Impact of Sedation Practices on Mortality in COVID-19-Associated Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Descriptive Study.

Background: Reduction in sedation exposure is an important metric in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, challenges arose during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in adhering to this practice, driven by concerns on transmission and disease severity issues. Accordingly, diverse sedation approaches emerged, although the effect on mortality has not been studied thoroughly. Methods: Retrospective cohort study in the medical ICU of seven hospitals within a major Health System in Northeast Ohio. We included all adult patients admitted with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) from March 2020 to December 2021. Results: Study included 2394 COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Across waves, sample included 55-63% male subjects, with an average age of 61-68 years (P < 0.001), Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III score 65.8-68.9 (P = 0.37), median IMV duration 8-10 days (P = 0.14), and median ICU duration 9.8-11.6 days (P = 0.084). Propofol remained the primary sedative (84-92%; P = 0.089). Ketamine use increased from the first (9.7%) to fourth (19%) wave (P = 0.002). Midazolam use decreased from the first (27.4%) to third (9.4%) wave (P = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use declined from 35% to 27-28% (P = 0.002) after the first wave. A multivariable regression analysis indicated clinical variables explained 34% of the variation in hospital mortality (R2). Factors associated with higher mortality included age [aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069); P < 0.001], COVID-19 wave, especially fourth wave [aOR = 2.147, (95% CI 1.370-3.365); P = 0.001], and higher number of vasopressors [aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856); P < 0.001]. Addition of sedative medications to a second model led to an increase in the R2 by only 1.6% to 35.6% [aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1); P > 0.05] for propofol, ketamine, and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a decrease in the odds of mortality [aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); P < 0.001]. Conclusion: Mortality in critical COVID-19 patients was mostly driven by illness severity, and the choice of sedation might have minimal impact when other factors are controlled.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound in a Tertiary Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Objective: Critical care echocardiography (CCE) is a useful tool for managing critically ill patients in intensive care. However, concerns exist regarding the accuracy of CCE examinations because of operator dependence. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of CCE examinations compared with cardiology-performed transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). Design Setting and Subjects: We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients in a medical ICU in a large academic medical center in the United States. We compared CCE examinations performed by a fellow and reviewed by a staff physician between May 5, 2020, and December 31, 2021, to TTE obtained within 24 hours of the CCE examination. Intervention Measurements and Main Results: We developed a standardized process for documentation of all CCE examinations performed in the medical ICU. We assessed agreement (kappa statistic), sensitivity and specificity of CCE examination compared with TTE. Features included left ventricle (LV) systolic function, right ventricle (RV) size, RV systolic function, pericardial effusion, mitral insufficiency, tricuspid insufficiency, and aortic insufficiency. The study analyzed 504 pairs of CCE and TTE examinations. Kappa statistics for detecting LV and RV systolic dysfunction, pericardial effusion, and RV size ranged from 0.60 to 0.74. CCE showed high sensitivity and specificity for detecting LV and RV systolic dysfunction and pericardial effusion, with values ranging from 0.85 to 0.99. The kappa statistic for detecting RV dilation was 0.59, with a sensitivity of 0.71 and a specificity of 0.85. In contrast, CCE examinations were nondiagnostic for mitral, tricuspid, or aortic insufficiency in 60-70% of cases, whereas TTE examinations were nondiagnostic in 20-30% of cases. Kappa statistics for mitral, tricuspid, and aortic insufficiency ranged from 0.32 to 0.42. Conclusions: CCE is a reliable tool for assessing LV and RV systolic function, pericardial effusion, and RV size. However, CCE may be limited in its ability to detect mitral, tricuspid, or aortic insufficiency.

