Clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 registered in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium WHO clinical characterisation protocol: a prospective, multinational, multicentre, observational study.

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

Left thoracotomy approach for implantation of the Abiomed left ventricular assist device.

We describe a left thoracotomy approach for implantation of the Abiomed AB5000 left ventricular assist device (LVAD). The technique is easily performed and spares the patient a sternotomy in anticipation of future transplantation or LVAD exchange.

Litigation in nontraumatic aortic diseases--a tempest in the malpractice maelstrom.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians are vulnerable to highly litigated thoracic aortic diseases. On the basis of a review of litigated cases, we aim to determine legally protective strategies for physicians and methods to improve treatment. METHODS: Thirty-three nontraumatic, thoracic aorta-related legal cases were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (69.7%) had dissections (21 ascending, 2 descending), 8 (24.2%) had aneurysms and 2 had miscellaneous other phenomena (1 coarctation and 1 iatrogenic descending aortic rupture). The adverse event was death in 30 (90.9%) patients and paraplegia or stroke in 3 (9.1%). Allegations included: failure/delay in diagnosis (19), delay in surgery (4), error in surgical technique (5), failure to prevent paraplegia (2) and miscellaneous (3). Medical treatment was retrospectively judged suboptimal in 22 cases (66.6%) for reasons consonant with allegations. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic disease can be diagnostically elusive, as 'the great masquerader'. Emergency physicians must maintain a high index of suspicion for aneurysm and dissection. The D-dimer test can effectively rule out aortic dissection. 'Triple rule-out' CT scans should be performed liberally. CT scan readers must remember to evaluate the aorta. Operating room administrators must be aware that postponing a scheduled thoracic aortic case may result in interim rupture and consequent litigation. With virulent thoracic aortic diseases, adverse outcome itself does not imply substandard care.

Improving glycemic control in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit: clinical experience in two hospital settings.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggest that strict perioperative glycemic control improves clinical outcomes after cardiothoracic surgery. However, optimal methods and targets for controlling blood glucose (BG) levels in this setting have not been established. Currently published intensive insulin infusion protocols (IIPs) have important practical limitations, which may affect their utility. In this article, the authors present their experience with a safe, effective, nurse-driven IIP, which was implemented simultaneously in 2 cardiothoracic intensive care units (CTICUs). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital and community teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: CTICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: A standardized, intensive IIP was used for all patients admitted to both CTICUs. Hourly BG levels, relevant baseline variables, and clinical interventions were collected prospectively from the active hospital chart and CTICU nursing records. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The IIP was used 137 times in 118 patients. The median time required to reach target BG levels (100-139 mg/dL) was 5 hours. Once BG levels decreased below 140 mg/dL, 58% of 2,242 subsequent hourly BG values fell within the narrow target range, 73% within a "clinically desirable" range of 80 to 139 mg/dL, and 94% within a "clinically acceptable" range of 80 to 199 mg/dL. Only 5 (0.2%) BG values were less than 60 mg/dL, with no associated adverse clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: The IIP safely and effectively improved glycemic control in 2 CTICUs, with minimal hypoglycemia. Based on prior studies showing the benefits of strict glycemic control, the implementation of this IIP should help to reduce morbidity and mortality in CTICU patients.