Prone Positioning and Survival in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Respiratory Failure

Designing target trials using electronic health records: A case study of second-line disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and cardiovascular disease outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Emulation of the "target trial" (TT), a hypothetical pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT), using observational data can be used to mitigate issues commonly encountered in comparative effectiveness research (CER) when randomized trials are not logistically, ethically, or financially feasible. However, cardiovascular (CV) health research has been slow to adopt TT emulation. Here, we demonstrate the design and analysis of a TT emulation using electronic health records to study the comparative effectiveness of the addition of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) to a regimen of methotrexate on CV events among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

We used data from an electronic medical records-based cohort of RA patients from Northwestern Medicine to emulate the TT. Follow-up began 3 months after initial prescription of MTX (2000-2020) and included all available follow-up through June 30, 2020. Weighted pooled logistic regression was used to estimate differences in CVD risk and survival. Cloning was used to handle immortal time bias and weights to improve baseline and time-varying covariate imbalance.

RESULTS

We identified 659 eligible people with RA with average follow-up of 46 months and 31 MACE events. The month 24 adjusted risk difference for MACE comparing initiation vs non-initiation of a DMARD was -1.47% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.74, 1.95%), and the marginal hazard ratio (HR) was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.23). In analyses subject to immortal time bias, the HR was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.29-1.44).

CONCLUSION

In this sample, we did not observe evidence of differences in risk of MACE, a finding that is compatible with previously published meta-analyses of RCTs. Thoughtful application of the TT framework provides opportunities to conduct CER in observational data. Benchmarking results of observational analyses to previously published RCTs can lend credibility to interpretation.

Association between Dexmedetomidine Use and Mortality in Patients with COVID-19 Receiving Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A U.S. National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) Study

(1) Background/Objectives: Dexmedetomidine is a sedative for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) that previous single-site studies have found to be associated with improved survival in patients with COVID-19. The reported clinical benefits include dampened inflammatory response, reduced respiratory depression, reduced agitation and delirium, improved preservation of responsiveness and arousability, and improved hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and ventilation-perfusion ratio. Whether improved mortality is evident in large, multi-site COVID-19 data is understudied. (2) Methods: The association between dexmedetomidine use and mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV was assessed. This retrospective multi-center cohort study utilized patient data in the United States from health systems participating in the National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) from 1 January 2020 to 3 November 2022. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality rate from the initiation of IMV. Propensity score matching adjusted for differences between the group with and without dexmedetomidine use. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for 28-day mortality were calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models with dexmedetomidine use as a time-varying covariate. (3) Results: Among the 16,357,749 patients screened, 3806 patients across 17 health systems met the study criteria. Mortality was lower with dexmedetomidine use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90; p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis, mortality was lower with earlier dexmedetomidine use-initiated within the median of 3.5 days from the start of IMV-(aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76; p < 0.001) as well as use prior to standard, widespread use of dexamethasone for patients on respiratory support (prior to 30 July 2020) (aHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42-0.69; p < 0.001). In a secondary model that was restricted to 576 patients across six health system sites with available PaO2/FiO2 data, mortality was not lower with dexmedetomidine use (aHR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; p = 0.73); however, on subgroup analysis, mortality was lower with dexmedetomidine use initiated earlier than the median dexmedetomidine start time after IMV (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.98; p = 0.04) and use prior to 30 July 2020 (aHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.78; p = 0.02). (4) Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine use was associated with reduced mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV, particularly when initiated earlier, rather than later, during the course of IMV as well as use prior to the standard, widespread usage of dexamethasone during respiratory support. These particular findings might suggest that the associated mortality benefit with dexmedetomidine use is tied to immunomodulation. However, further research including a large randomized controlled trial is warranted to evaluate the potential mortality benefit of DEX use in COVID-19 and evaluate the physiologic changes influenced by DEX that may enhance survival.

Pressure injuries in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients utilising different prone positioning techniques - A prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence and distribution of pressure injuries (PIs) with two approaches to prone positioning for mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, and to determine the prevalence of these PIs on intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital discharge.

DESIGN

A prospective observational study.

SETTING

Adult patients admitted to a quaternary ICU with COVID-19-associated acute lung injury, between September 2021 and February 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence and anatomical distribution of PIs during ICU stay for "Face Down" and "Swimmers Position" as well as on ICU and hospital discharge.

RESULTS

We investigated 206 prone episodes in 63 patients. In the Face Down group, 26 of 34 patients (76 %) developed at least one PI, compared to 10 of 22 patients (45 %) in the Swimmers Position group (p = 0.02). Compared to the Swimmers Position group, the Face Down group developed more pressure injuries per patient (median 1 [1, 3] vs 0 [0, 2], p = 0.04) and had more facial PIs (p = 0.002). In a multivariate logistic regression model, patients were more likely to have at least one PI with Face Down position (OR 4.67, 95 % CI 1.28, 17.04, p = 0.02) and greater number of prone episodes (OR 1.75, 95 % CI 1.12, 2.74, p = 0.01). Over 80 % of all PIs were either stage 1 or stage 2. By ICU discharge, 29 % had healed and by hospital discharge, 73 % of all PIs had healed.

CONCLUSION

Swimmers Position had a significantly lower incidence of PIs compared to the Face Down approach. One-quarter of PIs had healed by time of ICU discharge and three-quarters by time of hospital discharge.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

There are differences in incidence of PIs related to prone positioning approaches. This study validates and helps better inform current prone position guidelines recommending the use of Swimmers Position. The low prevalence of PIs at hospital discharge is reassuring.