Correlation between tissue Doppler-derived left ventricular systolic velocity (S') and left ventricle ejection fraction in sepsis and septic shock: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tissue Doppler-derived left ventricular systolic velocity (mitral S') has shown excellent correlation to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in non-critically patients. However, their correlation in septic patients remains poorly understood and its impact on mortality is undetermined. We investigated the relationship between mitral S' and LVEF in a large cohort of critically-ill septic patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 01/2011 and 12/2020. All adult patients (≥ 18 years) who were admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) with sepsis and septic shock that underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) within 72 h were included. Pearson correlation test was used to assess correlation between average mitral S' and LVEF. Pearson correlation was used to assess correlation between average mitral S' and LVEF. We also assessed the association between mitral S', LVEF and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: 2519 patients met the inclusion criteria. The study population included 1216 (48.3%) males with a median age of 64 (IQR: 53-73), and a median APACHE III score of 85 (IQR: 67, 108). The median septal, lateral, and average mitral S' were 8 cm/s (IQR): 6.0, 10.0], 9 cm/s (IQR: 6.0, 10.0), and 8.5 cm/s (IQR: 6.5, 10.5), respectively. Mitral S' was noted to have moderate correlation with LVEF (r = 0.46). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, average mitral S' was associated with an increase in both 28-day ICU and in-hospital mortality with odds ratio (OR) 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.08, p = 0.02) and OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.02), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even though mitral S' and LVEF may be related, they are not exchangeable and were only found to have moderate correlation in this study. LVEF is U-shaped, while mitral S' has a linear relation with 28-day ICU mortality. An increase in average mitral S' was associated with higher 28-day mortality.

Association of Metformin, Dipeptidyl Dipeptidase-4 Inhibitors, and Insulin with Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Hospital Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of diabetes medications on COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes have not been consistent. We sought to determine the effect of metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and insulin on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), need for assisted ventilation, development of renal insufficiency, and mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19 infection after controlling for clinical variables and other relevant diabetes-related medications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a single hospital system. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed that included demographic data, glycated hemoglobin, kidney function, smoking status, insurance, Charlson comorbidity index, number of diabetes medications, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statin prior to admission and glucocorticoids during admission. RESULTS: A total of 529 patients with type 2 DM were included in our final analysis. Neither metformin nor DPP4i prescription was associated with ICU admission, need for assisted ventilation, or mortality. Insulin prescription was associated with increased ICU admission but not with need for assisted ventilation or mortality. There was no association of any of these medications with development of renal insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, limited to type 2 DM and controlled for multiple variables that have not been consistently studied (such as a measure of general health, glycated hemoglobin, and insurance status), insulin prescription was associated with increased ICU admission. Metformin and DPP4i prescriptions did not have an association with the outcomes.

Outcomes after cardiac arrest in Medical Intensive Care Unit: A propensity score matching analysis of COVID-19 MICU vs non COVID-19 MICU cardiac arrest.

AIM: To assess whether there were differences in resuscitation efforts and outcomes for medical intensive care unit (MICU) in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to pre-pandemic. METHODS: Comparing COVID-19 MICU-IHCA patients (03/2020 to 10/2020) to non-COVID-19 MICU IHCA (01/2014 to 12/2018) at Clevleand Clinic Health System (CCHS) of NE Ohio. Propensity score matching analysis (PSMA) was used to create comparable groups. RESULTS: There were a total of 516 patients, 51 in COVID-19 MICU IHCA cohort and 465 in the non-COVID-19 MICU IHCA cohort. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 60.9 (16) years and 56% were males. In 92.1% (n = 475) patients, initial arrest rhythm was non-shockable. At the time of ICU admission, compared to the non-COVID-19 MICU-IHCA cohort, the COVID-19 MICU IHCA cohort had a lower mean APACHE III score (70 [32.9] vs 101.3 [39.6], P = <0.01). The COVID-19 cohort had a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge (12 [23.5%] vs 59 [12.7%], P = 0.03). Upon PSMA, the algorithm selected 40 COVID-19 patients and 200 non-COVID-19 patients. Imbalances in baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and APACHE III were well-balanced after matching. Survival rate after matching became non-significant; (10 [25%] vs 42 [21%], P = 0.67). Further, there were no significant differences in ICU or hospital length-of-stay or neurological outcomes at discharge for survivors in the two matched cohorts. CONCLUSION: It is imperative that COVID-19 patients receive unbiased and unrestricted resuscitation measures, without any discouragement.

Phenobarbital-Based Protocol for Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in a Medical ICU: Pre-Post Implementation Study.

