Secondary infections in critically ill patients with COVID-19 receiving steroid therapy.

Secondary infections can occur during or after the treatment of an initial infection. Glucocorticoids may decrease mortality in patients with severe COVID-19; however, risk of secondary infection is not well described. Our primary objective was to investigate the risk of secondary infection among critically ill patients with COVID-19 treated with glucocorticoids. We examined patients with COVID-19 being treated in the intensive care unit at two academic medical centers from 1 to 7/2020. One hundred-seven patients were included. Of these, 31 received steroids and 76 patients did not. Analysis of the larger cohort was performed followed by a matched pairs analysis of 22 steroid and 22 non-steroid patients. Secondary infection was seen in 14 patients (45.2%) receiving steroids compared to 35(46.1%) not receiving steroids (p = 0.968). Secondary infections were most frequently encountered in the respiratory tract. Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus were the most frequently identified organisms. Mortality was 16.1% in the steroid-treated group compared to 23.7% in the control group (p = 0.388). After performing matched pairs analysis and multivariable logistic regression there was no significant difference between secondary infection or mortality and steroid receipt. Secondary infections were common among critically ill patients with COVID-19, but the incidence of secondary infection was not significantly impacted by steroid treatment.

Intensivist and COVID-19 in the United States of America: a narrative review of clinical roles, current workforce, and future direction.

COVID-19 continues to spread across borders and has proven to be a challenge for the existing healthcare system. The demand for intensivists has dramatically increased in the United States, in the backdrop of an expected lack of intensivists in many States even before the pandemic. One proposal has been to organize multidisciplinary teams functioning under one intensivist, as this approach would make use of the existing healthcare force and lessen the burden on intensivists. Another recommendation is the adaptation of Tele-ICUs, which have demonstrated constructive outcomes in the past. Moreover, ensuring the provision of all types of personal protective equipment, adequate testing and, other provisions such as mental health support, financial incentives for intensivists should be prioritized. More intensivists should be trained for the future, for which better institutional policies are essential.

Hospital Variation in Management and Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of "guideline-based care" for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of "guideline-based care" for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in "guideline-based care." A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.4) for receipt of "guideline-based care" compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47-62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use "guideline-based care" quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received "guideline-based care" for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

Proning during covid-19: Challenges and solutions.

Despite proven benefits to prone positioning in ARDS, a disconnect exists regarding the impressions of its utility among members of the healthcare team. While the majority of physicians view prone positioning as beneficial in ARDS, recent data suggest that the minority of ICU nurses have the same impression. The COVID pandemic has raised particularly challenges in terms of availability of personnel and supplies at least in some institutions. We discuss various barriers to implementation of prone positioning and suggest a number of strategies to optimize patient care. We use a multidisciplinary team approach to execute prone positioning in COVID ARDS.