Haemodynamic changes during prone versus supine position in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning improves oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to COVID-19. However, its haemodynamic effects are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the acute haemodynamic changes associated with prone position in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. The primary objective was to describe changes in cardiac index with prone position. The secondary objectives were to describe changes in mean arterial pressure, FiO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and oxygen delivery (DO2) with prone position.

METHODS

We performed this cohort-embedded study in an Australian intensive care unit, between September and November 2021. We included adult patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS, requiring mechanical ventilation and prone positioning for respiratory failure. We placed patients in the prone position for 16 h per session. Using pulse contour technology, we collected haemodynamic data every 5 min for 2 h in the supine position and for 2 h in the prone position consecutively.

RESULTS

We studied 18 patients. Cardiac index, stroke volume index, and mean arterial pressure increased significantly in the prone position compared to supine position. The mean cardiac index was higher in the prone group than in the supine group by 0.44 L/min/m2 (95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.63) (P < 0.001). FiO2 requirement decreased significantly in the prone position (P < 0.001), with a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P < 0.001). DO2 also increased significantly in the prone position, from a median DO2 of 597 mls O2/min (interquartile range, 504 to 931) in the supine position to 743 mls O2/min (interquartile range, 604 to 1075) in the prone position (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Prone position increased the cardiac index, mean arterial pressure, and DO2 in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. These changes may contribute to improved tissue oxygenation and improved outcomes observed in trials of prone positioning.

Awake pronation with helmet CPAP in early COVID-19 ARDS patients: effects on respiratory effort and distribution of ventilation assessed by EIT

Prone positioning with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is widely used for respiratory support in awake patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure. We aimed to assess the respiratory mechanics and distribution of ventilation in COVID-19-associated ARDS treated by CPAP in awake prone position. We studied 16 awake COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. The study protocol consisted of a randomized sequence of supine and prone position with imposed positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 and 10 cmH2O delivered by helmet CPAP. Respiratory mechanics and distribution of ventilation were assessed through esophageal pressure (PES) and electrical impedance tomography (EIT). At the end of each 20-min phase, arterial blood gas analysis was performed, and PES swing and EIT tracings were recorded for the calculation of the respiratory mechanics and regional ventilation. The patient's position had no significant effects on respiratory mechanics. EIT analysis did not detect differences among global indices of ventilation. A significant proportion of pixels in the sternal region of interest showed an increase in compliance from the supine to prone position and PaO2/FIO2 increased accordingly. The best improvement of both PaO2/FIO2 and sternal compliance was obtained in the prone position with PEEP 10 cmH2O. In the studied subjects, prone positioning during CPAP treatment raised oxygenation without improvement of "protective" ventilation or global ventilatory inhomogeneity indices. Prone positioning with higher PEEP significantly increased the compliance of sternal regions.

Magnitude and time to peak oxygenation effect of prone positioning in ventilated adults with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning may improve oxygenation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and was widely adopted in COVID-19 patients. However, the magnitude and timing of its peak oxygenation effect remain uncertain with the optimum dosage unknown. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the magnitude of the peak effect of prone positioning on the PaO2 :FiO2 ratio during prone and secondly, the time to peak oxygenation.

METHODS

Multi-centre, observational study of invasively ventilated adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 treated with prone positioning. Baseline characteristics, prone positioning and patient outcome data were collected. All arterial blood gas (ABG) data during supine, prone and after return to supine position were analysed. The magnitude of peak PaO2 :FiO2 ratio effect and time to peak PaO2 :FIO2 ratio effect was measured.

RESULTS

We studied 220 patients (mean age 54 years) and 548 prone episodes. Prone positioning was applied for a mean (±SD) 3 (±2) times and 16 (±3) hours per episode. Pre-proning PaO2 :FIO2 ratio was 137 (±49) for all prone episodes. During the first episode. the mean PaO2 :FIO2 ratio increased from 125 to a peak of 196 (p < .001). Peak effect was achieved during the first episode, after 9 (±5) hours in prone position and maintained until return to supine position.

CONCLUSIONS

In ventilated adults with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, peak PaO2 :FIO2 ratio effect occurred during the first prone positioning episode and after 9 h. Subsequent episodes also improved oxygenation but with diminished effect on PaO2 :FIO2 ratio. This information can help guide the number and duration of prone positioning episodes.

Prone Positioning for Patients With COVID-19-Induced Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Flipping the Script

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone positioning (PP) emerged as a widely used supportive therapy for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by COVID-19 infection. In particular, awake PP (APP)-the placement of non-intubated patients in the prone position-has gained popularity and hence is detailed first herein. This review discusses recent publications on the use of PP for non-intubated and intubated subjects with COVID-19, highlighting the physiological responses, clinical outcomes, influential factors affecting treatment success, and strategies to improve adherence with APP. The use of prolonged PP and the use of PP for patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are also presented.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice.

Objective

To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial.

Evidence Review

We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation.

Findings

A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

Implementation of the trial emulation approach in medical research: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

When conducting randomised controlled trials is impractical, an alternative is to carry out an observational study. However, making valid causal inferences from observational data is challenging because of the risk of several statistical biases. In 2016 Hernán and Robins put forward the 'target trial framework' as a guide to best design and analyse observational studies whilst preventing the most common biases. This framework consists of (1) clearly defining a causal question about an intervention, (2) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical trial, and (3) explaining how the observational data will be used to emulate it.

