Search

For critically ill adults, oxygen saturation is continuously monitored using pulse oximetry (SpoSingle-center, observational study.Medical ICU at an academic medical center.Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation from July 2018 to February 2021, excluding patients with COVID-19, with race documented as Black or White in the electronic medical record, who had a pair of SpoNone.We included 1,024 patients with 5,557 paired measurements within 10 minutes, of which 3,885 (70%) were within 1 minute. Of all pairs, 769 (14%) were from Black patients and 4,788 (86%) were from White patients. In analyses using a mixed-effects model, we found that across the range of SpoAmong patients with a measured Spo

Many patients who survive critical illness are left with laryngeal functional impairment from endotracheal intubation that permanently limits their recovery and quality of life. Although the risk for laryngeal injury increases with larger endotracheal tube sizes, there are no data delineating the association of smaller endotracheal tube sizes with survival or acute recovery from critical illness.To determine if smaller endotracheal tubes are noninferior to larger endotracheal tubes with respect to critical illness outcomes.This propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study included all adult patients who underwent endotracheal intubation in the emergency department or intensive care unit and received mechanical ventilation for at least 12 hours from June 2020 to November 2020 at a single tertiary referral academic medical center.Endotracheal intubation.Propensity score-matched analyses were performed with respect to the primary end point of 30-day all-cause in-hospital survival as well as the secondary end points of duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, mean peak inspiratory pressure, 30-day readmission, need for reintubation, and need for tracheostomy or gastrostomy tube placement.Overall, 523 participants (64%) were men and 291 (36%) were women. Of these, 814 patients were categorized into 3 endotracheal tube groups: small for height (n = 182), appropriate for height (n = 408), and large for height (n = 224). There was not a significant difference in 30-day all-cause in-hospital survival between groups ([HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.7] for small vs appropriate; [HR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-1.6] for large vs appropriate). Patients with small-for-height endotracheal tubes had longer intubation durations (mean difference, 32.5 hrs [95% CI, 6.4-58.6 hrs]) compared with patients with appropriate-for-height tubes.Despite differences in intubation duration, the results of this cohort study suggest that smaller endotracheal tube sizes are not associated with impaired survival or recovery from critical illness. They support future prospective exploration of the association of smaller endotracheal tube sizes with recovery from critical illness.

BackgroundAs SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage increases in the United States (US), there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe Covid-19 and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes.MethodsIn a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11 - May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent Covid-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with Covid-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.ResultsAmong 1210 participants, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.8% were Hispanic, and 20.6% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 was most common variant (59.7% of sequenced viruses). Full vaccination (receipt of two vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 45/590 (7.6%) cases and 215/620 (34.7%) controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 86.9% (95% CI: 80.4 to 91.2%). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18-49 years (97.3%; 95% CI: 78.9 to 99.7%). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough Covid hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (59.2%; 95% CI: 11.9 to 81.1%) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI: 85.5 to 94.7%).ConclusionDuring March–May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing Covid-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Background Because of the increased risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) initially prioritized COVID-19 vaccination for persons in long-term care facilities (LTCF), persons aged ≥65 years, and persons aged 16–64 years with high-risk medical conditions when there is limited vaccine supply. We compared characteristics and severe outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States between early and later in the pandemic categorized by groups at higher risk of severe COVID-19. Methods Observational study of sampled patients aged ≥18 years who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and admitted to one of 14 academic hospitals in the United States during March–June and October–December 2020. Demographic and clinical information were gathered from electronic health record data. Results Among 647 patients, 91% met ≥1 of the following risk factors for severe COVID-19 [91% March-June (n = 434); 90% October–December (n = 213)]; 19% were LTCF residents, 45% were aged ≥65-years, and 84% had ≥1 high-risk condition. The proportion of patients who resided in a LTCF declined significantly (25% vs 6%) from early to later pandemic periods. Compared with patients at lower risk for severe COVID-19, in-hospital mortality was higher among patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 (20% vs 7%); these differences were consistently observed between March–June and October–December. Conclusions Most adults hospitalized with COVID-19 were those recommended to be prioritized for vaccination based on risk for developing severe COVID-19. These findings highlight the continued urgency to vaccinate patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 and monitor vaccination impact on hospitalizations and outcomes.

