Search

OBJECTIVE:. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some centers converted intermediate care units (IMCUs) to COVID-19 ICUs (IMCU/ICUs). In this study, we compared adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV) and outcomes for patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated in an IMCU/ICU versus preexisting medical ICUs (MICUs). DESIGN:. Retrospective observational study using electronic medical record data. SETTING:. Two academic medical centers from March 2020 to September 2020 (period 1) and October 2020 to May 2021 (period 2), which capture the first two COVID-19 surges in this health system. PATIENTS:. Adults with COVID-19 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation who met ARDS oxygenation criteria (Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg or Spo2/Fio2 ≤ 315). INTERVENTIONS:. None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:. We defined LPV adherence as the percent of the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation that met a restrictive definition of LPV of, tidal volume/predicted body weight (Vt/PBW) less than or equal to 6.5 mL/kg and plateau pressure (Pplat) less than or equal to 30 cm H2o. In an expanded definition, we added that if Pplat is greater than 30 cm H2o, Vt/PBW had to be less than 6.0 mL/kg. Using the restricted definition, period 1 adherence was lower among 133 IMCU/ICU versus 199 MICU patients (92% [95% CI, 50–100] vs. 100% [86–100], p = 0.05). Period 2 adherence was similar between groups (100% [75–100] vs. 95% CI [65–100], p = 0.68). A similar pattern was observed using the expanded definition. For the full study period, the adjusted hazard of death at 90 days was lower in IMCU/ICU versus MICU patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55–0.99]), whereas ventilator liberation by day 28 was similar between groups (adjusted subdistribution HR 1.09 [95% CI, 0.85–1.39]). CONCLUSIONS:. In patients with COVID-19 ARDS treated in an IMCU/ICU, LPV adherence was similar to, and observed survival better than those treated in preexisting MICUs. With adequate resources, protocols, and staffing, IMCUs provide an effective source of additional ICU capacity for patients with acute respiratory failure.

IMPORTANCE:. Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown. OBJECTIVES:. To compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020–2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018–2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:. The primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency. RESULTS:. Proning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7–57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6; p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0; p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:. We observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.

Objectives:. Given finite ICU bed capacity, knowledge of ICU bed utilization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is critical to ensure future strategies for resource allocation and utilization. We sought to examine ICU census trends in relation to ICU bed capacity during the rapid increase in severe coronavirus disease 2019 cases early during the pandemic. Design:. Observational cohort study. Setting:. Thirteen geographically dispersed academic medical centers in the United States. Patients/Subjects:. We obtained daily ICU censuses from March 26 to June 30, 2020, as well as prepandemic ICU bed capacities. The primary outcome was daily census of ICU patients stratified by coronavirus disease 2019 and mechanical ventilation status in relation to ICU capacity. Interventions:. None. Measurements and Main Results:. Prepandemic overall ICU capacity ranged from 62 to 225 beds (median 109). During the study period, the median daily coronavirus disease 2019 ICU census per hospital ranged from 1 to 84 patients, and the daily ICU census exceeded overall ICU capacity for at least 1 day at five institutions. The number of critically ill patients exceeded ICU capacity for a median (interquartile range) of 17 (12–50) of 97 days at these five sites. All 13 institutions experienced decreases in their noncoronavirus disease ICU population, whereas local coronavirus disease 2019 cases increased. Coronavirus disease 2019 patients reached their greatest proportion of ICU capacity on April 12, 2020, when they accounted for 44% of ICU patients across all participating hospitals. Maximum ICU census ranged from 52% to 289% of overall ICU capacity, with three sites less than 80%, four sites 80–100%, five sites 100–128%, and one site 289%. Conclusions:. From March to June 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to ICU censuses greater than ICU bed capacity at fives of 13 institutions evaluated. These findings demonstrate the short-term adaptability of U.S. healthcare institutions in redirecting limited resources to accommodate a public health emergency.

Background: An important, but not well characterized, population receiving intermediate care is that of medical patients admitted directly from the emergency department., Objective: To characterize emergency medical patients and their outcomes when admitted to an intermediate care unit with clearly defined admission guidelines., Methods: Demographic data, admitting diagnoses, illness severity, comorbid conditions, lengths of stay, and hospital mortality were characterized for all emergency medical patients admitted directly to an intermediate care unit from July through December 2012., Results: A total of 317 unique patients were admitted (mean age, 54 [SD, 16] years). Most patients were admitted with respiratory (26.5%) or cardiac (17.0%) syndromes. The mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score version II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score version II, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were 15.6 (6.5), 20.7 (11.8), and 2.7 (2.3), respectively. Severity of illness and length of stay were significantly different for patients who required intensive care within 24 hours of admission (n = 16) or later (n = 25), patients who continued with inter mediate care for more than 24 hours (n = 247), and patients who were downgraded or discharged in less than 24 hours (n = 29). Overall hospital mortality was 4.4% (14 deaths)., Conclusions: Emergency medical patients with moderate severity of illness and comorbidity can be admitted to an intermediate level of care with relatively infrequent transfer to intensive care and relatively low mortality., (©2016 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)