Persistent Critical Illness and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: A nontrivial number of patients in ICUs experience persistent critical illness (PerCI), a phenomenon in which features of the ICU course more consistently predict mortality than the initial indication for admission. We aimed to describe PerCI among patients with critical illness caused by COVID-19, and these patients' short- and long-term outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database of 114 Australian ICUs between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. PATIENTS: Patients 16 years old or older with COVID-19, and a documented ICU length of stay. EXPOSURE: The presence of PerCI, defined as an ICU length of stay greater than or equal to 10 days. MEASUREMENTS: We compared the survival time up to 2 years from ICU admission using time-varying robust-variance estimated Cox proportional hazards models. We further investigated the impact of PerCI in subgroups of patients, stratifying based on whether they survived their initial hospitalization. MAIN RESULTS: We included 4961 patients in the final analysis, and 882 patients (17.8%) had PerCI. ICU mortality was 23.4% in patients with PerCI and 6.5% in those without PerCI. Patients with PerCI had lower 2-year (70.9% [95% CI, 67.9-73.9%] vs. 86.1% [95% CI, 85.0-87.1%]; p < 0.001) survival rates compared with patients without PerCI. Patients with PerCI had higher mortality (adjusted hazards ratio: 1.734; 95% CI, 1.388-2.168); this was consistent across several sensitivity analyses. When analyzed as a nonlinear predictor, the hazards of mortality were inconsistent up until 10 days, before plateauing. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter retrospective observational study patients with PerCI tended to have poorer short-term and long-term outcomes. However, the hazards of mortality plateaued beyond the first 10 days of ICU stay. Further studies should investigate predictors of developing PerCI, to better prognosticate long-term outcomes.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal in the critically ill using the PrismaLung+ device.

BACKGROUND: Several extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) devices are currently in use with variable efficacy and safety profiles. PrismaLung+ is an ECCO2R device that was recently introduced into clinical practice. It is a minimally invasive, low flow device that provides partial respiratory support with or without renal replacement therapy. Our aim was to describe the clinical characteristics, efficacy, and safety of PrismaLung+ in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. METHODS: All adult patients who required ECCO2R with PrismaLung+ for hypercapnic respiratory failure in our intensive care unit (ICU) during a 6-month period between March and September 2022 were included. RESULTS: Ten patients were included. The median age was 55.5 (IQR 41-68) years, with 8 (80%) male patients. Six patients had acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and two patients each had exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). All patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of initiation of ECCO2R. The median duration of ECCO2R was 71 h (IQR 57-219). A significant improvement in pH and PaCO2 was noted within 30 min of initiation of ECCO2R. Nine patients (90%) survived to weaning of ECCO2R, eight (80%) survived to ICU discharge and seven (70%) survived to hospital discharge. The median duration of ICU and hospital stays were 14.5 (IQR 8-30) and 17 (IQR 11-38) days, respectively. There were no patient-related complications with the use of ECCO2R. A total of 18 circuits were used in ten patients (median 2 per patient; IQR 1-2). Circuit thrombosis was noted in five circuits (28%) prior to reaching the expected circuit life with no adverse clinical consequences. CONCLUSION(S): PrismaLung+ rapidly improved PaCO2 and pH with a good clinical safety profile. Circuit thrombosis was the only complication. This data provides insight into the safety and efficacy of PrismaLung+ that could be useful for centres aspiring to introduce ECCO2R into their clinical practice.

Family satisfaction with intensive care unit communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective multicentre Australian study Family Satisfaction - COVID ICU.