Background As severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination coverage increases in the United States, there is a need to understand the real-world effectiveness against severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and among people at increased risk for poor outcomes. Methods In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults hospitalized March 11–May 5, 2021, we evaluated vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations by comparing odds of prior vaccination with a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and hospital-based controls who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Results Among 1212 participants, including 593 cases and 619 controls, median age was 58 years, 22.8% were Black, 13.9% were Hispanic, and 21.0% had immunosuppression. SARS-CoV-2 lineage B0.1.1.7 (Alpha) was the most common variant (67.9% of viruses with lineage determined). Full vaccination (receipt of 2 vaccine doses ≥14 days before illness onset) had been received by 8.2% of cases and 36.4% of controls. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 87.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7–91.3). Vaccine effectiveness was similar for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, and highest in adults aged 18–49 years (97.4%; 95% CI, 79.3–9.7). Among 45 patients with vaccine-breakthrough COVID hospitalizations, 44 (97.8%) were ≥50 years old and 20 (44.4%) had immunosuppression. Vaccine effectiveness was lower among patients with immunosuppression (62.9%; 95% CI,20.8–82.6) than without immunosuppression (91.3%; 95% CI, 85.6–94.8). Conclusion During March–May 2021, SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines were highly effective for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations among US adults. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was beneficial for patients with immunosuppression, but effectiveness was lower in the immunosuppressed population.

Rationale: “Target trial emulation” has been proposed as an observational method to answer comparative effectiveness questions, but it has rarely been attempted concurrently with a randomized clinical trial (RCT). Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that blinded analysts applying target trial emulation to existing observational data could predict the results of an RCT. Methods: PreVent (Preventing Hypoxemia with Manual Ventilation during Endotracheal Intubation) was a multicenter RCT examining the effects of positive-pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation on oxygen saturation and severe hypoxemia. Analysts unaware of PreVent’s results used patient-level data from three previous trials evaluating airway management interventions to emulate PreVent’s eligibility criteria, randomization procedure, and statistical analysis. After PreVent’s release, results of this blinded observational analysis were compared with those of the RCT. Difference-in-differences estimates for comparison of treatment effects between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial are reported on the absolute scale. Results: Using observational data, we were able to emulate PreVent’s randomization procedure to produce balanced groups for comparison. The lowest oxygen saturation during intubation was higher in the positive-pressure ventilation group than the no positive-pressure ventilation group in the observational analysis (n = 360; mean difference = 1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.0 to 4.6) and in the PreVent trial (n = 401; mean difference = 3.9%; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.4), though the observational analysis could not exclude no difference. Difference-in-differences estimates comparing treatment effects showed reasonable agreement for lowest oxygen saturation between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial (mean difference = −2.1%; 95% CI = −5.9 to 1.7). Positive-pressure ventilation resulted in lower rates of severe hypoxemia in both the observational analysis (risk ratio = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.93) and in the PreVent trial (risk ratio = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.77). The absolute reduction in the incidence of severe hypoxemia with positive-pressure ventilation was similar in the observational analysis (9.4%) and the PreVent trial (12.0%), though the difference between these estimates had wide CIs (mean difference = 2.5%; 95% CI = −8.0 to 13.6%). Conclusions: Applying target trial emulation methods to existing observational data for the evaluation of a novel intervention produced results similar to those of a randomized trial. These findings support the use of target trial emulation for comparative effectiveness research.

One of the defining features of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is noncardiogenic pulmonary edema, resulting from increased permeability of the alveolar–capillary barrier and passage of protein-rich fluid into the interstitium and alveolar spaces. The loss of protein from the intravascular space disrupts the normal oncotic pressure differential and causes patients with ARDS to be particularly sensitive to the hydrostatic forces that correlate with intravascular volume. Conservative fluid management, in which diuretics are administered and intravenous fluid administration is minimized, may decrease hydrostatic pressure and increase serum oncotic pressure, potentially limiting the development of pulmonary edema. However, the cause of death in most patients with ARDS is multiorgan system failure, not hypoxemia, and the impact of conservative fluid management on the incidence of extrapulmonary organ failure during ARDS is unclear. These physiologic observations have led to a series of studies examining the impact of fluid management on the development of, resolution of, survival from, and long-term outcomes from ARDS. While questions remain, the current literature makes it clear that fluid management is an integral part of the care of patients with ARDS.

