The Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in the Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis.

Acute lower extremity proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT) requires accurate diagnosis and treatment in order to prevent embolization and other complications. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), a clinician performed, and clinician interpreted bedside ultrasound examination has been increasingly used for DVT evaluation mainly in the urgent and critical care setting, but also in the ambulatory clinics and the medical wards. Studies have demonstrated that POCUS has excellent diagnostic accuracy for acute proximal DVT when performed by well-trained users. However, there is significant heterogeneity among studies on the necessary extent of training and universally acceptable standardized education protocols are needed. In this review, we summarize the evidence that supports the use of POCUS to diagnose acute proximal DVT and focus on methodology and current technology, sensitivity and specificity, pre-test probability and the role of D-dimer, time and resources, education, limitations, and future directions.

A Case-Control Study Evaluating the Impact of Dedicated Palliative Care Training on Critical Care Interventions at the end of Life.

Many patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of dying. We hypothesize that focused training sessions for ICU providers by palliative care (PC) certified experts will decrease aggressive medical interventions at the end of life. We designed and implemented a 6-session PC training program in communication skills and goals of care (GOC) meetings for ICU teams, including house staff, critical care fellows, and attendings. We then reviewed charts of ICU patients treated before and after the intervention. Forty-nine of 177 (28%) and 63 of 173 (38%) patients were identified to be at high risk of death in the pre- and postintervention periods, respectively, and were included based on the study criteria. Inpatient mortality (45% vs 33%; P = .24) and need for mechanical ventilation (59% vs 44%, P = .13) were slightly higher in the preintervention population, but the difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of patients in whom the decision not to initiate renal replacement therapy was made because of poor prognosis was significantly higher in the postintervention population (14% vs 67%, P = .05). There was a nonstatistically significant trend toward earlier GOC discussions (median time from ICU admission to GOC 4 vs 3 days) and fewer critical care interventions such as tracheostomies (17% vs 4%, P = .19). Our study demonstrates that directed PC training of ICU teams has a potential to reduce end of life critical care interventions in patients with a poor prognosis.

Sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy is associated with higher mortality rates in patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sepsis are at risk for developing sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy (SIC). Previous studies offer inconsistent results regarding the association of SIC and mortality. This study sought to assess whether SIC is linked to mortality in patients with sepsis and to evaluate predictors of the development of SIC. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit with a diagnosis of sepsis in the absence of acute coronary syndrome were included. SIC was identified using transthoracic echo and was defined by a new onset decline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50%, or ≥10% decline in LVEF compared to baseline in patients with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed using the R software program. RESULTS: Of the 359 patients in the final analysis, 19 (5.3%) had SIC. Eight (42.1%) of the 19 patients in the SIC group and 60 (17.6%) of the 340 patients in the non-SIC group died during hospitalization. SIC was associated with an increased risk for all-cause in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 4.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-18.69; P=0.03). Independent predictors for the development of SIC were albumin level (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.23-0.93; P=0.03) and culture positivity (OR, 8.47; 95% CI, 2.24-55.61; P=0.006). Concomitant right ventricular hypokinesis was noted in 13 (68.4%) of the 19 SIC patients. CONCLUSIONS: SIC was associated with an increased risk for all-cause in-hospital mortality. Low albumin level and culture positivity were independent predictors of SIC.

Assessment of the Association of COPD and Asthma with In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with COVID-19. A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis.

Together, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma account for the most common non-infectious respiratory pathologies. Conflicting preliminary studies have shown varied effect for COPD and asthma as prognostic factors for mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to explore the association of COPD and asthma with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 by systematically reviewing and synthesizing with a meta-analysis the available observational studies. MEDLINE, Scopus, and medRxiv databases were reviewed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was used, and I-square was utilized to assess for heterogeneity. In-hospital mortality was defined as the primary endpoint. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed. Thirty studies with 21,309 patients were included in this meta-analysis (1465 with COPD and 633 with asthma). Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with COPD had higher risk of death compared to those without COPD (OR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.79-2.93; I2 59.6%). No significant difference in in-hospital mortality was seen in patients with and without asthma (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.68-1.10; I2 0.0%). The likelihood of death was significantly higher in patients with COPD that were hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to patients without COPD. Further studies are needed to assess whether this association is independent or not. No significant difference was demonstrated in COVID-19-related mortality between patients with and without asthma.

