Citations

Vaccination is critical to control the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but despite the availability of safe and effective vaccine in children over 5 years, vaccination rates remain low. There is paucity of data about vaccine acceptance and factors influencing parents’ hesitancy about the COVID-19 vaccine for young children. Aims and objectives To estimate vaccine acceptance by parents of children 6 months through 4 years, and to evaluate the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy. Methods Electronic survey was sent to parents of children 6 months through 4 years through an online portal account at Mayo Clinic Health System, Northwest-Wisconsin. Data were captured via Research Electronic Data Capture secured data collection software. Bivariate and multivariate regression was used to determine most pertinent factors influencing parents’ decisions against the outcome, ‘Intent to Vaccinate’. Results 39.7% of the parents were ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely ’ to vaccinate their children once the vaccine became available, while 49.8% were not likely or highly unlikely to vaccinate. Routine childhood vaccination, receiving seasonal influenza vaccine, parents' perception of COVID-19 severity in children and safety and effectiveness of the vaccine were all associated with more vaccine acceptance. 71.4% of parents who will likely not vaccinate their children indicated that they are unlikely to change their decision. The need for more research on the vaccine and more information from the PCP office were the most common reasons behind the vaccine decision-making. Conclusions Vaccine hesitancy remains a major issue regarding uptake of the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine. Strong and clear evidence-based recommendations from primary care provider and more information from trusted websites such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can decrease vaccine hesitancy in parents. Further research targeted at understanding beliefs and perspectives of parents from different demographics can assist policy-makers in implementing measures to improve vaccination rates in children and tailor our dialogue to match the needs of our patients and families.

IMPORTANCE: Aggressive fluid resuscitation remains a cornerstone of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines, but there is growing controversy regarding the recommended 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosage. It is contended that, in selected patients, this volume confers an increased risk of volume overload without either concomitant benefit or strong evidence in support of the recommended IV fluid dosage. OBJECTIVES: Assessment of practice patterns and their impact on patient outcomes following the surviving sepsis guidelines for fluid resuscitation. DESIGN: Large, multisite retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The retrospective study included all adult patients who presented to the emergency department at one of 19 different Mayo Clinic sites throughout the Midwest, Southeast, and Southwest from August 2018 to November 2020 with suspected sepsis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Eight-thousand four-hundred fourteen patients suspected to have sepsis were assessed regarding fluid resuscitation and outcomes among patients receiving 30 mL/kg IV fluid dosing compared with patients who did not. Patient demographics and clinical information were collected via electronic health records. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who received 0–29.9 mL/kg of IV fluid and those who received 30.0+ mL/kg of IV fluid. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of fluid dose on in-hospital death, 30-day mortality, ICU admission after diagnosis, dialysis initiation after diagnosis, ventilator use, vasopressor use, as well as ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: We observed lower in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality risk in the 30+ mL/kg dosing group. Increased fluid dosage did, however, carry a much greater chance of ICU admission. Most patients (72% after propensity score weighting) in our population received less than 30 mL/kg fluid (based on ideal body weight). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: IV fluid dosing for sepsis resuscitation greater than 30 mL/kg was associated with decreased risk of in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and reduced risk of requiring mechanical ventilation. Our data does ultimately seem to support the SSC recommendation.

Background: Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, induces improvement in depressive symptoms by antagonizing glutaminergic NMDA receptors. Ketamine has been used previously in outpatient setting for treatment-resistant depression, but we showcase its utility in depression management at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Research Question: Can ketamine be used for depression treatment in ICU patients? Study Design and Methods: A retrospective chart review of ICU patients was done at a tertiary center from 2018 to 2021, to assess the ketamine usage. Among the patients reviewed, ketamine was used for depression in 12, and for analgesia & sedation in 2322 patients. Ketamine was administered in doses of 0.5mg/kg & 0.75mg/kg for depression. Each course consisted of 3 doses of ketamine administered over 3 days, and 7 in 12 patients received a single course of ketamine. The rest received 3–4 courses 1 week apart. Results: Ketamine was found to improve mood and affect in most of the patients with depression. 11 in 12 patients had a positive response with better sleep. It has a major advantage over conventional anti-depressants since it takes only a few hours to induce clinical improvement. Patients who were observably withdrawn from care team and family, were administered ketamine. Conclusion: A major drawback of ketamine is that the duration of clinical improvement is short, with the response lasting only up to seven days after a single dose. Hence, all the patients in our study were weaned off ketamine with a supporting antidepressant. Ketamine has been documented to cause cardio-neurotoxicity; however, only one patient had worsening lethargy in our study. To conclude, ketamine has a marked benefit in treating depression in the ICU. Although our study was associated with positive outcomes, there is a need for prospective studies with long-term follow-up assessments.

AbstractBackgroundWhile COVID‐19 immunization programs attempted to reach targeted rates, cases rose significantly since the emergence of the delta variant. This retrospective cohort study describes the correlation between antispike antibodies and outcomes of hospitalized, breakthrough cases during the delta variant surge.MethodsAll patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Florida from 19 June 2021 to 11 November 2021 were considered for analysis. Cases were analyzed by vaccination status. Breakthrough cases were then analyzed by low and high antibody titers against SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein, with a cut‐off value of ≥132 U/ml. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), need for intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement to assess for confounders.ResultsAmong 627 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, vaccine breakthrough cases were older with more comorbidities compared to unvaccinated. After propensity score matching, the unvaccinated patients had higher mortality (27 [28.4%] vs. 12 [12.6%], p = 0.002) and LOS (7 [1.0–57.0] vs. 5 [1.0–31.0] days, p = 0.011). In breakthrough cases, low‐titer patients were more likely to be solid organ transplant recipients (16 [34.0%] vs. 9 [12.3%], p = 0.006), with higher need for ICU care (24 [51.1%] vs. 22 [11.0%], p = 0.034), longer hospital LOS (median 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.013), and higher mortality (10 [21.3%] vs. 5 [6.8%], p = 0.025) than high‐titer patients.ConclusionsHospitalized breakthrough cases were more likely to have underlying risk factors than unvaccinated patients. Low‐spike antibody titers may serve as an indicator for poor prognosis in breakthrough cases admitted to the hospital.

IMPORTANCE: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40–4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23–6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01–0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01–1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.