IMPORTANCE: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is fundamental to COVID-19 pathobiology, due to the interaction between the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) coreceptor for cellular entry. The prevailing hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2-ACE2 interactions lead to an imbalance of the RAS, favoring proinflammatory angiotensin II (ANG II)-related signaling at the expense of the anti-inflammatory ANG-(1–7)-mediated alternative pathway. Indeed, multiple clinical trials targeting this pathway in COVID-19 are underway. Therefore, precise measurement of circulating RAS components is critical to understand the interplay of the RAS on COVID-19 outcomes. Multiple challenges exist in measuring the RAS in COVID-19, including improper patient controls, ex vivo degradation and low concentrations of angiotensins, and unvalidated laboratory assays. Here, we conducted a prospective pilot study to enroll 33 patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 and physiologically matched COVID-19-negative controls to quantify the circulating RAS. Our enrollment strategy led to physiological matching of COVID-19-negative and COVID-19-positive moderate hypoxic respiratory failure cohorts, in contrast to the severe COVID-19 cohort, which had increased severity of illness, prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and increased mortality. Circulating ANG II and ANG-(1–7) levels were measured in the low picomolar (pM) range. We found no significant differences in circulating RAS peptides or peptidases between these three cohorts. The combined moderate and severe COVID-19-positive cohorts demonstrated a mild reduction in ACE activity compared with COVID-19-negative controls (2.2 ± 0.9 × 105 vs. 2.9 ± 0.8 × 105 RFU/mL, P = 0.03). These methods may be useful in designing larger studies to physiologically match patients and quantify the RAS in COVID-19 RAS augmenting clinical trials.

Adults aged ≥65 years are at increased risk for severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were identified as a priority group to receive the first COVID-19 vaccines approved for use under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States (1-3). In an evaluation at 24 hospitals in 14 states,* the effectiveness of partial or full vaccination† with Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was assessed among adults aged ≥65 years. Among 417 hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years (including 187 case-patients and 230 controls), the median age was 73 years, 48% were female, 73% were non-Hispanic White, 17% were non-Hispanic Black, 6% were Hispanic, and 4% lived in a long-term care facility. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years was estimated to be 94% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49%-99%) for full vaccination and 64% (95% CI = 28%-82%) for partial vaccination. These findings are consistent with efficacy determined from clinical trials in the subgroup of adults aged ≥65 years (4,5). This multisite U.S. evaluation under real-world conditions suggests that vaccination provided protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among adults aged ≥65 years. Vaccination is a critical tool for reducing severe COVID-19 in groups at high risk.

Rationale: Respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula) applied at the time of extubation has been reported to reduce reintubation rates, but concerns regarding effectiveness have limited uptake into practice. Objectives: To determine if providing postextubation respiratory support to all patients undergoing extubation in a medical ICU would decrease the incidence of reintubation. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, two-armed, cluster–crossover trial of adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation between October 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, in the medical ICU of an academic medical center. Patients were assigned to either protocolized postextubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist–driven protocol in which patients with suspected hypercapnia received noninvasive ventilation and patients without suspected hypercapnia received high-flow nasal cannula) or usual care (postextubation management at the discretion of treating clinicians). The primary outcome was reintubation within 96 hours of extubation. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 751 patients were enrolled. Of the 359 patients assigned to protocolized support, 331 (92.2%) received postextubation respiratory support compared with 66 of 392 patients (16.8%) assigned to usual care, a difference driven by differential use of high-flow nasal cannula (74.7% vs. 2.8%). A total of 57 patients (15.9%) in the protocolized support group experienced reintubation compared with 52 patients (13.3%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.84; P = 0.32). Conclusions: Among a broad population of critically ill adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation at an academic medical center, protocolized postextubation respiratory support, primarily characterized by an increase in the use of high-flow nasal cannula, did not prevent reintubation compared with usual care. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT0328831).

Background Convalescent plasma is being used widely as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is unclear. Methods The Passive Immunity Trial for Our Nation (PassITON) is a multicenter, placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized clinical trial being conducted in the USA to provide high-quality evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma as a treatment for adults hospitalized with symptomatic disease. Adults hospitalized with COVID-19 with respiratory symptoms for less than 14 days are eligible. Enrolled patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 1 unit (200–399 mL) of COVID-19 convalescent plasma that has demonstrated neutralizing function using a SARS-CoV-2 chimeric virus neutralization assay. Study treatments are administered in a blinded fashion and patients are followed for 28 days. The primary outcome is clinical status 14 days after study treatment as measured on a 7-category ordinal scale assessing mortality, respiratory support, and return to normal activities of daily living. Key secondary outcomes include mortality and oxygen-free days. The trial is projected to enroll 1000 patients and is designed to detect an odds ratio ≤ 0.73 for the primary outcome. Discussion This trial will provide the most robust data available to date on the efficacy of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the treatment of adults hospitalized with acute moderate to severe COVID-19. These data will be useful to guide the treatment of COVID-19 patients in the current pandemic and for informing decisions about whether developing a standardized infrastructure for collecting and disseminating convalescent plasma to prepare for future viral pandemics is indicated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04362176. Registered on 24 April 2020.