BACKGROUND: Virtual communication has become common practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of visitation restrictions. AIMS: The authors aimed to evaluate overall family satisfaction with the intensive care unit (FS-ICU) care involving virtual communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre study involving three metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, the next of kin (NOK) of all eligible ICU patients between 1 July 2020 and 31 October 2020 were requested to complete an adapted version of the FS-ICU 24-questionnaire. Group comparisons were analysed and calculated for family satisfaction scores: ICU/care (satisfaction with care), FS-ICU/dm (satisfaction with information/decision-making) and FS-ICU/total (overall satisfaction with the ICU). The essential predictors that influence family satisfaction were identified using quantitative and qualitative analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-three of the 227 patients' NOK who initially agreed completed the FS-ICU questionnaire (response rate 32.2%). The mean FS-ICU/total was 63.9 (standard deviation [SD], 30.8). The mean score for satisfaction with FS-ICU/dm was lower than the FS-ICU/care (62.1 [SD, 30.3) vs 65.4 (SD, 31.4); P < 0.001]. There was no difference in mean FS-ICU/total scores between survivors (n = 65; 89%) and non-survivors (n = 8, 11%). Higher patient Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, female NOK and the patient dying in the ICU were independent predictors for FS-ICU/total score, while a telephone call at least once a day by an ICU doctor was related to family satisfaction for FS-ICU/dm. CONCLUSIONS: There was low overall family satisfaction with ICU care and virtual communication strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts should be targeted for improving factors with virtual communication that cause low family satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk to healthcare workers performing tracheostomies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). This review aims to investigate the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) when tracheostomies are performed. METHODS: This systematic review used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework. Studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs involved in tracheostomy procedures were included. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies (between 01/11/2019 and 16/01/2022) reporting 3117 tracheostomy events were included, 45.9% (1430/3117) were performed surgically. The mean time from MV initiation to tracheostomy was 16.7 ± 7.9 days. Location of tracheostomy, personal protective equipment used, and anaesthesia technique varied between studies. The mean procedure duration was 14.1 ± 7.5 minutes; was statistically longer for percutaneous tracheostomies compared with surgical tracheostomies (mean duration 17.5 ± 7.0 versus 15.5 ± 5.6 minutes, p = 0.02). Across 5 out of 69 studies that reported 311 tracheostomies, 34 HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 23/34 (67.6%) were associated with percutaneous tracheostomies. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCWs performing or assisting with a tracheostomy procedure appeared to be low, with all reported transmissions occurring in 2020, prior to vaccinations and more recent strains of SARS-CoV-2. Transmissions may be higher with percutaneous tracheostomies. However, an accurate estimation of infection risk was not possible in the absence of the actual number of HCWs exposed to the risk during the procedure and the inability to control for multiple confounders related to variable timing, technique, and infection control practices.

Frailty and mortality associations in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational data during the pandemic have demonstrated mixed associations between frailty and mortality. AIM: To examine associations between frailty and short-term mortality in patients hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase and the COVID-19 living systematic review from 1 December 2019 to 15 July 2021. Studies reporting mortality and frailty scores in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (age ≥18 years) were included. Data on patient demographics, short-term mortality (in hospital or within 30 days), intensive care unit (ICU) admission and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies reporting 34 628 patients were included. Overall, 26.2% (n = 9061) died. Patients who died were older (76.7 ± 9.6 vs 69.2 ± 13.4), more likely male (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.11) and had more comorbidities. Fifty-eight percent of patients were frail. Adjusting for age, there was no difference in short-term mortality between frail and non-frail patients (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.84-1.28). The non-frail patients were commonly admitted to ICU (27.2% (4256/15639) vs 29.1% (3567/12274); P = 0.011) and had a higher mortality risk (RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.30-2.03) than frail patients. Among patients receiving IMV, there was no difference in mortality between frail and non-frail (RR = 1.62; 95% CI 0.93-2.77). CONCLUSION: This systematic review did not demonstrate an independent association between frailty status and short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19. Patients with frailty were less commonly admitted to ICU and non-frail patients were more likely to receive IMV and had higher mortality risk. This finding may be related to allocation decisions for patients with frailty amidst the pandemic.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Frailty Admitted to ICU With Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Frailty is often used in clinical decision-making for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, yet studies have found a variable influence of frailty on outcomes in those admitted to the ICU. In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we evaluated the characteristics and outcomes across the range of frailty in patients admitted to ICU with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA SOURCES: We contacted the corresponding authors of 16 eligible studies published between December 1, 2019, and February 28, 2021, reporting on patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to ICU with a documented Clinical Frailty Scale. STUDY SELECTION: Individual patient data were obtained from seven studies with documented Clinical Frailty Scale were included. We classified patients as nonfrail (Clinical Frailty Scale = 1-4) or frail (Clinical Frailty Scale = 5-8). DATA EXTRACTION: We collected patient demographics, Clinical Frailty Scale score, ICU organ supports, and clinically relevant outcomes (ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stays, and discharge destination). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 2,001 patients admitted to ICU, 388 (19.4%) were frail. Increasing age and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Clinical Frailty Scale score greater than or equal to 4, use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, and hyperlactatemia were risk factors for death in a multivariable analysis. Hospital mortality was higher in patients with frailty (65.2% vs 41.8%; p < 0.001), with adjusted mortality increasing with a rising Clinical Frailty Scale score beyond 3. Younger and nonfrail patients were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation. Patients with frailty spent less time on mechanical ventilation (median days [interquartile range], 9 [5-16] vs 11 d [6-18 d]; p = 0.012) and accounted for only 12.3% of total ICU bed days. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with frailty with coronavirus disease 2019 were commonly admitted to ICU and had greater hospital mortality but spent relatively fewer days in ICU when compared with nonfrail patients. Patients with frailty receiving mechanical ventilation were at greater risk of death than patients without frailty.

