Prognostic factors and outcomes in COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation (MV) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients is associated with high mortality and extensive resource utilization. The aim of this study was to investigate prognostic factors and outcomes associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients requiring invasive MV who were hospitalized between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2021 in the intensive care units (ICUs) of three referral hospitals belonging to a single health system. Data were extracted from electronic health records. PMV was defined as > 17 days of MV. RESULTS: Of 355 patients studied, 86 (24%) required PMV. PMV patients had lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio, higher PCO2, and higher plateau and driving pressures during the first 2 weeks of MV than their short MV (SMV; ⩽ 17 days) counterparts. PMV patients received more proning, neuromuscular blockade, and tracheostomy, had longer ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and required discharge to an inpatient rehabilitation facility more frequently (all p < 0.001). Overall 30-day mortality was 43.9%, with no statistically significant difference between PMV and SMV groups. In PMV patients, smoking, Charlson comorbidity index > 6, and week 2 PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 150 and plateau pressure ⩾ 30 were positively associated with 30-day mortality. In a multivariate model, results were directionally consistent with the univariate analysis but did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: PMV is commonly required in COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure. Despite the higher need for critical care interventions and LOS, more than half of the PMV cohort survived to hospital discharge. Higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio, lower plateau pressure, and fewer comorbidities appear to be associated with survival in this group.

Using a scorecard to demonstrate clinical nurse specialists' contributions.

Clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) have the expertise to influence change at the patient, nurse, and system levels. They are clinical experts who understand the challenges of the current health care environment: decreasing costs, ensuring high-quality care, and achieving outcomes. Evidence has demonstrated CNSs' influence on improving patient outcomes. Although CNSs often lead the work, they can be invisible when the outcomes are presented. A scorecard to display this work could be invaluable to the CNS role, as it would bring transparency to the evidence-based work done. This article describes the development of a CNS scorecard in a 627-bed tertiary hospital.

Dexmedetomidine as adjunct treatment for severe alcohol withdrawal in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing alcohol withdrawal in the intensive care unit (ICU) often require escalating doses of benzodiazepines and not uncommonly require intubation and mechanical ventilation for airway protection. This may lead to complications and prolonged ICU stays. Experimental studies and single case reports suggest the α2-agonist dexmedetomidine is effective in managing the autonomic symptoms seen with alcohol withdrawal. We report a retrospective analysis of 20 ICU patients treated with dexmedetomidine for benzodiazepine-refractory alcohol withdrawal. METHODS: Records from a 23-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU were abstracted from November 2008 to November 2010 for patients who received dexmedetomidine for alcohol withdrawal. The main analysis compared alcohol withdrawal severity scores and medication doses for 24 h before dexmedetomidine therapy with values during the first 24 h of dexmedetomidine therapy. RESULTS: There was a 61.5% reduction in benzodiazepine dosing after initiation of dexmedetomidine (n = 17; p < 0.001) and a 21.1% reduction in alcohol withdrawal severity score (n = 11; p = .015). Patients experienced less tachycardia and systolic hypertension following dexmedetomidine initiation. One patient out of 20 required intubation. A serious adverse effect occurred in one patient, in whom dexmedetomidine was discontinued for two 9-second asystolic pauses noted on telemetry. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study suggests that dexmedetomidine therapy for severe alcohol withdrawal is associated with substantially reduced benzodiazepine dosing, a decrease in alcohol withdrawal scoring and blunted hyperadrenergic cardiovascular response to ethanol abstinence. In this series, there was a low rate of mechanical ventilation associated with the above strategy. One of 20 patients suffered two 9-second asystolic pauses, which did not recur after dexmedetomidine discontinuation. Prospective trials are warranted to compare adjunct treatment with dexmedetomidine versus standard benzodiazepine therapy.