Citations

Nosocomial infections pose an imminent challenge to hospitalized Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) patients due to complex interplay of dysregulated immune response combined with immunomodulator therapy. In the pre-pandemic era, immunomodulatory therapy has shown benefit in certain autoimmune conditions with untamed inflammatory response. Efforts to recapitulate these immunomodulatory effects in COVID-19 patients has gained impetus and were followed by NIH COVID-19 expert panel recommendations. The current NIH guideline recommends interleukin-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab) and Janus kinase inhibitors (baricitinib and tofacitinib). Several landmark research trials like COVAVTA, EMPACTA, REMDACTA, STOP-COVID and COV BARRIER have detailed the various effects associated with administration of immunomodulators. The historical evidence of increased infection among patients receiving immunomodulators for autoimmune conditions, raised concerns regarding administration of immunomodulators in COVID-19 patients. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive update on the currently available literature surrounding this issue. We reviewed 40 studies out of which 37 investigated IL-6 inhibitors and 3 investigated JAK inhibitors. Among the studies reviewed, the reported rates of nosocomial infections among the COVID-19 patients treated with immunomodulators were similar to patients receiving standard of care for COVID-19. However, these studies were not powered to assess the side effect profile of these medications. Immunomodulators, by dampening the pyrogenic response and inflammatory markers may delay detection of infections among the patients. This underscores the importance of long-term surveillance which are necessary to discover the potential risks associated with these agents.

Takotsubo cardiomyopathy or Takotsubo Syndrome (TTS) is a reversible left ventricular dysfunction syndrome that is increasingly being recognized. Recent advances in nuclear imaging have allowed us to study TTS in greater detail. We searched the PubMed and Medline databases and identified 53 publications with 221 patients reporting nuclear imaging findings in TTS. The age of the patients ranged from 17 to 87 years and were predominantly women (88.2%). The TTS variant was apical (typical) in 170 (76.9%), mid-ventricular in 23 (10.4%), and basal (reverse TTS) in 2 (0.9%). Cardiac perfusion was assessed using 99mTc sestamibi (MIBI) SPECT, 99mTc tetrofosmin SPECT, 201Tl SPECT, 82Rb PET, 201Tl SPECT, and 13N ammonia PET. Additional studies used were 123I MIBG SPECT, 123I BMIPP SPECT, 18F FDG PET, 67Ga citrate, and 11C hydroxy-ephedrine. A perfusion defect was seen in 69 (31.2%), and an inverse perfusion–metabolism mismatch (normal or near-normal perfusion with absent myocardial metabolic activity) was seen in 183 (82.8%) patients. Nuclear imaging has a significant role in evaluating, diagnosing, and prognosticating patients with TTS. As nuclear imaging technology evolves, we will surely gain more insights into this fascinating disorder.

Patients with chronic critical illness (CCI) represent a growing segment of the hospitalized population. Key aspects of care in CCI patients including tracheostomy, prolonged mechanical ventilation, nutritional support, wound care, and others require a comprehensive, goal-directed approach. Infectious complications of CCI including pneumonia, tracheobronchitis and urinary tract infection may be caused by nosocomial organisms requiring awareness and adjustment of treatment regimen. Finally, psychiatric, palliative, rehabilitative components of care impact heavily upon outcomes in CCI patients. As care that is typically associated with the intensive care unit is extended to the hospital ward, we aim to increase awareness among providers and outline a systematic approach to deliver high quality, patient centered care to CCI patients

Objective:To describe the current prescribing practices of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and the associated clinical outcomes, including the incidence of major bleeding episodes and the need for intervention (endoscopic, surgical, or interventional radiology guided). Design:Observational, retrospective chart review. Setting and Participants:Single large academic center study. Participants included patients with critical illness who were admitted to the intensive care units (ICU) at Mayo Clinic from January 1st, 2012, until May 4th, 2018. Adult ICU patients with a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or edoxaban) listed as one of the active medications at the time of hospital admission were included. Results:37 249 patients in medical and surgical intensive care units were screened for the study period. After excluding patients who did not qualify, 558 unique encounters were included. The median age was 69 (IQR 59-78) years; most patients were male, white Caucasians, and had a median SOFA score of 4. After excluding the patients who had major bleeding episodes in the first 24 hours, 188 (39%) were continued on the same DOAC therapy, 204 (42%) were discontinued without transitioning to another agent, and 95 (20%) were transitioned to another agent. Finally, 410 (84%) were dismissed on DOAC therapy at the end of hospitalization. The difference in the continuation rate of the same DOAC agent beyond 24 hours, discontinuation without transition to an alternate agent, or discontinuation of DOAC with a transition to an alternate anticoagulation agent was not statistically significant ( P = .60). A total of 52 major bleeding events were identified. Gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common bleeding complication [n (%): 34 (65)], followed by intra-abdominal and peri-procedural bleeding [7 (13.5) and 7 (13.5)]. Thirty-three (65%) patients had a major bleeding complication requiring intervention. Conclusions:Our single-center retrospective study describes the current prescribing practices and preliminary outcomes in ICU patients with prehospital use of DOACs. Up to 20% of the patients were transitioned to a different agent within 24 hours of ICU admission, whereas a significant proportion of patients (42%) had anticoagulation discontinued altogether. Most patients who suffered a major bleeding episode required either endoscopic or surgical intervention to control bleeding.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome is a life-threatening condition associated with elevated inflammatory markers and multiple organ injury. A diagnosis of exclusion, it has been reported after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection (SARS-CoV-2) in children and adults; recently it has been described in some post-COVID-19 vaccinated individuals. The prognosis with supportive care and immunomodulatory therapy is good, although some individuals may require treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU). Here we report a case of a 58-year-old man who developed multi-organ failure after receiving the second dose of the Moderna mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine. He required critical organ support in the ICU. An extensive workup was done to rule out alternative infectious and inflammatory processes. Following a period of gradual in-hospital convalescence, our patient made a full recovery. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensively described case of multisystem inflammatory syndrome associated with Moderna mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine in an adult over 50 years of age.

Patients with chronic critical illness (CCI) represent a growing segment of the hospitalized population. Key aspects of care in CCI patients including tracheostomy, prolonged mechanical ventilation, nutritional support, wound care, and others require a comprehensive, goal-directed approach. Infectious complications of CCI including pneumonia, tracheobronchitis and urinary tract infection may be caused by nosocomial organisms requiring awareness and adjustment of treatment regimen. Finally, psychiatric, palliative, rehabilitative components of care impact heavily upon outcomes in CCI patients. As care that is typically associated with the intensive care unit is extended to the hospital ward, we aim to increase awareness among providers and outline a systematic approach to deliver high quality, patient centered care to CCI patients.

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.)