Search

ObjectivesTo describe hospital variation in use of "guideline-based care" for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19.DesignRetrospective, observational study.SettingThe Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY.PatientsAdult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021.InterventionsHospital-level use of "guideline-based care" for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 100.Measurements and main resultsAmong 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in "guideline-based care." A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.4) for receipt of "guideline-based care" compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47-62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use "guideline-based care" quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; p = 0.49).ConclusionsDuring the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received "guideline-based care" for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

Rationale: Predictors of adverse outcome in pulmonary hypertension (PH) are well established; however, data that inform survival are lacking. Objectives: We aim to identify clinical markers and therapeutic targets that inform the survival in PH. Methods: We included data from patients with elevated mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) diagnosed by right heart catheterization in the U.S. Veterans Affairs system (October 1, 2006–September 30, 2018). Network medicine framework was used to subgroup patients when considering an N of 79 variables per patient. The results informed outcome analyses in the discovery cohort and a sex-balanced validation right heart catheterization cohort from Vanderbilt University (September 24, 1998–December 20, 2013). Measurements and Main Results: From an N of 4,737 complete case patients with mPAP of 19–24 mm Hg, there were 21 distinct subgroups (network modules) (all-cause mortality range = 15.9–61.2% per module). Pulmonary arterial compliance (PAC) drove patient assignment to modules characterized by increased survival. When modeled continuously in patients with mPAP ⩾19 mm Hg (N = 37,744; age, 67.2 yr [range = 61.7–73.8 yr]; 96.7% male; median follow-up time, 1,236 d [range = 570–1,971 d]), the adjusted all-cause mortality hazard ratio was <1.0 beginning at PAC ⩾3.0 ml/mm Hg and decreased progressively to ∼7 ml/mm Hg. A protective association between PAC ⩾3.0 ml/mm Hg and mortality was also observed in the validation cohort (N = 1,514; age, 60.2 yr [range = 49.2–69.1 yr]; 48.0% male; median follow-up time, 2,485 d [range = 671–3,580 d]). The association was strongest in patients with precapillary PH at the time of catheterization, in whom 41% (95% confidence interval, 0.55–0.62; P < 0.001) and 49% (95% confidence interval, 0.38–0.69; P < 0.001) improvements in survival were observed for PAC ⩾3.0 versus <3.0 ml/mm Hg in the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: These data identify elevated PAC as an important parameter associated with survival in PH. Prospective studies are warranted that consider PAC ⩾3.0 ml/mm Hg as a therapeutic target to achieve through proven interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4--4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empyema or infection of the pleural space is a well described complication of pneumonia, however knowledge of culprit pathogens is still evolving. We report a novel case of empyema due to Actinomyces turicensis , a commensal of the oropharynx and female urogenital tract but previously undescribed cause of empyema. We additionally review general pathogenesis of Actinomyces species within the pleural space. Familiarity with this unique pleural infection pathogen is important for selection of adequate antimicrobial therapy given the propensity of anaerobes such as Actinomyces species to disobey anatomic boundaries and recrudescence of infection in the absence of appropriate therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]