METHODS

The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review all explicit attempts of trial emulation studies across all medical fields. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched for trial emulation studies published in English from database inception to February 25, 2021. The following information was extracted from studies that were deemed eligible for review: the subject area, the type of observational data that they leveraged, and the statistical methods they used to address the following biases: (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 617 studies, 38 of which we deemed eligible for review. Of those 38 studies, most focused on cardiology, infectious diseases or oncology and the majority used electronic health records/electronic medical records data and cohort studies data. Different statistical methods were used to address confounding at baseline and selection bias, predominantly conditioning on the confounders (N = 18/49, 37%) and inverse probability of censoring weighting (N = 7/20, 35%) respectively. Different approaches were used to address immortal time bias, assigning individuals to treatment strategies at start of follow-up based on their data available at that specific time (N = 21, 55%), using the sequential trial emulations approach (N = 11, 29%) or the cloning approach (N = 6, 16%).

CONCLUSION

Different methods can be leveraged to address (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. When working with observational data, and if possible, the 'target trial' framework should be used as it provides a structured conceptual approach to observational research.

A Case of a Highly Obese Covid-19 Patient with Severe Hypoxemia and Subcutaneous Mediastinal Emphysema Who Was Rescued by Early Introduction of ECMO

We conducted the treatment of a highly obese patient with severe Covid-19 pneumonia who had a history of asthma. When she arrived at the hospital, she was already intubated and had mediastinal emphysema and severe hypoxemia. Because the patient's condition did not improve with mechanical ventilation, we introduced extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) immediately after admission. The patient improved with early induction of ECMO and prone positioning. In the management of patients with severe Covid-19 pneumonia, early introduction of ECMO should be considered if oxygenation does not improve with mechanical ventilation, and prone positioning can also be effective.

New and personalized ventilatory strategies in patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and may lead to severe respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV). At hospital admission, patients can present with severe hypoxemia and dyspnea requiring increasingly aggressive MV strategies according to the clinical severity: noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), MV, and the use of rescue strategies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Among NRS strategies, new tools have been adopted for critically ill patients, with advantages and disadvantages that need to be further elucidated. Advances in the field of lung imaging have allowed better understanding of the disease, not only the pathophysiology of COVID-19 but also the consequences of ventilatory strategies. In cases of refractory hypoxemia, the use of ECMO has been advocated and knowledge on handling and how to personalize strategies have increased during the pandemic. The aims of the present review are to: (1) discuss the evidence on different devices and strategies under NRS; (2) discuss new and personalized management under MV based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19; and (3) contextualize the use of rescue strategies such as ECMO in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Prone Vs. Supine Position Ventilation in Intubated COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Whether prone positioning of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia has benefits over supine positioning is not clear. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to determine whether prone versus supine positioning during ventilation resulted in different outcomes for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for prospective and retrospective studies up through April 2023. We included studies that compared outcomes of patients with COVID-19 after ventilation in prone and supine positions. The primary outcomes were three mortality measures: hospital, overall, and intensive care unit (ICU). Secondary outcomes were mechanical ventilation days, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and hospital length of stay. We conducted risk of bias analysis and used meta-analysis software to analyze results. Mean difference (MD) was used for continuous data, and odds ratio (OR) was used for dichotomous data, both with 95% CIs. Significant heterogeneity (I²) was considered if I² was >50%. A statistically significant result was considered if the p-value was <0.05. Of 1787 articles identified, 93 were retrieved, and seven retrospective cohort studies encompassing 5216 patients with COVID-19 were analyzed. ICU mortality was significantly higher in the prone group (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.43-3.43; p=0.0004). No statistically significant difference was observed between prone and supine groups for hospital mortality (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66-1.37; p=0.78) or overall mortality (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.72-1.64; p=0.71). Studies that analyzed primary outcomes had significant heterogeneity. Hospital length of stay was significantly higher in the prone than in the supine group (MD, 6.06; 95 % CI, 3.15-8.97; p<0.0001). ICU length of stay and days of mechanical ventilation did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, mechanical ventilation with prone positioning for all patients with COVID-19 pneumonia may not provide a mortality benefit over supine positioning.

Vloga izvajalcev zdravstvene nege pri pronaciji in supinaciji intubiranega pacienta s hudim akutnim respiratornim sindromom koronavirus-2

Uvod: Hud akutni respiratorni sindrom koronavirus-2 je s svojo intenzivnostjo močno vplival na razmere in delo v enotah intenzivne terapije. Pri vse več intubiranih pacientih z akutnim respiratornim distresnim sindromom se je pokazala potreba po pronaciji (obrat na trebuh). Namen raziskave je bil preučiti vlogo izvajalcev zdravstvene nege pri pronaciji in supinaciji (obrat na hrbet) pacienta ter ugotoviti najpogostejše zaplete, ki se ob tem lahko pojavijo.Metode: Uporabljen je bil pregled znanstvene in strokovne literature. Iskanje literature je potekalo v podatkovnih bazah PubMed, Sage in ScienceDirect ter Google Scholar. Vključene so bile raziskave od januarja 2020 do decembra 2021. Izvedena je bila vsebinska analiza raziskav.Rezultati: Skupno je bilo identificiranih 993 člankov. Dodanih je bilo še deset člankov, najdenih s prostoročnim iskanjem v Google Scholar. Izmed 1.003 identificiranih zadetkov je bilo v končno analizo vključenih osem člankov. Izpostavljena so bila tri glavna vsebinska področja: (1) vloga izvajalcev zdravstvene nege pred pronacijo intubiranega pacienta; (2) vloga izvajalcev zdravstvene nege med pronacijo intubiranega pacienta in (3) vloga izvajalcev zdravstvene nege pri supinaciji intubiranega pacienta.Diskusija in zaključek: Pronacija in supinacija intubiranega pacienta predstavljata velik izziv za celoten zdravstveni tim, ki je v času epidemije okrnjen tako številčno kot tudi glede na stopnjo usposobljenosti. Izvajalec zdravstvene nege mora ob teh intervencijah zagotoviti hemodinamsko stabilnost, pravilno pozicioniranje pacienta, preprečiti ekstubacijo in izpade različnih katetrov, zaščititi kožo in vseskozi izvajati potrebne aktivnosti zdravstvene nege.

