Association of antibiotics with the outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia patients with elevated PCT levels.

OBJECTIVE: To assess antibiotics impact on outcomes in COVID-19 pneumonia patients with varying procalcitonin (PCT) levels. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 3665 COVID-19 pneumonia patients hospitalized at five Mayo Clinic sites (March 2020 to June 2022). PCT levels were measured at admission. Patients' antibiotics use and outcomes were collected via the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) registry. Patients were stratified into high and low PCT groups based on the first available PCT result. The distinction between high and low PCT was demarcated at both 0.25 ng/ml and 0.50 ng/ml. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 3665 patients admitted with COVID-19 pneumonia. The population was predominantly male, Caucasian and non-Hispanic. With the PCT cut-off of 0.25 ng/ml, 2375 (64.8 %) patients had a PCT level <0.25 ng/mL, and 1290 (35.2 %) had PCT ≥0.25 ng/ml. While when the PCT cut off of 0.50 ng/ml was used we observed 2934 (80.05 %) patients with a PCT <0.50 ng/ml while 731(19.94 %) patients had a PCT ≥0.50 ng/ml. Patients with higher PCT levels exhibited significantly higher rates of bacterial infections (0.25 ng/ml cut-off: 4.2 % vs 7.9 %; 0.50 ng/ml cut-off: 4.6 % vs 9.2 %). Antibiotics were used in 66.0 % of the cohort. Regardless of the PCT cutoffs, the antibiotics group showed increased hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission rate, and mortality. However, early de-escalation (<24 h) of antibiotics correlated with reduced hospital LOS, ICU LOS, and mortality. These results were consistent even after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a substantial number of COVID-19 pneumonia patients received antibiotics despite a low incidence of bacterial infections. Therefore, antibiotics use in COVID pneumonia patients with PCT <0.5 in the absence of clinical evidence of bacterial infection has no beneficial effect.

Exploring COVID-19 census burdens by US hospital characteristics: Implications of quality reporting at rural and critical access hospitals.

PURPOSE: By assessing longitudinal associations between COVID-19 census burdens and hospital characteristics, such as bed size and critical access status, we can explore whether pandemic-era hospital quality benchmarking requires risk-adjustment or stratification for hospital-level characteristics. METHODS: We used hospital-level data from the US Department of Health and Human Services including weekly total hospital and COVID-19 censuses from August 2020 to August 2023 and the 2021 American Hospital Association survey. We calculated weekly percentages of total adult hospital beds containing COVID-19 patients. We then calculated the number of weeks each hospital spent at Extreme (≥20% of beds occupied by COVID-19 patients), High (10%-19%), Moderate (5%-9%), and Low (<5%) COVID-19 stress. We assessed longitudinal hospital-level COVID-19 stress, stratified by 15 hospital characteristics including joint commission accreditation, bed size, teaching status, critical access hospital status, and core-based statistical area (CBSA) rurality. FINDINGS: Among n = 2582 US hospitals, the median(IQR) weekly percentage of hospital capacity occupied by COVID-19 patients was 6.7%(3.6%-13.0%). 80,268/213,383 (38%) hospital-weeks experienced Low COVID-19 census stress, 28% Moderate stress, 22% High stress, and 12% Extreme stress. COVID-19 census burdens were similar across most hospital characteristics, but were significantly greater for critical access hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: US hospitals experienced similar COVID-19 census burdens across multiple institutional characteristics. Evidence-based inclusion of pandemic-era outcomes in hospital quality reporting may not require significant hospital-level risk-adjustment or stratification, with the exception of rural or critical access hospitals, which experienced differentially greater COVID-19 census burdens and may merit hospital-level risk-adjustment considerations.

Clinical Outcomes With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Interstitial Lung Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The evidence on indications, outcomes, and complications with the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the setting of interstitial lung disease (ILD) is limited in the existing literature. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for the use of ECMO in the setting of ILD to study the prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality. Eighteen unique studies with a total of 1,356 patients on ECMO for ILD were identified out of which 76.5% were on ECMO as a bridge to transplant (BTT) and the rest as a bridge to recovery (BTR). The overall in-hospital mortality was 45.76%, with 71.3% and 37.8% for BTR and BTT, respectively. Among the various prognostic factors, mortality was lower with younger age (mean difference = 3.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82-5.49), use of awake veno-arterial (VA)-ECMO compared to veno-venous (VV)-ECMO (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.13-0.37) in the overall cohort. In the setting of BTT, the use of VA-ECMO had a decreased hazard ratio (HR) compared to VV-ECMO (adjusted HR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.15-0.81, p = 0.015). The findings of our meta-analysis are critical but are derived from retrospective studies with small sample sizes and thus are of low to very low-GRADE certainty.