We assessed the efficacy and safety of PB compared with benzodiazepine (BZD)-based protocols in treating AWS in MICU. DESIGN: Single-center, pre-post protocol implementation study. SETTING: The setting is a forty-bed MICU in a tertiary-level academic medical center. PATIENTS: We included all patients admitted to the MICU with a primary diagnosis of AWS. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous PB 260 mg followed by 130-mg doses every 15-30 minutes as needed up to 15 mg/kg of ideal body weight versus escalating doses of BZD, to achieve a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment Alcohol Scale-Revised score less than 10. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), in addition to safety measures were the main outcomes of the study. A total of 102 patients were included, 51 in the PB arm and 51 in the BZD arm. There were no differences in baseline clinical characteristics. Half the patients in each group were admitted with delirium tremens. The use of PB-based protocol was associated with 35% reduction in median ICU LOS (1.5 d [interquartile range, 1.2-2.4 d] vs 2.3 d [1.4-4.8 d]; p = 0.009) and 50% reduction in hospital LOS (3 d [2.7-4 d] vs 6 d [4-10 d]; p < 0.001). After adjustment for comorbidities and clinical factors, PB protocol decreased ICU LOS days by 40% (95% CI; 25.8-53.5%). PB group required fewer adjunctive medications to control symptoms (0.7 [0.5-1] vs 2.5 [2-3]; p < 0.001), less need for intubation (1/51 [2%] vs 10/10 [19.6%]; p = 0.023) and less need for physical restraint (19/51 [37.3%] vs 29/51 [56.9%]; p = 0.047), compared with the BZD group. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol utilizing rapidly escalating doses of PB over a short period is an effective and safe alternative to BZD in treating AWS in MICU.

Characteristics and outcomes of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination.

OBJECTIVES: BNT-162b2, mRNA-1273, and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines data regarding adverse events (AEs) are scarce. In this report, we aimed to describe fatal and non-fatal possible AEs after COVID-19 vaccine administration. METHODS: An observational multicenter study investigating the causes of emergency department visits and hospital admissions within 10 days of COVID-19 vaccination. Patients who received first or second doses of COVID-19 vaccines and presented to the emergency department (ED), as well as those admitted to the hospitals or intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Causes of ED, hospital, and ICU admissions and discharges were collected based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) coding system. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and March 2021, 1842 patients visited the ED within 10 days of COVID-19 vaccine administration. The mean age was 70.3 years. Overall, 1221 patients presented after the first dose of the vaccine and 653 after the second dose. Trauma (14.9%), hypertensive emergency/urgency (7.8%), generalized pain and arthralgia (5.7%), and chest pain (4.4%) were the most common causes of presentation to the ED. Of all ED presentations, mortality rate was at 2.2% (41 patients) with a median follow-up time of 68.0 days, versus 2.6% in unvaccinated ED patients. Postvaccination acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (46.3%), septic shock (24.4%), and cardiogenic shock (12.2%) were the most common causes of death. CONCLUSION: Although reported AEs are not necessarily caused by the vaccination, this study provides further information about possible AEs after COVID-19 immunization, especially those requiring hospital admission. This study also supports prior data that serious AEs post vaccination are much lower than primary COVID-19 infections. Further studies are needed to investigate causalities between vaccines and reported AEs across all age groups.

A Multicenter Evaluation of Survival After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

