that the simulation training helped reduce their fear of intubating COVID-19 patients. Providers in the simulation training group also reported a higher level of comfort level with intubating both general patients (median [range] no-simulation training group 9 [3–10], simulation training group 9 [6–10];p = 0.015) and COVID-19 patients (no-ST 8 [1–10], ST group 9 [4–10];p < 0.0005) than providers in the no-simulation training group. Conclusions Our study suggests that COVID-19 specific intubation simulation training promotes provider comfort. Simulation training may be implemented as part of airway management training during the current and novel pandemic situations.

Effects of a single bolus of hydroxocobalamin on hemodynamics in vasodilatory shock.

PURPOSE: Hydroxocobalamin has been observed to cause transient hypertension in healthy subjects, but rigorous studies examining its efficacy are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults in shock who received hydroxocobalamin from 2017 to 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. Hourly hemodynamics from 24 h before and after treatment were collected, and the difference and hourly change of mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and norepinephrine-equivalent dose (NED) were examined in mixed-effects models. RESULTS: This study included 3992 hemodynamic data points from 35 patients and is the largest case series to date. In the mixed effects model, there was no difference in MAP 24-h after hydroxocobalamin administration (estimated fixed effect [EFE] -0.2 mmHg, p = 0.89). A two-piecewise mixed model found that the hourly change in MAP was not different from zero in either the pre-administration (EFE 0.0 mmHg/h, p = 0.80) or post-administration segments (EFE 0.0 mmHg/h, p = 0.55). Analysis of the SBP, DBP, and NED also found similar insignificant results. CONCLUSIONS: Although hydroxocobalamin has been observed to cause hypertension in healthy subjects, our results suggest that in patients with shock, hydroxocobalamin may not be effective in improving hemodynamics at 24 h after administration.

Association of prehospital antiplatelet therapy with survival in patients hospitalized with COVID-19: A propensity score-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with hypercoagulability and increased thrombotic risk. The impact of prehospital antiplatelet therapy on in-hospital mortality is uncertain. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of 34 675 patients ≥50 years old from 90 health systems in the United States. Patients were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2020. For all patients, the propensity to receive prehospital antiplatelet therapy was calculated using demographics and comorbidities. Patients were matched based on propensity scores, and in-hospital mortality was compared between the antiplatelet and non-antiplatelet groups. RESULTS: The propensity score-matched cohort of 17 347 patients comprised of 6781 and 10 566 patients in the antiplatelet and non-antiplatelet therapy groups, respectively. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients receiving prehospital antiplatelet therapy (18.9% vs. 21.5%, p < .001), resulting in a 2.6% absolute reduction in mortality (HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.87, p < .005). On average, 39 patients needed to be treated to prevent one in-hospital death. In the antiplatelet therapy group, there was a significantly lower rate of pulmonary embolism (2.2% vs. 3.0%, p = .002) and higher rate of epistaxis (0.9% vs. 0.4%, p < .001). There was no difference in the rate of other hemorrhagic or thrombotic complications. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest observational study to date of prehospital antiplatelet therapy in patients with COVID-19, there was an association with significantly lower in-hospital mortality. Randomized controlled trials in diverse patient populations with high rates of baseline comorbidities are needed to determine the ultimate utility of antiplatelet therapy in COVID-19.