Search

Objectives: To describe incidence and risk factors of loss of previous independent living through nonhome discharge or discharge home with health assistance in survivors of intensive care unit (ICU) admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Design: Multicenter observational study including patients admitted to the ICU from January 2020 till June 30, 2021., Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there is a high risk of nonhome discharge in patients surviving ICU admission due to COVID-19., Setting: Data were included from 306 hospitals in 28 countries participating in the SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 registry., Patients: Previously independently living adult ICU survivors of COVID-19., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was nonhome discharge. Secondary outcome was the requirement of health assistance among patients who were discharged home. Out of 10 820 patients, 7101 (66%) were discharged alive; 3791 (53%) of these survivors lost their previous independent living status, out of those 2071 (29%) through nonhome discharge, and 1720 (24%) through discharge home requiring health assistance. In adjusted analyses, loss of independence on discharge among survivors was predicted by patient age ≥ 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47-3.14, P  < .0001), former and current smoking status (aOR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08-1.46, P   =  .003 and 1.60 (95% CI 1.18-2.16), P   =  .003, respectively), substance use disorder (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.12-2.06, P   =  .007), requirement for mechanical ventilation (aOR 4.17, 95% CI 3.69-4.71, P  < .0001), prone positioning (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38, P   =  .02), and requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.55-3.34, P  < .0001)., Conclusions: More than half of ICU survivors hospitalized for COVID-19 are unable to return to independent living status, thereby imposing a significant secondary strain on health care systems worldwide.