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.

Introduction Understanding patient factors associated with not being vaccinated is essential for successful implementation of influenza vaccination programs. Methods We enrolled adults hospitalized with severe acute respiratory illness at 10 United States (US) hospitals during the 2019–2020 influenza season. We interviewed patients to collect data about influenza vaccination, sociodemographic characteristics, and vaccine perceptions. Results Among 679 participants, 264 (38.9%) reported not receiving influenza vaccination. Among those not vaccinated, 135 (51.1%) reported choosing not to receive a vaccine because of perceived ineffectiveness (36.7%) or risk (14.4%) of influenza vaccination. Sociodemographic factors associated with not being vaccinated included no medical insurance (aOR = 6.42; 95% CI: 2.52–16.38) and being non-White or Hispanic (aOR = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.02–2.32). Conclusions Optimizing uptake of influenza vaccination in the US may be improved by educational programs regarding vaccine safety and effectiveness and enhancing vaccine access, particularly among non-White and Hispanic Americans and those without medical insurance.

Background Symptoms of mild COVID‐19 illness are non‐specific and may persist for prolonged periods. Effects on quality of life of persistent poor physical or mental health associated with COVID‐19 are not well understood. Methods Adults aged ≥18 years with laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 and matched control patients who tested negative for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection at outpatient facilities associated with 11 medical centers in the United States were interviewed to assess symptoms, illness duration, and health‐related quality of life. Duration of symptoms, health‐related quality of life measures, and days of poor physical health by symptoms experienced during illness were compared between case patients and controls using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests. Symptoms associated with COVID‐19 case status were evaluated by multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 320 participants included, 157 were COVID‐19 cases and 163 were SARS‐CoV‐2 negative controls. Loss of taste or smell was reported by 63% of cases and 6% of controls and was strongly associated with COVID‐19 in logistic regression models (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 32.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6‐83.1). COVID‐19 cases were more likely than controls to have experienced fever, body aches, weakness, or fatigue during illness, and to report ≥1 persistent symptom more than 14 days after symptom onset (50% vs 32%, P

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed hospital systems in multiple countries and necessitated caring for patients in atypical healthcare settings. The goal of this study was to ascertain if the conventional critical care severity scores qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE-II, and SAPS-II could predict which patients admitted to the hospital from an emergency department would eventually require intensive care. Methods This single-center, retrospective cohort study enrolled patients admitted to Vanderbilt University Hospital from the emergency room with symptomatic, confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 8, 2020 through May 15, 2020. Clinical phenotyping was performed by chart abstraction, and the correlation of the qSOFA, SOFA, APACHE-II, and SAPS-II scores for the primary endpoint of ICU admission and secondary endpoint of in-hospital mortality was evaluated. Results During the study period, 128 patients were admitted to Vanderbilt University Hospital from the emergency room with COVID-19. Of these, 39 patients eventually required intensive care; the remaining 89 were discharged from the medical ward. All severity of illness scores demonstrated at least moderate ability to identify patients who would die or require ICU admission. Of the three severity of illness scores assessed, the APACHE-II score performed best with an AUC of 0.851 (95% CI: 0.786 to 0.917) for identifying patient that would require ICU admission. No patient with an APACHE-II score at the time of presentation less than 8 or qSOFA of 0 required intensive care unit (ICU) admission. All patients with an APACHE-II score less than 10 or qSOFA score of 0 survived to hospital discharge. Conclusions The APACHE-II score accurately predicts the eventual need for ICU admission. This may allow for risk-stratification of patients safe to treat in alternative health care settings and prognostic enrichment to accelerate clinical trials of COVID-19 therapies.