From numbers to medical knowledge: harnessing combinatorial data patterns to predict COVID-19 resource needs and distinguish patient subsets.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic intensified the use of scarce resources, including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mechanical ventilation (MV). The combinatorial features of the immune system may be considered to estimate such needs and facilitate continuous open-ended knowledge discovery. Materials and methods: Computer-generated distinct data patterns derived from 283 white blood cell counts collected within five days after hospitalization from 97 COVID-19 patients were used to predict patient's use of hospital resources. Results: Alone, data on separate cell types-such as neutrophils-did not identify patients that required MV/ECMO. However, when structured as multicellular indicators, distinct data patterns displayed by such markers separated patients later needing or not needing MV/ECMO. Patients that eventually required MV/ECMO also revealed increased percentages of neutrophils and decreased percentages of lymphocytes on admission. Discussion/conclusion: Future use of limited hospital resources may be predicted when combinations of available blood leukocyte-related data are analyzed. New methods could also identify, upon admission, a subset of COVID-19 patients that reveal inflammation. Presented by individuals not previously exposed to MV/ECMO, this inflammation differs from the well-described inflammation induced after exposure to such resources. If shown to be reproducible in other clinical syndromes and populations, it is suggested that the analysis of immunological combinations may inform more and/or uncover novel information even in the absence of pre-established questions.

The Effect of Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System in Patients With Liver Failure: A Case Series of 44 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Liver failure is associated with a high mortality rate, with many patients requiring transplant for definitive treatment. The Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) is a nonbiologic system that provides extracorporeal support. Literature on MARS therapy is mixed: outcomes support MARS therapy for patients with isolated acute liver failure, but data on patients with chronic disease is varied. Several case studies report success using MARS as a bridging treatment for patients awaiting transplant. The purpose of this case series is to present the outcomes of 44 patients who underwent MARS therapy for liver failure, 19 of whom used MARS therapy as a bridging therapy to transplant. METHODS: This study retrospectively identified 44 patients who underwent MARS therapy for liver failure at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, between January 2014 and April 2021. Variables of interest included changes in laboratory markers of hepatic functioning, number and length of MARS therapy sessions, transplantation status, and mortality. RESULTS: Following MARS therapy, there were improvements in mean serum bilirubin, ammonia, urea, creatinine, International Normalized Ratio, alanine aminotransferase, and aspartate aminotransferase levels. Twenty-seven patients (61.36%) survived the hospital stay; 17 (38.63%) died in the hospital. The majority of surviving patients (n = 19; 73.07%) received liver transplant. Six did not require transplant (22.22%). All but 1 patient who received MARS as a bridging treatment to transplant survived the follow-up period (n = 18; 94.74%). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of these 44 cases suggest that MARS improves liver failure-associated laboratory parameters and may be effective therapy as a bridge to liver transplant.

Association of Neutralizing Antispike Monoclonal Antibody Treatment With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Hospitalization and Assessment of the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the Monoclonal Antibody Screening Score performs consistently better in identifying the need for monoclonal antibody infusion throughout each "wave" of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant predominance during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and that the infusion of contemporary monoclonal antibody treatments is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the efficacy of monoclonal antibody treatment compared with that of no monoclonal antibody treatment in symptomatic adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status during different periods of SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance. The primary outcome was hospitalization within 28 days after COVID-19 diagnosis. The study was conducted on patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 from November 19, 2020, through May 12, 2022. Results: Of the included 118,936 eligible patients, hospitalization within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis occurred in 2.52% (456/18,090) of patients who received monoclonal antibody treatment and 6.98% (7,037/100,846) of patients who did not. Treatment with monoclonal antibody therapies was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization when using stratified data analytics, propensity scoring, and regression and machine learning models with and without adjustments for putative confounding variables, such as advanced age and coexisting medical conditions (eg, relative risk, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.14-0.17). Conclusion: Among patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, including those who have been vaccinated, monoclonal antibody treatment was associated with a lower risk of hospital admission during each wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Multisite Assessment of Inpatient Safety Event Rates During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