Therapeutic advances in COVID-19

Over 2 years have passed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has claimed millions of lives. Unlike the early days of the pandemic, when management decisions were based on extrapolations from in vitro data, case reports and case series, clinicians are now equipped with an armamentarium of therapies based on high-quality evidence. These treatments are spread across seven main therapeutic categories: anti-inflammatory agents, antivirals, antithrombotics, therapies for acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, anti-SARS-CoV-2 (neutralizing) antibody therapies, modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and vitamins. For each of these treatments, the patient population characteristics and clinical settings in which they were studied are important considerations. Although few direct comparisons have been performed, the evidence base and magnitude of benefit for anti-inflammatory and antiviral agents clearly outweigh those of other therapeutic approaches such as vitamins. The emergence of novel variants has further complicated the interpretation of much of the available evidence, particularly for antibody therapies. Importantly, patients with acute and chronic kidney disease were under-represented in many of the COVID-19 clinical trials, and outcomes in this population might differ from those reported in the general population. Here, we examine the clinical evidence for these therapies through a kidney medicine lens.

Higher Risk of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Risk Factors among Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the global risk and risk factors associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) among patients with COVID-19: Design: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Hospitals or nursing homes and patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome after COVID-19.

METHODS

The literature review was systematically conducted on Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science, in addition to manual searches and reference list checking from 1 January 2019 to 2 March 2022. The search terms included coronavirus, acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and observational studies. Three reviewers independently appraised the quality of the studies and extracted the relevant data using the Joanna Briggs Institute abstraction form and critical appraisal tools. A study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022311957). Eligible studies were meta-analyzed and underwent meta-regression.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included, with 148,080 participants. The risk ratio (RR) of ARDS was 23%. Risk factors were age ≥ 41-64 years old (RR = 15.3%, 95% CI =0.14-2.92, p = 0.03); fever (RR = 10.3%, 95% CI = 0.03-2.03, p = 0.04); multilobe involvement of the chest (RR = 33.5%, 95% CI = 0.35-6.36, p = 0.02); lymphopenia (RR = 25.9%, 95% CI = 1.11-4.08, p = 0.01); mechanical ventilation with oxygen therapy (RR = 31.7%, 95% CI = 1.10-5.25, p = 0.002); European region (RR = 16.3%, 95% CI = 0.09-3.17, p = 0.03); sample size ≤ 500 (RR = 18.0%, 95% CI = 0.70-2.89, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

One in four patients experienced ARDS after having COVID-19. The age group 41-64 years old and the European region were high-risk groups. These findings can be used by policymakers to allocate resources for respiratory care facilities and can also provide scientific evidence in the design of protocols to manage COVID-19 worldwide.

The optimal management of the patient with COVID‐19 pneumonia: HFNC, NIV/CPAP or mechanical ventilation?

The recent pandemic has seen unprecedented demand for respiratory support of patients with COVID‐19 pneumonia, stretching services and clinicians. Yet despite the global numbers of patients treated, guidance is not clear on the correct choice of modality or the timing of escalation of therapy for an individual patient.This narrative review assesses the available literature on the best use of different modalities of respiratory support for an individual patient, and discusses benefits and risks of each, coupled with practical advice to improve outcomes. On current data, in an ideal context, it appears that as disease severity worsens, conventional oxygen therapy is not sufficient alone. In more severe disease, i.e. PaO2/FiO2 ratios below approximately 200, helmet‐CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) (although not widely available) may be superior to high‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy or facemask non‐invasive ventilation (NIV)/CPAP, and that facemask NIV/CPAP may be superior to HFNC, but with noted important complications, including risk of pneumothoraces. In an ideal context, invasive mechanical ventilation should not be delayed where indicated and available. Vitally, the choice of respiratory support should not be prescriptive but contextualised to each setting, as supply and demand of resources vary markedly between institutions. Over time, institutions should develop clear policies to guide clinicians before demand exceeds supply, and should frequently review best practice as evidence matures.

Relationship Between Preexisting Cardiovascular Disease and Death and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Preexisting cardiovascular disease (CVD) is perceived as a risk factor for poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. We sought to determine whether CVD is associated with in-hospital death and cardiovascular events in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This study used data from a multicenter cohort of adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units at 68 centers across the United States from March 1 to July 1, 2020. The primary exposure was CVD, defined as preexisting coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, or atrial fibrillation/flutter. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission defined as a troponin I or T level above the 99th percentile upper reference limit of normal was a secondary exposure. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular events (cardiac arrest, new-onset arrhythmias, new-onset heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, or stroke) within 14 days.

RESULTS

Among 5133 patients (3231 male [62.9%]; mean age 61 years [SD, 15]), 1174 (22.9%) had preexisting CVD. A total of 1178 (34.6%) died, and 920 (17.9%) had a cardiovascular event. After adjusting for age, sex, race, body mass index, history of smoking, and comorbidities, preexisting CVD was associated with a 1.15 (95% CI, 0.98-1.34) higher odds of death. No independent association was observed between preexisting CVD and cardiovascular events. Myocardial injury on intensive care unit admission was associated with higher odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.61-2.31]) and cardiovascular events (adjusted odds ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.47-2.24]), regardless of the presence of CVD.

CONCLUSIONS

CVD risk factors, rather than CVD itself, were the major contributors to outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19. The occurrence of myocardial injury, regardless of CVD, and its association with outcomes suggests it is likely due to multiorgan injury related to acute inflammation rather than exacerbation of preexisting CVD.