Characteristics and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Events During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience From a New York City Public Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at risk for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). It is unknown whether certain characteristics of cardiac arrest care and outcomes of IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic differed compared with a pre-COVID-19 period. METHODS: All patients who experienced an IHCA at our hospital from March 1, 2020 through May 15, 2020, during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who had an IHCA from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 were identified. All patient data were extracted from our hospital's Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry, a prospective hospital-based archive of IHCA data. Baseline characteristics of patients, interventions, and overall outcomes of IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared with IHCAs in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: There were 125 IHCAs during a 2.5-month period at our hospital during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with 117 IHCAs in all of 2019. IHCAs during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred more often on general medicine wards than in intensive care units (46% versus 33%; 19% versus 60% in 2019; P<0.001), were overall shorter in duration (median time of 11 minutes [8.5-26.5] versus 15 minutes [7.0-20.0], P=0.001), led to fewer endotracheal intubations (52% versus 85%, P<0.001), and had overall worse survival rates (3% versus 13%; P=0.007) compared with IHCAs before the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who experienced an IHCA during the COVID-19 pandemic had overall worse survival compared with those who had an IHCA before the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight important differences between these 2 time periods. Further study is needed on cardiac arrest care in patients with COVID-19.

Considerations for target oxygen saturation in COVID-19 patients: are we under-shooting?

BACKGROUND: The current target oxygen saturation range for patients with COVID-19 recommended by the National Institutes of Health is 92-96%. MAIN BODY: This article critically examines the evidence guiding current target oxygen saturation recommendation for COVID-19 patients, and raises important concerns in the extrapolation of data from the two studies stated to be guiding the recommendation. Next, it examines the influence of hypoxia on upregulation of ACE2 (target receptor for SARS-CoV-2 entry) expression, with supporting transcriptomic analysis of a publicly available gene expression profile dataset of human renal proximal tubular epithelial cells cultured in normoxic or hypoxic conditions. Finally, it discusses potential implications of specific clinical observations and considerations in COVID-19 patients on target oxygen saturation, such as diffuse systemic endothelitis and microthrombi playing an important pathogenic role in the wide range of systemic manifestations, exacerbation of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction in the setting of pulmonary vascular endothelitis/microthrombi, the phenomenon of "silent hypoxemia" with some patients presenting to the hospital with severe hypoxemia disproportional to symptoms, and overburdened health systems and public health resources in many parts of the world with adverse implications on outpatient monitoring and early institution of oxygen supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: The above factors and analyses, put together, call for an urgent exploration and re-evaluation of target oxygen saturation in COVID-19 patients, both in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Until data from such trials become available, where possible, it may be prudent to target an oxygen saturation at least at the upper end of the recommended 92-96% range in COVID-19 patients both in the inpatient and outpatient settings (in patients that are normoxemic at pre-COVID baseline). Home pulse oximetry, tele-monitoring, and earlier institution of oxygen supplementation for hypoxemic COVID-19 outpatients could be beneficial, where public health resources allow for their implementation.

Combination of low-dose glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticoids as adjunct therapy for adult patients with septic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The role of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids in treating septic shock is not well-defined. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials and observational studies assessing the effect of low-dose hydrocortisone and fludrocortisone on patients with septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were reviewed. A random effect model meta-analysis was used and I-square was used to assess the heterogeneity. Short-term mortality was chosen as our primary end point. A subgroup analysis was performed including only the randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 10,550 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Administration of the steroid combination was associated with improved short-term mortality (odds ratio, 0.78, confidence interval, 0.64-0.96), intensive care unit mortality, and shock reversal, without increase in steroid-related side effects, such as secondary infection or gastrointestinal hemorrhage. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that use of the combination of glucocorticosteroids and mineralocorticosteroids has a beneficial impact on short-term mortality, intensive care unit mortality, and shock reversal, without increasing the incidence of gastrointestinal hemorrhage or superinfection in patients with septic shock, when used as an adjunct treatment to the established standard of care.