ObjectivesTo characterize the clinical severity of covid-19 associated with the alpha, delta, and omicron SARS-CoV-2 variants among adults admitted to hospital and to compare the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent hospital admissions related to each variant.DesignCase-control study.Setting21 hospitals across the United States.Participants11 690 adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital: 5728 with covid-19 (cases) and 5962 without covid-19 (controls). Patients were classified into SARS-CoV-2 variant groups based on viral whole genome sequencing, and, if sequencing did not reveal a lineage, by the predominant circulating variant at the time of hospital admission: alpha (11 March to 3 July 2021), delta (4 July to 25 December 2021), and omicron (26 December 2021 to 14 January 2022).Main outcome measuresVaccine effectiveness calculated using a test negative design for mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 related hospital admissions by each variant (alpha, delta, omicron). Among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, disease severity on the World Health Organization’s clinical progression scale was compared among variants using proportional odds regression.ResultsEffectiveness of the mRNA vaccines to prevent covid-19 associated hospital admissions was 85% (95% confidence interval 82% to 88%) for two vaccine doses against the alpha variant, 85% (83% to 87%) for two doses against the delta variant, 94% (92% to 95%) for three doses against the delta variant, 65% (51% to 75%) for two doses against the omicron variant; and 86% (77% to 91%) for three doses against the omicron variant. In-hospital mortality was 7.6% (81/1060) for alpha, 12.2% (461/3788) for delta, and 7.1% (40/565) for omicron. Among unvaccinated patients with covid-19 admitted to hospital, severity on the WHO clinical progression scale was higher for the delta versus alpha variant (adjusted proportional odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.46), and lower for the omicron versus delta variant (0.61, 0.49 to 0.77). Compared with unvaccinated patients, severity was lower for vaccinated patients for each variant, including alpha (adjusted proportional odds ratio 0.33, 0.23 to 0.49), delta (0.44, 0.37 to 0.51), and omicron (0.61, 0.44 to 0.85).ConclusionsmRNA vaccines were found to be highly effective in preventing covid-19 associated hospital admissions related to the alpha, delta, and omicron variants, but three vaccine doses were required to achieve protection against omicron similar to the protection that two doses provided against the delta and alpha variants. Among adults admitted to hospital with covid-19, the omicron variant was associated with less severe disease than the delta variant but still resulted in substantial morbidity and mortality. Vaccinated patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 had significantly lower disease severity than unvaccinated patients for all the variants.

Importance Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, −0.2% [95% CI, −5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT04332991

Objectives Bleeding and thromboembolism are common during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The relative frequency of these complications and their impact on clinical outcomes have not been described, and no randomized trials exist to guide anticoagulation strategies in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Our objective was to examine the relative frequencies of bleeding and thromboembolic events and their associations with survival among a cohort of consecutive patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting A single academic medical center. Patients Adult patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and anticoagulation. Eligibility criteria for this analysis were selected to emulate the population that would be recruited for a randomized trial of anticoagulation strategies during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Patients were excluded if they had active bleeding or thromboembolism prior to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation, a history of trauma or surgery in the 7 days prior to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation, an arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannula, or if they received greater than 48 hours of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support at another institution. Interventions None. Measurements and main results Outcomes included bleeding and thromboembolic events, duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital survival among 55 patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Bleeding events occurred in 25 patients (45.5%), and thromboembolism occurred in eight patients (14.5%). Bleeding events were associated with longer duration of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (p = 0.007) and worse in-hospital survival (p = 0.02). Thromboembolic events did not appear to be associated with clinical outcomes. Conclusions In this cohort of patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and anticoagulation, bleeding occurred more frequently than thromboembolism and was associated with worse survival. These results highlight the need for randomized trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous IV anticoagulation among patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Background: The optimal timing for the de-escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotics with activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and resistant Gram-negative rods (GNRs) in critically ill adults remains unknown. Research Question: We tested the hypothesis that cultures will identify GNRs that ultimately demonstrate resistance to ceftriaxone within 48 hours, potentially allowing safe de-escalation at this time point. Study Design and Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial comparing balanced crystalloids versus saline for intravenous fluid administration in 15,802 critically ill adults at 5 intensive care units (ICUs) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, TN, USA. The primary endpoint was the time-to-positivity of respiratory and blood cultures that ultimately demonstrated growth of GNRs resistant to ceftriaxone. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine risk factors for the growth of cultures after 48 hours. Results: A total of 524 respiratory cultures had growth of GNRs, of which 284 (54.2%) had resistance to ceftriaxone. A total of 376 blood cultures grew GNRs, of which 70 (18.6%) had resistance to ceftriaxone. At 48 hours, 87% of respiratory cultures and 85% of blood cultures that ultimately grew GNRs resistant to ceftriaxone had demonstrated growth. Age, gender, predicted risk of inpatient mortality and prior use of antibiotics did not predict the growth of cultures after 48 hours. Interpretation: Among a cohort of critically ill adults, 13% of respiratory cultures and 15% of blood cultures that ultimately grew GNRs resistant to ceftriaxone did not demonstrate growth until at least 48 hours after collection. Further work is needed to determine the ideal time for critically ill adults to de-escalate from broad-spectrum antibiotics targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing gram-negative pathogens.