Introduction: The goal of this investigation is to assess the association between prehospital use of aspirin (ASA) and patient-centered outcomes in a large global cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients., Methods: This study utilizes data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry. Adult patients hospitalized from February 15th, 2020, to September 30th, 2021, were included. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess the association between pre-hospital use of ASA and the primary outcome of overall hospital mortality., Results: 21,579 patients were included from 185 hospitals (predominantly US-based, 71.3%), with 4691 (21.7%) receiving pre-hospital ASA. Patients receiving ASA, compared to those without pre-admission ASA use, were generally older (median 70 vs. 59 years), more likely to be male (58.7 vs. 56.0%), caucasian (57.4 vs. 51.6%), and more commonly had higher rates of medical comorbidities. In multivariable analyses, patients receiving pre-hospital ASA had lower mortality (HR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97, p=0.01) and reduced hazard for progression to severe disease or death (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99, p=0.02) and more hospital free days (1.00 days, 95% CI 0.66-1.35, p=0.01) compared to those without pre-hospital ASA use. The overall direction and significance of the results remained the same in sensitivity analysis, after adjusting the multivariable model for time since pandemic., Conclusions: In this large international cohort, pre-hospital use of ASA was associated with a lower hazard for death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials may be warranted to assess the utility of pre-hospital use of ASA., (Copyright © 2022 SEPAR. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted variability in intensity of care. We aimed to characterize intensity of care among hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Objectives: Examine the prevalence and predictors of admission code status, palliative care consultation, comfort-measures-only orders, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19., Methods: This cross-sectional study examined data from an international registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A proportional odds model evaluated predictors of more aggressive code status (i.e., Full Code) vs. less (i.e., Do Not Resuscitate, DNR). Among decedents, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of palliative care consultation, comfort measures only, and CPR at time of death., Results: We included 29,923 patients across 179 sites. Among those with admission code status documented, Full Code was selected by 90% (n = 15,273). Adjusting for site, Full Code was more likely for patients who were of Black or Asian race (ORs 1.82, 95% CIs 1.5-2.19; 1.78, 1.15-3.09 respectively, relative to White race), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.89, CI 1.35-2.32), and male sex (OR 1.16, CI 1.0-1.33). Of the 4951 decedents, 29% received palliative care consultation, 59% transitioned to comfort measures only, and 29% received CPR, with non-White racial and ethnic groups less likely to receive comfort measures only and more likely to receive CPR., Conclusion: In this international cohort of patients with COVID-19, Full Code was the initial code status in the majority, and more likely among patients who were Black or Asian race, Hispanic ethnicity or male. These results provide direction for future studies to improve these disparities in care., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: The impact of palliative care consultation on end-of-life care has not previously been evaluated in a multi-center study., Objectives: To evaluate the impact of palliative care consultation on the incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed and comfort care received at the end-of-life in hospitalized patients with COVID-19., Methods: We used the Society of Critical Care Medicine's COVID-19 registry to extract clinical data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 31st, 2020 to March 17th, 2021 and died during their hospitalization. The proportion of patients who received palliative care consultation was assessed in patients who did and did not receive CPR (primary outcome) and comfort care (secondary outcome). Propensity matching was used to account for potential confounding variables., Measurements and Main Results: 3,227 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the incidence of palliative care consultation between the CPR and no-CPR groups (19.9% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.8334). Patients who received comfort care at the end-of-life were significantly more likely to have received palliative care consultation (43.3% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.0001). After propensity matching for comfort care on demographic characteristics and comorbidities, this relationship was still significant (43.2% vs. 8.5%; p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Palliative care consultation was not associated with CPR performed at the end-of-life but was associated with increased incidence of comfort care being utilized. These results suggest that utilizing palliative care consultation at the end-of-life may better align the needs and values of patients with the care they receive., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr. Kumar is currently funded by funding the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation through the University of Washington, and Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Dr. Kashyap receives funding from the NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute: R01HL 130881, UG3/UH3HL 141722; Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Janssen Research & Development, LLC; and royalties from Ambient Clinical Analytics. Inc. Dr. Gajic receives funding from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality R18HS 26609-2, NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute: R01HL 130881, UG3/UH3HL 141722; Department of Defense DOD W81XWH; American Heart Association Rapid Response Grant—COVID-19; and royalties from Ambient Clinical Analytics. Inc. Dr. Walkey currently receives funding from the NIH/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute grants R01HL151607, R01HL139751, R01HL136660, Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, R01HS026485, Boston Biomedical Innovation Center/NIH/NHLBI 5U54HL119145-07, and royalties from UpToDate., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Obesity, diabetes, and hypertension are common comorbidities in patients with severe COVID-19, yet little is known about the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or death in patients with COVID-19 and metabolic syndrome., Objective: To determine whether metabolic syndrome is associated with an increased risk of ARDS and death from COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Respiratory Illness Universal Study collected from 181 hospitals across 26 countries from February 15, 2020, to February 18, 2021. Outcomes were compared between patients with metabolic syndrome (defined as ≥3 of the following criteria: obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia) and a control population without metabolic syndrome. Participants included adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the study period who had a completed discharge status. Data were analyzed from February 22 to October 5, 2021., Exposures: Exposures were SARS-CoV-2 infection, metabolic syndrome, obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ARDS, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and length of stay (LOS)., Results: Among 46 441 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 29 040 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [17.8] years; 13 059 [45.0%] women and 15713 [54.1%] men; 6797 Black patients [23.4%], 5325 Hispanic patients [18.3%], and 16 507 White patients [57.8%]) met inclusion criteria. A total of 5069 patients (17.5%) with metabolic syndrome were compared with 23 971 control patients (82.5%) without metabolic syndrome. In adjusted analyses, metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risk of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.14-1.53]), invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.28-1.65]), ARDS (aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.12-1.66]), and mortality (aOR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31]) and prolonged hospital LOS (median [IQR], 8.0 [4.2-15.8] days vs 6.8 [3.4-13.0] days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median [IQR], 7.0 [2.8-15.0] days vs 6.4 [2.7-13.0] days; P < .001). Each additional metabolic syndrome criterion was associated with increased risk of ARDS in an additive fashion (1 criterion: 1147 patients with ARDS [10.4%]; P = .83; 2 criteria: 1191 patients with ARDS [15.3%]; P < .001; 3 criteria: 817 patients with ARDS [19.3%]; P < .001; 4 criteria: 203 patients with ARDS [24.3%]; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risks of ARDS and death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The association with ARDS was cumulative for each metabolic syndrome criteria present.

The study's objective was to assess facilitators and barriers of Tele-Critical Care (TCC) perceived by SCCM members. By utilizing a survey distributed to SCCM members, a cross-sectional study was developed to analyze survey results from December 2019 and July 2020. SCCM members responded to the survey (n = 15,502) with a 1.9% response rate for the first distribution and a 2.54% response rate for the second survey (n = 9985). Participants (n = 286 and n = 254) were almost equally distributed between non-users, providers, users, and potential users of TCC services. The care delivery models for TCC were similar across most participants. Some consumers of TCC services preferred algorithmic coverage and scheduled rounds, while reactive and on-demand models were less utilized. The surveys revealed that outcome-driven measures were the principal form of TCC performance evaluation. A 1:100 (provider: patients) ratio was reported to be optimal. Factors related to costs, perceived lack of need for services, and workflow challenges were described by those who terminated TCC services. Barriers to implementation revolved around lack of reimbursement and adequate training. Interpersonal communication was identified as an essential TCC provider skill. The second survey introduced after the onset pandemic demonstrated more frequent use of advanced practice providers and focus on performance measures. Priorities for effective TCC deployment include communication, knowledge, optimal operationalization, and outcomes measurement at the organizational level. The potential effect of COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic on survey responses was limited and focused on the need to demonstrate TCC value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]