REGISTRATION

NCT04343898; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04343898.

Prevalence and impact of early prone position on 30-day mortality in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a nationwide cohort study

Background

COVID-19 ARDS shares features with non-COVID ARDS but also demonstrates distinct physiological differences. Despite a lack of strong evidence, prone positioning has been advocated as a key therapy for COVID-19 ARDS. The effects of prone position in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are not fully understood, nor is the optimal time of initiation defined. In this nationwide cohort study, we aimed to investigate the association between early initiation of prone position and mortality in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with low oxygenation on ICU admission.

Methods

Using the Swedish Intensive Care Registry (SIR), all Swedish ICU patients ≥ 18 years of age with COVID-19 admitted between March 2020, and April 2021 were identified. A study-population of patients with PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 20 kPa on ICU admission and receiving invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h from ICU admission was generated. In this study-population, the association between early use of prone position (within 24 h from intubation) and 30-day mortality was estimated using univariate and multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

The total study cohort included 6350 ICU patients with COVID-19, of whom 46.4% were treated with prone position ventilation. Overall, 30-day mortality was 24.3%. In the study-population of 1714 patients with lower admission oxygenation (PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 20 kPa), the utilization of early prone increased from 8.5% in March 2020 to 48.1% in April 2021. The crude 30-day mortality was 27.2% compared to 30.2% in patients not receiving early prone positioning. We found no significant association between early use of prone positioning and survival.

Conclusions

During the first three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost half of the patients in Sweden were treated with prone position ventilation. We found no association between early use of prone positioning and survival in patients on mechanical ventilation with severe hypoxemia on ICU admission. To fully elucidate the effect and timing of prone position ventilation in critically ill patients with COVID-19 further studies are desirable.

COVID-19-Related ARDS: Key Mechanistic Features and Treatments

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous syndrome historically characterized by the presence of severe hypoxemia, high-permeability pulmonary edema manifesting as diffuse alveolar infiltrate on chest radiograph, and reduced compliance of the integrated respiratory system as a result of widespread compressive atelectasis and fluid-filled alveoli. Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is a novel etiology caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that may present with distinct clinical features as a result of the viral pathobiology unique to SARS-CoV-2. In particular, severe injury to the pulmonary vascular endothelium, accompanied by the presence of diffuse microthrombi in the pulmonary microcirculation, can lead to a clinical presentation in which the severity of impaired gas exchange becomes uncoupled from lung capacity and respiratory mechanics. The purpose of this review is to highlight the key mechanistic features of C-ARDS and to discuss the implications these features have on its treatment. In some patients with C-ARDS, rigid adherence to guidelines derived from clinical trials in the pre-COVID era may not be appropriate.

Brain-Lung Crosstalk: Management of Concomitant Severe Acute Brain Injury and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Purpose of Review

To summarize pathophysiology, key conflicts, and therapeutic approaches in managing concomitant severe acute brain injury (SABI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Recent Findings

ARDS is common in SABI and independently associated with worse outcomes in all SABI subtypes. Most landmark ARDS trials excluded patients with SABI, and evidence to guide decisions is limited in this population. Potential areas of conflict in the management of patients with both SABI and ARDS are (1) risk of intracranial pressure (ICP) elevation with high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), permissive hypercapnia due to lung protective ventilation (LPV), or prone ventilation; (2) balancing a conservative fluid management strategy with ensuring adequate cerebral perfusion, particularly in patients with symptomatic vasospasm or impaired cerebrovascular blood flow; and (3) uncertainty about the benefit and harm of corticosteroids in this population, with a mortality benefit in ARDS, increased mortality shown in TBI, and conflicting data in other SABI subtypes. Also, the widely adapted partial pressure of oxygen (P_aO₂) target of > 55 mmHg for ARDS may exacerbate secondary brain injury, and recent guidelines recommend higher goals of 80–120 mmHg in SABI. Distinct pathophysiology and trajectories among different SABI subtypes need to be considered.

Summary

The management of SABI with ARDS is highly complex, and conventional ARDS management strategies may result in increased ICP and decreased cerebral perfusion. A crucial aspect of concurrent management is to recognize the risk of secondary brain injury in the individual patient, monitor with vigilance, and adjust management during critical time windows. The care of these patients requires meticulous attention to oxygenation and ventilation, hemodynamics, temperature management, and the neurological exam. LPV and prone ventilation should be utilized, and supplemented with invasive ICP monitoring if there is concern for cerebral edema and increased ICP. PEEP titration should be deliberate, involving measures of hemodynamic, pulmonary, and brain physiology. Serial volume status assessments should be performed in SABI and ARDS, and fluid management should be individualized based on measures of brain perfusion, the neurological exam, and cardiopulmonary status. More research is needed to define risks and benefits in corticosteroids in this population.

Prone Chest Radiographs: Distinguishing Features and Identification of Support Devices

Purpose

Prone position is known to improve acute lung injury, and chest radiographs are often necessary to monitor disease and confirm support device placement. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding radiographs obtained in this position. We evaluated prone radiographs for distinguishing features and ability to identify support devices.

Methods

Pairs of prone and supine radiographs obtained during the COVID-19 pandemic were assessed retrospectively. IRB approval and waiver of informed consent were obtained. Radiographs were assessed for imaging adequacy, distinguishing features, and support device identification (endotracheal tube, enteric tube, or central line). Radiographs were reviewed by ≥ 2 cardiothoracic radiologists.