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

“Smoothing” is the phenomenon by which manually recorded vital signs are less likely to document values at the extremes compared to automated systems [1]. Intermittent manual recording of the peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) has the potential to inaccurately reflect patients’ true physiological states. Taenzer et al. observed that manually charted SpO2 values were, on average, 6.5 percentage points greater than SpO2 values collected by automated sampling [2]. Automated high-frequency SpO2 monitoring may more reliably quantify the incidence and severity of hypoxemia and hyperoxemia. Intensive Care Units (ICUs) have traditionally been more vigilant in preventing hypoxemia than hyperoxemia, and ICU patients frequently receive more supplemental oxygen than required to maintain normal values for SpO2 [3]. Hyperoxemia has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies [4, 5], but randomized trials evaluating oxygen saturation targets for mechanically ventilated adults have reported conflicting results [6–9]. These trials have used intermittent recording of SpO2 by study personnel every 4 to 24 h to assess oxygenation. Automating data collection for SpO2 has the potential to facilitate the design, conduct, and analysis of pragmatic clinical trials examining SpO2 targets in mechanically ventilated ICU patients [10]. We developed a technique for automated extraction of large-volume data on SpO2 values for use in a randomized clinical trial. We aimed to quantify the completeness and density of SpO2 data among mechanically ventilated patients. We evaluated the reliability of automated extraction of SpO2 data from pulse oximetry using physician manual review of photoplethysmographic waveforms.

Background Studies suggest that using balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A) rather than saline (0.9% sodium chloride) may improve outcomes for patients with sepsis in the ED and ICU. Research Question What is the relative impact on sepsis outcomes of fluid composition during early resuscitation in the ED vs after ICU admission? Study Design and Methods We performed a secondary analysis of the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial (SMART) data set, examining medical ICU patients with a diagnosis of sepsis (n = 1,641). SMART was a cluster-crossover trial comparing balanced crystalloids vs saline among critically ill adults. During the first 7 months of SMART, fluid choice was controlled only in the ICU (“ICU-only period”). In the final 15 months, fluid choice was coordinated between the ED and ICU (“ED and ICU period”). We performed logistic regression modeling for 30-day in-hospital mortality with an interaction term between randomized group (balanced crystalloids vs saline) and study period (ICU-only period vs ED and ICU period). Results Three hundred and sixty-seven patients with sepsis were enrolled during the ICU-only period and 1,274 were enrolled during the ED and ICU period. Thirty-day in-hospital mortality occurred in 47 of 142 patients (33.1%) in the balanced crystalloid group vs 74 of 225 patients (32.9%) in the saline group during the ICU-only period (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.70-1.88) and in 170 of 682 patients (24.9%) in the balanced crystalloid group vs 181 of 592 patients (30.6%) in the saline group in the ED and ICU period (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.89) (P value for interaction, .07), consistent with a beneficial effect of balanced crystalloid primarily in the ED and ICU period. Interpretation Among patients with sepsis, the effect of balanced crystalloids vs saline on mortality was greater among patients for whom fluid choice was controlled starting in the ED compared with starting in the ICU.