To date, there has been a notable lack of peer-reviewed or publicly available data documenting rates of hospital quality outcomes and patient safety events during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic era. The dearth of evidence is perhaps related to the US health care system triaging resources toward patient care and away from reporting and research and also reflects that data used in publicly reported hospital quality rankings and ratings typically lag 2-5 years. At our institution, a learning health system assessment is underway to evaluate how patient safety was affected by the pandemic. Here we share and discuss early findings, noting the limitations of self-reported safety event reporting, and suggest the need for further widespread investigations at other US hospitals. During the 2-year study period from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021 across 3 large US academic medical centers at our institution, we documented an overall rate of 25.8 safety events per 1000 inpatient days. The rate of events meeting "harm" criteria was 12.4 per 1000 inpatient days, the rate of nonharm events was 11.1 per 1000 inpatient days, and the fall rate was 2.3 per 1000 inpatient days. This descriptive exploratory analysis suggests that patient safety event rates at our institution did not increase over the course of the pandemic. However, increasing health care worker absences were nonlinearly and strongly associated with patient safety event rates, which raises questions regarding the mechanisms by which patient safety event rates may be affected by staff absences during pandemic peaks.

Simulation Method for Testing Aerosol Mitigation Strategies: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Frontline health care workers who perform potentially aerosol-generating procedures, such as endotracheal intubations, in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 may be at an increased risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. To continue to care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, minimizing exposure is paramount. Using simulation, we devised a testing method to evaluate devices that may mitigate the spread of aerosol and droplet-sized particles. METHODS: In this prospective single-center study, participants intubated a manikin 3 times using standard personal protective equipment, once with no barrier device, once with an acrylic box, and once with a modified horizontal drape. The micrometer-sized particle count, generated by a nebulization model, was recorded before and after each intubation. The first-pass intubation rate and time to intubation were recorded. Each operator completed a postsimulation survey about their experience using the barrier devices. RESULTS: Thirty airway proceduralists completed the simulation and survey. There was no significant difference in particle counts (aerosols or droplets) or first-pass intubation, but the horizontal drape was found to significantly increase intubation time ( P = 0.01). Most participants preferred the drape over the acrylic box or no barrier device. CONCLUSIONS: The acrylic box and plastic drape did not mitigate particle spread. However, our testing method can be used to test barrier designs using negative pressure or other mitigation strategies for particle spread.

Race affects adverse outcomes of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and acute kidney injury in coronavirus disease 2019 hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to explore the racial disparities in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of prospectively collected data of consecutive COVID-19 patients hospitalized from March 11, 2020 to May 27, 2021. The primary outcome measures were the incidence of DVT/PE and mortality. The secondary outcome measures included differences in the length of hospitalization, need for intensive care unit care, readmission, and AKI. Multivariable regression models were used to assess for independent predictors of the primary and secondary outcome measures. RESULTS: The present study included 876 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The mean age was 64.4 ± 16.2 years, and 355 were women (40.5%). Of the 876 patients, 694 (79.2%) had identified as White, 111 (12.7%) as Black/African American, 48 (5.5%) as Asian, and 23 (2.6%) as other. The overall incidence of DVT/PE was 8.7%. The DVT/PE incidence rates differed across the race groups and was highest for Black/African American patients (n = 18; 16.2%), followed by Asian patients (n = 5; 10.4%), White patients (n = 52; 7.5%), and other (n = 1; 4.4%; P = .03). All but one of the hospitalization outcomes examined demonstrated no differences according to race, including the hospitalization stay (P = .33), need for intensive care unit care (P = .20), readmission rates (P = .52), and hospital all-cause mortality (P = .29). The AKI incidence differed among races, affecting a higher proportion of Black/African American patients (P=.003). On multivariable regression analysis, Black/African American race (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-4.0; P = .04) and higher D-dimer levels (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.1-1.2; P < .0001) were predictors of DVT/PE. In addition, Black/African American race (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7; P = .001), lower hemoglobin levels (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.8-0.9; P ≤ .0001), male sex (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P = .005), hypertension (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.1; P = .0005), and older age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.006-1.03; P = .003) were predictors of AKI. CONCLUSIONS: In our single-center case series, we found a higher incidence of DVT/PE and AKI among Black/African American patients with COVID-19. Black/African American race and D-dimer levels were independent predictors of DVT/PE, and Black/African American race, hemoglobin, and D-dimer levels were independent predictors of AKI.