Results

Radiographs from 81 patients (63yo ± 13, 30% women) were reviewed. Prone and supine radiographs were comparable for imaging the lung bases (81% vs. 90%, p = 0.35) and apices (93% vs. 94%, p = 1); prone radiographs more frequently had significant rotation (36% vs. 19%, p = 0.021). To identify prone technique, scapula tip located beyond the rib border was 89% sensitive (95%CI 80–95%) and 85% specific (76–92%), and a fundal stomach bubble was 44% sensitive (33–56%) and 90% specific (81–96%). For women, displaced breast shadow was 46% sensitive (26–67%) and 92% specific (73–99%). Prone and supine radiographs each identified > 99% of support devices. Prone exams trended toward increased rate of malpositioned device (12% vs. 6%, p = 0.07).

Conclusion

Scapula position reliably distinguishes prone from supine position; fundal stomach bubble or displaced breast shadow is specific for prone position. Prone radiographs reliably identify line and tube position, which is particularly important as prone patients appear at increased risk for malpositioned devices.

Lung response to prone positioning in mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning improves survival in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This benefit is probably mediated by a decrease in alveolar collapse and hyperinflation and a more homogeneous distribution of lung aeration, with fewer harms from mechanical ventilation. In this preliminary physiological study we aimed to verify whether prone positioning causes analogue changes in lung aeration in COVID-19. A positive result would support prone positioning even in this other population.

METHODS

Fifteen mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19 underwent a lung computed tomography in the supine and prone position with a constant positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) within three days of endotracheal intubation. Using quantitative analysis, we measured the volume of the non-aerated, poorly-aerated, well-aerated, and over-aerated compartments and the gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung. In addition, we expressed the heterogeneity of lung aeration with the standardized median absolute deviation of the ten vertical gas-to-tissue ratios, with lower values indicating less heterogeneity.

RESULTS

By the time of the study, PEEP was 12 (10-14) cmH2O and the PaO2:FiO2 107 (84-173) mmHg in the supine position. With prone positioning, the volume of the non-aerated compartment decreased by 82 (26-147) ml, of the poorly-aerated compartment increased by 82 (53-174) ml, of the normally-aerated compartment did not significantly change, and of the over-aerated compartment decreased by 28 (11-186) ml. In eight (53%) patients, the volume of the over-aerated compartment decreased more than the volume of the non-aerated compartment. The gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung decreased by 0.34 (0.25-0.49) ml/g per level in the supine position and by 0.03 (- 0.11 to 0.14) ml/g in the prone position (p < 0.001). The standardized median absolute deviation of the gas-to-tissue ratios of those ten levels decreased in all patients, from 0.55 (0.50-0.71) to 0.20 (0.14-0.27) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In fifteen patients with COVID-19, prone positioning decreased alveolar collapse, hyperinflation, and homogenized lung aeration. A similar response has been observed in other ARDS, where prone positioning improves outcome. Therefore, our data provide a pathophysiological rationale to support prone positioning even in COVID-19.

Early prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19: a propensity score analysis from the multicentric cohort COVID-ICU network-the ProneCOVID study

Background

Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19.

Methods

All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score.

Results

Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay and 491 (23%) during the first 24 h following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio > 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% versus 39.3% in the early PP group (p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies was more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96–1.68], p = 0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998–1.412], p = 0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively).

Conclusions

In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, our data failed to show a survival benefit associated with early PP started within 24 h after ICU admission compared to PP after day-1 for all COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of their severity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03949-7.

Physiological Impacts of Surgical Mask Coverage of Elastomeric Half-mask Respirator Exhalation Valves in Healthcare Workers

OBJECTIVES

Elastomeric half-mask respirator (EHMR) use in healthcare increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Concern for potential release of infectious aerosols from EHMR exhalation valves prompted recommendations to cover them with surgical masks (SMs), thereby improving source control. The physiological and subjective effects of wearing a SM over the exhalation valve of an EHMR, however, are unknown.

METHODS

Twelve healthy healthcare worker volunteers completed a 30-min series of simulated healthcare-related tasks, including resting, talking, walking, and bending, proning and supinating a weighted manikin, and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This series recurred three times with different mask configurations-SM only, EHMR only, or EHMR with SM covering the exhalation valve. A transcutaneous sensor continuously measured carbon dioxide (tcPCO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), and heart rate (HR) from each subject. Subjects scored their rates of perceived exertion (RPE) and levels of discomfort after each round. Physiological parameters and subjective scores were analyzed using mixed linear models with a fixed effect for mask type, activity, age, body mass index (BMI), and gender. Analysis also tested for interaction between mask type and activity.

RESULTS

Physiological parameters remained within normal ranges for all mask configurations but varied by task. Statistically significant but small decreases in mean tcPCO2 (37.17 versus 37.88 mmHg, P < 0.001) and SpO2 (97.74 versus 97.94%, P < 0.001) were associated with wearing EHMR with SM over the exhalation valve compared with EHMR alone. Mean HR did not differ between these mask configurations. Wearing SM only was associated with lower RPE and level of discomfort compared with EHMR, but these subjective scores did not differ when comparing EHMR with SM to EHMR only. Age, BMI, and gender had no significant effect on any outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearing a SM over an EHMR did not produce clinically significant changes in tcPCO2, SpO2, or HR compared with uncovered EHMR during healthcare-related tasks. Covered EHMR use also did not affect perceived exertion or discomfort compared with uncovered EHMR use. Covering the exhalation valve of an EHMR with a SM for source control purposes can be done safely.

The COVID-19 Patient in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

COVID-19 continues to rampage around the world. Noncritical care-trained physicians may be deployed into the intensive care unit to manage these complex patients. Although COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease, it is also associated with significant pathology in the brain, heart, vasculature, lungs, gastrointestinal tract, and kidneys. This article provides an overview of COVID-19 using an organ-based, systematic approach.