International audience

Background Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial. Methods In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care. Conclusion The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-05934-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Importance Endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation are life-saving treatments for acute respiratory failure but are complicated by significant rates of dyspnea and dysphonia after extubation. Unilateral vocal fold immobility (UVFI) after extubation can alter respiration and phonation, but its incidence, risk factors, and pathophysiology remain unclear. Objectives To determine the incidence of UVFI after prolonged (>12 hours) mechanical ventilation in a medical intensive care unit and investigate associated clinical risk factors for UVFI after prolonged mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants This subgroup analysis of a prospective cohort study was conducted in a single-center medical intensive care unit from August 17, 2017, through May 31, 2018, among 100 consecutive adult patients who were intubated for more than 12 hours. Patients were identified within 36 hours of extubation and recruited for study enrollment. Those with an established tracheostomy prior to mechanical ventilation, known laryngeal or tracheal pathologic characteristics, or a history of head and neck radiotherapy were excluded. Exposure Invasive mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube. Main Outcomes and Measures The incidence of UVFI as determined by flexible nasolaryngoscopy. Results One hundred patients (62 men [62%]; median age, 58.5 years [range, 19.0-87.0 years]) underwent endoscopic evaluation after extubation. Seven patients had UVFI, of which 6 cases (86%) were left sided. Patients with hypotension while intubated (odds ratio [OR], 10.8; 95% CI, 1.6 to ∞), patients requiring vasopressors while intubated (OR, 16.7; 95% CI, 2.4 to ∞), and patients with a preadmission diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.2-31.9) or coronary artery disease (OR, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.0-25.5) were more likely to develop UVFI. Conclusions and Relevance Unilateral vocal fold immobility occurred in 7 of 100 patients in the medical intensive care unit who were intubated for more than 12 hours. Unilateral vocal fold immobility was associated with inpatient hypotension and preadmission vascular disease, suggesting that ischemia of the recurrent laryngeal nerve may play a role in disease pathogenesis.

Rationale: Administration of intravenous crystalloid solutions is a fundamental therapy for sepsis, but the effect of crystalloid composition on patient outcomes remains unknown. Objectives: To compare the effect of balanced crystalloids versus saline on 30-day in-hospital mortality among critically ill adults with sepsis. Methods: Secondary analysis of patients from SMART (Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial) admitted to the medical ICU with an International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, Clinical Modification System code for sepsis, using multivariable regression to control for potential confounders. Measurements and Main Results: Of 15,802 patients enrolled in SMART, 1,641 patients were admitted to the medical ICU with a diagnosis of sepsis. A total of 217 patients (26.3%) in the balanced crystalloids group experienced 30-day in-hospital morality compared with 255 patients (31.2%) in the saline group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–0.93; P = 0.01). Patients in the balanced group experienced a lower incidence of major adverse kidney events within 30 days (35.4% vs. 40.1%; aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63–0.97) and a greater number of vasopressor-free days (20 ± 12 vs. 19 ± 13; aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02–1.54) and renal replacement therapy–free days (20 ± 12 vs. 19 ± 13; aOR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.08–1.69) compared with the saline group. Conclusions: Among patients with sepsis in a large randomized trial, use of balanced crystalloids was associated with a lower 30-day in-hospital mortality compared with use of saline. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02444988).

Background Both balanced crystalloids and saline are used for intravenous fluid administration in critically ill adults, but it is not known which results in better clinical outcomes. Methods In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in five intensive care units at an academic center, we assigned 15,802 adults to receive saline (0.9% sodium chloride) or balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer’s solution or Plasma-Lyte A) according to the randomization of the unit to which they were admitted. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event within 30 days — a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as an elevation of the creatinine level to ≥200% of baseline) — all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever occurred first. Results Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, 1139 (14.3%) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients (15.4%) in the s...

IntroductionFollowing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation, nearly one in seven critically ill adults requires reintubation. Reintubation is independently associated with increased mortality. Postextubation respiratory support (non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula applied at the time of extubation) has been reported in small-to-moderate-sized trials to reduce reintubation rates among hypercapnic patients, high-risk patients without hypercapnia and low-risk patients without hypercapnia. It is unknown whether protocolised provision of postextubation respiratory support to every patient undergoing extubation would reduce the overall reintubation rate, compared with usual care.Methods and analysisThe Protocolized Post-Extubation Respiratory Support (PROPER) trial is a pragmatic, cluster cross-over trial being conducted between 1 October 2017 and 31 March 2019 in the medical intensive care unit of Vanderbilt University Medical Center. PROPER compares usual care versus protocolized post-extubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist-driven protocol that advises the provision of non-invasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula based on patient characteristics). For the duration of the trial, the unit is divided into two clusters. One cluster receives protocolised support and the other receives usual care. Each cluster crosses over between treatment group assignments every 3 months. All adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation are enrolled except those who received less than 12 hours of mechanical ventilation, have ‘Do Not Intubate’ orders, or have been previously reintubated during the hospitalisation. The anticipated enrolment is approximately 630 patients. The primary outcome is reintubation within 96 hours of extubation.Ethics and disseminationThe trial was approved by the Vanderbilt Institutional Review Board. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at one or more scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03288311.