Tierney, David M.

OBJECTIVES: Systemic thrombolysis improves outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) but is associated with the risk of hemorrhage. The data on efficacy and safety of reduced-dose alteplase are limited. The study objective was to compare the characteristics, outcomes, and complications of patients with PE treated with full- or reduced-dose alteplase regimens. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary care hospital and 15 community and academic centers of a large healthcare system. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with PE treated with systemic alteplase. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pre- and post-alteplase hemodynamic and respiratory variables, patient outcomes, and complications were compared. Propensity score (PS) weighting was used to adjust for imbalances of baseline characteristics between reduced- and full-dose patients. Separate analyses were performed using the unweighted and weighted cohorts. Ninety-eight patients were treated with full-dose (100 mg) and 186 with reduced-dose (50 mg) regimens. Following alteplase, significant improvements in shock index, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and supplemental oxygen requirements were observed in both groups. Hemorrhagic complications were lower with the reduced-dose compared with the full-dose regimen (13% vs. 24.5%, p = 0.014), and most were minor. Major extracranial hemorrhage occurred in 1.1% versus 6.1%, respectively (p = 0.022). Complications were associated with supratherapeutic levels of heparin anticoagulation in 37.5% of cases and invasive procedures in 31.3% of cases. The differences in complications persisted after PS weighting (15.4% vs. 24.7%, p = 0.12 and 1.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.067), but did not reach statistical significance. There were no significant differences in mortality, discharge destination, ICU or hospital length of stay, or readmission after PS weighting. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective, PS-weighted observational study, when compared with the full-dose, reduced-dose alteplase results in similar outcomes but fewer hemorrhagic complications. Avoidance of excessive levels of anticoagulation or invasive procedures should be considered to further reduce complications.

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

Objectives: Multicenter data on the characteristics and outcomes of children hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 are limited. Our objective was to describe the characteristics, ICU admissions, and outcomes among children hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 using Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: Coronavirus Disease 2019 registry. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Society of Critical Care Medicine Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (Coronavirus Disease 2019) registry. Patients: Children (< 18 yr) hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 at participating hospitals from February 2020 to January 2021. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU duration of stay and ICU, hospital, and 28-day mortality. A total of 874 children with coronavirus disease 2019 were reported to Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry from 51 participating centers, majority in the United States. Median age was 8 years (interquartile range, 1.25–14 yr) with a male:female ratio of 1:2. A majority were non-Hispanic (492/874; 62.9%). Median body mass index (n = 817) was 19.4 kg/m2 (16–25.8 kg/m2), with 110 (13.4%) overweight and 300 (36.6%) obese. A majority (67%) presented with fever, and 43.2% had comorbidities. A total of 238 of 838 (28.2%) met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and 404 of 874 (46.2%) were admitted to the ICU. In multivariate logistic regression, age, fever, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and pre-existing seizure disorder were independently associated with a greater odds of ICU admission. Hospital mortality was 16 of 874 (1.8%). Median (interquartile range) duration of ICU (n = 379) and hospital (n = 857) stay were 3.9 days (2–7.7 d) and 4 days (1.9–7.5 d), respectively. For patients with 28-day data, survival was 679 of 787, 86.3% with 13.4% lost to follow-up, and 0.3% deceased. Conclusions: In this observational, multicenter registry of children with coronavirus disease 2019, ICU admission was common. Older age, fever, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and seizure disorder were independently associated with ICU admission, and mortality was lower among children than mortality reported in adults.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd ) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support ( n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation ( n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation ( n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy ( n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We recommend that ultrasound guidance should be used for paracentesis to reduce the risk of serious complications, the most common being bleeding. We recommend that ultrasound guidance should be used to avoid attempting paracentesis in patients with an insufficient volume of intraperitoneal free fluid to drain. We recommend that ultrasound guidance should be used with paracentesis to improve the success rates of the overall procedure. We recommend that ultrasound should be used to assess the volume and location of intraperitoneal free fluid to guide clinical decision making of where paracentesis can be safely performed. We recommend that ultrasound should be used to identify a needle insertion site based on size of the fluid collection, thickness of the abdominal wall, and proximity to abdominal organs. We recommend that the needle insertion site should be evaluated using color flow Doppler ultrasound to identify and avoid abdominal wall blood vessels along the anticipated needle trajectory. We recommend that a needle insertion site should be evaluated in multiple planes to ensure clearance from underlying abdominal organs and detect any abdominal wall blood vessels along the anticipated needle trajectory. We recommend that a needle insertion site should be marked with ultrasound immediately before performing the procedure, and the patient should remain in the same position between marking the site and performing the procedure. We recommend that using real‐time ultrasound guidance for paracentesis should be considered when the fluid collection is small or difficult to access. We recommend that dedicated training sessions, including didactics, supervised practice on patients, and simulation‐based practice, should be used to teach novices how to perform ultrasound‐guided paracentesis. We recommend that simulation‐based practice should be used, when available, to facilitate acquisition of the required knowledge and skills to perform ultrasound‐ guided paracentesis. We recommend that competence in performing ultrasound‐guided paracentesis should be demonstrated prior to independently performing the procedure on patients.

Many hospitalists incorporate point‐of‐care ultrasound (POCUS) into their daily practice to answer specific diagnostic questions or to guide performance of invasive bedside procedures. However, standards for hospitalists in POCUS training and assessment are not yet established. Most internal medicine residency training programs, the major pipeline for incoming hospitalists, have only recently begun to incorporate POCUS in their curricula. The purpose of this document is to inform a broad audience on what POCUS is and how hospitalists are using it. This document is intended to provide guidance for the hospitalists who use POCUS and administrators who oversee its use. We discuss POCUS 1) applications, 2) training, 3) assessments, and 4) program management. Practicing hospitalists must continue to collaborate with their local credentialing bodies to outline requirements for POCUS use. Hospitalists should be integrally involved in decision‐making processes surrounding POCUS program management.