Prone position in COVID 19-associated acute respiratory failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Prone position has been widely used in the COVID-19 pandemic, with an extension of its use in patients with spontaneous breathing ('awake prone'). We herein propose a review of the current literature on prone position in mechanical ventilation and while spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia or COVID-19 ARDS.

RECENT FINDINGS

A literature search retrieved 70 studies separating whether patient was intubated (24 studies) or nonintubated (46 studies). The outcomes analyzed were intubation rate, mortality and respiratory response to prone. In nonintubated patient receiving prone position, the main finding was mortality reduction in ICU and outside ICU setting.

SUMMARY

The final results of the several randomized control trials completed or ongoing are needed to confirm the trend of these results. In intubated patients, observational studies showed that responders to prone in terms of oxygenation had a better survival than nonresponders.

Lower Driving Pressure and Neuromuscular Blocker Use Are Associated With Decreased Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 ARDS

BACKGROUND

The impact of mechanical ventilation parameters and management on outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ARDS is unclear.

METHODS

This multi-center observational study enrolled consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to one of 7 Korean ICUs between February 1, 2020-February 28, 2021. Patients who were age < 17 y or had missing ventilation parameters for the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify which strategies or ventilation parameters that were independently associated with ICU mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 129 subjects (males, 60%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 69 (62-78) y were included. Neuromuscular blocker (NMB) use and prone positioning were applied to 76% and 16% of subjects, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 37%. In the multivariate analysis, higher dynamic driving pressure (ΔP) values during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation were associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.16 [95% CI 1.00-1.33], P = .046). NMB use was associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.27 [95% CI 0.09-0.81], P = .02). The median tidal volume values during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation and the ICU mortality rate were significantly lower in the NMB group than in the no NMB group. However, subjects who received NMB for ≥ 6 d (vs < 6 d) had higher ICU mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with COVID-19 ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation, ΔP during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation was independently associated with mortality. The short-term use of NMB facilitated lung-protective ventilation and was independently associated with decreased mortality.

Abnormal Right Ventricular Free Wall Strain Prior to Prone Ventilation May Be Associated With Worse Outcome of Patients With COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

We investigated the effect of prone ventilation on right ventricular (RV) function of intubated patients with COVID-19–associated acute respiratory distress syndrome by measuring both conventional RV functional variables (namely, tricuspid annular peak systolic velocity, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, and fractional area change) and right ventricular free wall strain (RVFWS) using transthoracic speckle-tracking echocardiography at baseline (before prone positioning), 18 hours after prone positioning, and 1 hour after supine repositioning. We found that transthoracic echocardiography was feasible in a considerable proportion (nine patients, 75% of our cohort) of patients undergoing prone ventilation. Also, abnormal as opposed to normal RVFWS values (in the absence of conventional variables of RV dysfunction) at baseline were associated with higher mortality (100% vs 20%; p = 0.048). Finally, we found that, among patients without acute cor pulmonale or conventional markers of RV dysfunction, one session of prone ventilation may not affect right myocardial strain.

COVID-19 ARDS: Points to Be Considered in Mechanical Ventilation and Weaning

The COVID-19 disease can cause hypoxemic respiratory failure due to ARDS, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Although early studies reported that COVID-19-associated ARDS has distinctive features from ARDS of other causes, recent observational studies have demonstrated that ARDS related to COVID-19 shares common clinical characteristics and respiratory system mechanics with ARDS of other origins. Therefore, mechanical ventilation in these patients should be based on strategies aiming to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury. Assisted mechanical ventilation should be applied early in the course of mechanical ventilation by considering evaluation and minimizing factors associated with patient-inflicted lung injury. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered in selected patients with refractory hypoxia not responding to conventional ventilation strategies. This review highlights the current and evolving practice in managing mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19.

Incidence and Practice of Early Prone Positioning in Invasively Ventilated COVID-19 Patients-Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID Observational Study

We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%-the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5-21.0) hours per full calendar day-the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0-23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0-19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO₂ which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76-1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62-1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80-1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73-1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO₂. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.

Clinical Trends Among U.S. Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19, March to December 2020 : A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused substantial morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To describe monthly clinical trends among adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Pooled cross-sectional study.

SETTING

99 counties in 14 states participating in the Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET).

PATIENTS

U.S. adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during 1 March to 31 December 2020.

MEASUREMENTS

Monthly hospitalizations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and in-hospital death rates per 100 000 persons in the population; monthly trends in weighted percentages of interventions, including ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor use, among an age- and site-stratified random sample of hospitalized case patients.

RESULTS

Among 116 743 hospitalized adults with COVID-19, the median age was 62 years, 50.7% were male, and 40.8% were non-Hispanic White. Monthly rates of hospitalization (105.3 per 100 000 persons), ICU admission (20.2 per 100 000 persons), and death (11.7 per 100 000 persons) peaked during December 2020. Rates of all 3 outcomes were highest among adults aged 65 years or older, males, and Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black persons. Among 18 508 sampled hospitalized adults, use of remdesivir and systemic corticosteroids increased from 1.7% and 18.9%, respectively, in March to 53.8% and 74.2%, respectively, in December. Frequency of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor use decreased from March (37.8%, 27.8%, and 22.7%, respectively) to December (20.5%, 12.3%, and 12.8%, respectively); use of noninvasive respiratory support increased from March to December.

LIMITATION

COVID-NET covers approximately 10% of the U.S. population; findings may not be generalizable to the entire country.