IMPORTANCE: In-hospital cardiac arrest survival among coronavirus disease 2019 patients has been reported to range from 0% to 12%. These numbers are significantly lower than reported prepandemic in-hospital cardiac arrest survival rates of approximately 20-25% in the United States for non-coronavirus disease 2019 patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of in-hospital cardiac arrest survival of coronavirus disease 2019 patients. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 subsequently found to have in-hospital cardiac arrest and underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cardiopulmonary resuscitation). SETTING: Multiple hospitals of the Cleveland Clinic Health System. PATIENTS: All adult patients (age ≥ 18 yr) admitted to Cleveland Clinic Health System with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 who experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: From March 01, 2020 to October 15, 2020, 3,555 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were hospitalized; 1,372 were admitted to the ICU; 58 patients had in-hospital cardiac arrest. Median age of this cohort was 66.5 years (interquartile range, 55.0-76.0 yr). Patients were predominantly male (62.5%), White (53.4%), with a median body mass index of 29.7 (interquartile range, 25.8-34.6). Most in-hospital cardiac arrests were in critical care environments (ICU), 51 of 58 (87.9%); seven of 58 (12.1%) were on ward locations. Thirty-four of 58 patients (58.6%) were on mechanical ventilation prior to in-hospital cardiac arrest with a median duration of mechanical ventilation of 9 days (interquartile range, 2-18 d). Twenty-four of 58 patients (44%) were on vasopressors prior to arrest. Initial arrest rhythm was pulseless electrical activity at (63.8%), asystole (29.3%), and pulseless ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (6.9%). Of the 58 patients, 35 (60.3%) attained return of spontaneous circulation, and 13 of 58 (22.4%) were discharged alive. CONCLUSIONS: We report a 22% survival to discharge after in-hospital cardiac arrest in coronavirus disease 2019 patients, a survival rate similar to before the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Does inpatient hyperglycemia predict a worse outcome in COVID-19 intensive care unit patients?

BACKGROUND: We undertook this study to evaluate the association between hyperglycemia and outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study involving all adults with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU between March and May 2020. Patients were divided into normoglycemic (average blood glucose <140 mg/dL) and hyperglycemic (average blood glucose ≥140 mg/dL) groups. Outcomes such as mortality, need and duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital and ICU stays were measured. RESULTS: Among 495 patients, 58.4% were male with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 58.00-77.00), and baseline average blood glucose was 186.6 (SD ± 130.8). Preexisting diabetes was present in 35.8% of the studied cohort. Combined ICU and hospital mortality rates were 23.8%; mortality and mechanical ventilation rates were significantly higher in the hyperglycemic group with 31.4% vs 16.6% (P = .001) and 50.0% vs 37.2% (P = .004), respectively. Age above 60 years (hazard ratio [HR] 3.21; 95% CI 1.78, 5.78) and hyperglycemia (HR 1.79; 95% CI 1.14, 2.82) were the only significant predictors of in-hospital mortality. Increased risk for hyperglycemia was found in patients with steroid use (odds ratio [OR] 1.521; 95% CI 1.054, 2.194), triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.109, 2.379), and African American race (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65, 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycemia in patients with COVID-19 is significantly associated with a prolonged ICU length of stay, higher need of mechanical ventilation, and increased risk of mortality in the critical care setting. Tighter blood glucose control (≤140 mg/dL) might improve outcomes in COVID-19 critically ill patients; evidence from ongoing clinical trials is needed.

Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on the Presentation and Response to Treatment of Adults With Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Qatar.

BACKGROUND: Persons with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a 3-fold increased risk of tuberculosis (TB). Atypical radiographic findings and differences in bacteriologic response during anti-TB treatment have been reported in earlier studies; however, the findings have varied. We evaluated the effect of DM on manifestations and response to treatment in adults with pulmonary TB in Qatar. METHODS: The impact of DM on the clinical and radiographic presentations of pulmonary TB and bacteriologic response during anti-TB treatment was evaluated between January 2007 and December 2011, comparing patients with and without DM. This is a retrospective unmatched case-control study conducted at a large national hospital. Cases and controls were randomly selected from patients diagnosed with pulmonary TB over a 5-year period. Sputum culture conversion was assessed after 2 months of anti-TB treatment. RESULTS: Clinical symptoms were similar between patients with and without DM. Patients with DM had a higher initial sputum acid-fast bacillus (AFB) smear grade and were less likely to have cavitary lesions on initial chest radiographs than patients without DM. Of 134 adults with DM and TB, 71 (53%) remained sputum culture positive after 2 months of anti-TB treatment, compared with 36 (27%) patients without DM. CONCLUSIONS: DM was associated with atypical radiographic findings and delayed sputum culture conversion at 2 months in adults with pulmonary TB in Qatar. Increased health education of patients with DM about symptoms of TB, low thresholds for evaluation for active TB, and close monitoring of bacteriologic response to treatment among patients with TB and DM are warranted.