Development and validation of a tool to appraise guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 infection control strategies in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines on infection control strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are incomprehensive and/or ambiguous may compromise HCWs' safety. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection control strategies in HCWs based on the guidelines published early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND OUTCOMES: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was performed. The tool was validated by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific, and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income. RESULTS: Overall consensus (≥75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The Delphi panel recommended an ideal infection control guideline should encompass six domains: general characteristics (domain 1), engineering recommendations (domain 2), personal protective equipment (PPE) use (domain 3), and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection control. The appraisal tool performed well across the six domains, and the inter-rater agreement was excellent for the 40 guidelines. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 than in domains 4-6, and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries. CONCLUSION: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Engineering recommendations aspects of infection control, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use, and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high-quality HCW infection control guidelines during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of readmitted COVID-19 survivors.

The objective of the present study is to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients who were readmitted to hospital emergency departments or required re-hospitalisation following an index hospitalisation with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and pre-print websites was conducted between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Studies reporting on the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who represent or require hospital admission were included. Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. Data were synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Six studies reporting on 547 readmitted patients were included. The overall incidence was 4.4%, most common in males (57.2%), and due to respiratory distress or prolonged COVID-19. Readmitted patients had a shorter initial hospital length of stay (LOS) compared with those with a single hospitalisation (8.1 ± 10.6 vs 13.9 ± 10.2 days). The mean time to readmission was 7.6 ± 6.0 days; the mean LOS on re-hospitalisation was 6.3 ± 5.6 days. Hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69-2.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.38-2.27; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and chronic renal failure (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.09-5.14; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were more common in these patients. Intensive care admission rates were similar between the two groups; 12.8% (22/172) of readmitted patients died. In summary, readmitted patients following an index hospitalisation for COVID-19 were more commonly males with multiple comorbidities. Shorter initial hospital LOS and unresolved primary illness may have contributed to readmission.

Prone Positioning of Nonintubated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

A Systematic Review of the Incidence and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.

Case Fatality Rates for Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. A Meta-analysis.

Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable.Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV.Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the "reported CFR" for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. "Definitive hospital CFR" for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4-49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3-85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger's regression test suggesting no publication bias.Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies.Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997).

Incidence and outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the COVID-19 era: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on pre-hospital and hospital services and hence on the prevalence and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) remain unclear. The review aimed to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence, process, and outcomes of OHCA. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and pre-print websites was performed. Studies reporting comparative data on OHCA within the same jurisdiction, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Study quality was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting data from 35,379 OHCA events were included. There was a 120% increase in OHCA events since the pandemic. Time from OHCA to ambulance arrival was longer during the pandemic (p = 0.036). While mortality (OR = 0.67, 95%-CI 0.49-0.91) and supraglottic airway use (OR = 0.36, 95%-CI 0.27-0.46) was higher during the pandemic, automated external defibrillator use (OR = 1.78 95%-CI 1.06-2.98), return of spontaneous circulation (OR = 1.63, 95%CI 1.18-2.26) and intubation (OR = 1.87, 95%-CI 1.12--3.13) was more common before the pandemic. More patients survived to hospital admission (OR = 1.75, 95%-CI 1.42-2.17) and discharge (OR = 1.65, 95%-CI 1.28-2.12) before the pandemic. Bystander CPR (OR = 1.18, 95%-CI 0.95-1.46), unwitnessed OHCA (OR = 0.84, 95%-CI 0.66-1.07), paramedic-resuscitation attempts (OR = 1.19 95%-CI 1.00-1.42) and mechanical CPR device use (OR = 1.57 95%-CI 0.55-4.55) did not defer significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and mortality following OHCA was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were significant variations in resuscitation practices during the pandemic. Research to define optimal processes of pre-hospital care during a pandemic is urgently required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020203371).