CONCLUSION

Rates of COVID-19-associated hospitalization, ICU admission, and death were highest in December 2020, corresponding with the third peak of the U.S. pandemic. The frequency of intensive interventions for management of hospitalized patients decreased over time. These data provide a longitudinal assessment of clinical trends among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 before widespread implementation of COVID-19 vaccines.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Mechanical ventilation in COVID-19: A physiological perspective

New Findings

What is the topic of this review?

This review presents the fundamental concepts of respiratory physiology and pathophysiology, with particular reference to lung mechanics and the pulmonary phenotype associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection and subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia.

What advances does it highlight?

The review provides a critical summary of the main physiological aspects to be considered for safe and effective mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID‐19 in the intensive care unit.

Abstract

Severe respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia not responding to non‐invasive respiratory support requires mechanical ventilation. Although ventilation can be a life‐saving therapy, it can cause further lung injury if airway pressure and flow and their timing are not tailored to the respiratory system mechanics of the individual patient. The pathophysiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection can lead to a pattern of lung injury in patients with severe COVID‐19 pneumonia typically associated with two distinct phenotypes, along a temporal and pathophysiological continuum, characterized by different levels of elastance, ventilation‐to‐perfusion ratio, right‐to‐left shunt, lung weight and recruitability. Understanding the underlying pathophysiology, duration of symptoms, radiological characteristics and lung mechanics at the individual patient level is crucial for the appropriate choice of mechanical ventilation settings to optimize gas exchange and prevent further lung injury. By critical analysis of the literature, we propose fundamental physiological and mechanical criteria for the selection of ventilation settings for COVID‐19 patients in intensive care units. In particular, the choice of tidal volume should be based on obtaining a driving pressure < 14 cmH₂O, ensuring the avoidance of hypoventilation in patients with preserved compliance and of excessive strain in patients with smaller lung volumes and lower lung compliance. The level of positive end‐expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be informed by the measurement of the potential for lung recruitability, where patients with greater recruitability potential may benefit from higher PEEP levels. Prone positioning is often beneficial and should be considered early. The rationale for the proposed mechanical ventilation settings criteria is presented and discussed.

Early versus late awake prone positioning in non-intubated patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Awake prone positioning (APP) is widely used in the management of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The primary objective of this study was to compare the outcome of COVID-19 patients who received early versus late APP.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of data collected for a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906). Adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 who received APP for at least one hour were included. Early prone positioning was defined as APP initiated within 24 h of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) start. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and intubation rate.

RESULTS

We included 125 patients (79 male) with a mean age of 62 years. Of them, 92 (73.6%) received early APP and 33 (26.4%) received late APP. Median time from HFNC initiation to APP was 2.25 (0.8-12.82) vs 36.35 (30.2-75.23) hours in the early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. Average APP duration was 5.07 (2.0-9.05) and 3.0 (1.09-5.64) hours per day in early and late APP group (p < 0.0001), respectively. The early APP group had lower mortality compared to the late APP group (26% vs 45%, p = 0.039), but no difference was found in intubation rate. Advanced age (OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.0-1.95], p = 0.001), intubation (OR 10.65 [95% CI 2.77-40.91], p = 0.001), longer time to initiate APP (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.0-1.04], p = 0.047) and hydrocortisone use (OR 6.2 [95% CI 1.23-31.1], p = 0.027) were associated with increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Early initiation (< 24 h of HFNC use) of APP in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 improves 28-day survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04325906.

Application of an evidence-based, out-patient treatment strategy for COVID-19: Multidisciplinary medical practice principles to prevent severe disease

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated individuals, families, and institutions throughout the world. Despite the breakneck speed of vaccine development, the human population remains at risk of further devastation. The decision to not become vaccinated, the protracted rollout of available vaccine, vaccine failure, mutational forms of the SARS virus, which may exhibit mounting resistance to our molecular strike at only one form of the viral family, and the rapid ability of the virus(es) to hitch a ride on our global transportation systems, means that we are will likely continue to confront an invisible, yet devastating foe. The enemy targets one of our human physiology's most important and vulnerable life-preserving body tissues, our broncho-alveolar gas exchange apparatus. Notwithstanding the fear and the fury of this microbe's potential to raise existential questions across the entire spectrum of human endeavor, the application of an early treatment intervention initiative may represent a crucial tool in our defensive strategy. This strategy is driven by evidence-based medical practice principles, those not likely to become antiquated, given the molecular diversity and mutational evolution of this very clever "world traveler".

Effect of prone versus supine position in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Study objective

To review the effects of prone position and supine position on oxygenation parameters in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized trials.

Patients

Databases of EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until March 2021.

Interventions

COVID-19 patients being positioned in the prone position either whilst awake or mechanically ventilated.

Measurements

Primary outcomes were oxygenation parameters (PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, PaCO₂, SpO₂). Secondary outcomes included the rate of intubation and mortality rate.

Results

Thirty-five studies (n = 1712 patients) were included in this review. In comparison to the supine group, prone position significantly improved the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio (study = 13, patients = 1002, Mean difference, MD 52.15, 95% CI 37.08 to 67.22; p < 0.00001) and SpO₂ (study = 11, patients = 998, MD 4.17, 95% CI 2.53 to 5.81; p ≤0.00001). Patients received prone position were associated with lower incidence of mortality (study = 5, patients = 688, Odd ratio, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.80; p = 0.007). No significant difference was noted in the incidence of intubation rate (study = 5, patients = 626, OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.86; p = 0.42) between the supine and prone groups.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that prone position improved PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio with better SpO₂ than supine position in COVID-19 patients. Given the limited number of studies with small sample size and substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes, further studies are warranted to standardize the regime of prone position to improve the certainty of evidence.

PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021234050

Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients

Background

Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave.

Methods

Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position.

Results

Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively).

Conclusions

During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03552-2.