The Pitfalls of Mining for QuantiFERON Gold in Severely Ill Patients With COVID-19.

Objective: To assess the proportion of indeterminate QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) results in patients admitted for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and evaluate the factors associated with indeterminate QFT-Plus results. Patients and Methods: Data on COVID-19 admissions at Mayo Clinic in Florida were extracted between October 13, 2020, and September 20, 2021, and data from a prepandemic cohort were extracted between October 13, 2018, and September 20, 2019. A secondary analysis of the COVID-19 cohort was performed using gradient boosting modeling to generate variable importance and SHapley Additive exPlanations plots. Results: Our findings demonstrated more indeterminate QFT-Plus test results in patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 infection than in patients without COVID-19 (139 of 495, 28.1%). The factors associated with indeterminate QFT-Plus test results included elevated levels of C-reactive protein, ferritin, lactate dehydrogenase and interleukin-6 and included lower levels of leukocyte, lymphocyte, and platelet counts. Conclusion: The patients with severe COVID-19 had a higher likelihood of indeterminate QFT-Plus results, which were associated with elevated levels of inflammatory markers consistent with severe infection. Interferon-gamma release assay screening tests are likely confounded by COVID-19 infection itself, limiting the screening ability for latent tuberculosis infection reactivation. Indeterminate QFT-Plus results may also require follow-up QFT-Plus testing after patient recovery from COVID-19, increasing the cost and complexity of medical decision making and management. Additional risk assessments may be needed in this patient population for screening for latent tuberculosis infection in patients with severe COVID-19.

A Learning Health System Approach to Hospital Quality Performance Benchmarking: The Composite Hospital Quality Index.

US hospital quality rankings and ratings use disparate methodologies and are weakly correlated. This causes confusion for patients and hospital quality staff. At the authors' institution, a Composite Hospital Quality Index (CHQI) was developed to combine hospital quality ratings. This approach is described and a calculator is shared here for other health systems to explore their performance. Among the US News and World Report Top 50 Hospitals, hospital-specific numeric summary scores were aggregated from the 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Overall Star Rating, the Spring 2021 Leapfrog Safety Grade, and the April 2021 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Star Rating. The CHQI is the hospital-specific sum of the national percentile-rankings across these 3 ratings. In this example, mean (SD) percentiles were as follows: CMS Stars 74 (19), Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems 63 (19), Leapfrog 65 (24), with mean (SD) CHQI of 202 (49). The CHQI is used at the authors' institution to identify improvement opportunities and ensure that high-quality care is delivered across the health system.

Hypotension Prediction Score for Endotracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the HEMAIR Study.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension with endotracheal intubation (ETI) is common and associated with adverse outcomes. We sought to evaluate whether a previously described hypotension prediction score (HYPS) for ETI is associated with worse patient outcomes and/or clinical conditions. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational multicenter study involving adult (age ≥18 years) intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing ETI in which the HYPS was derived and validated on the entire cohort and a stable subset (ie, patients in stable condition). We evaluated the association between increasing HYPSs in both subsets and several patient-centered outcomes and clinical conditions. RESULTS: Complete data for HYPS calculations were available for 783 of 934 patients (84%). Logistic regression analysis showed increasing odds ratios (ORs) for the highest risk category for new-onset acute kidney injury (OR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2.58-21.08); new dialysis need (OR, 8.13; 95% CI, 1.74-37.91); ICU mortality (OR, 16.39; 95% CI, 5.99-44.87); and hospital mortality (OR, 18.65; 95% CI, 6.81-51.11). Although not increasing progressively, the OR for the highest risk group was significantly associated with new-onset hypovolemic shock (OR, 6.06; 95% CI, 1.47-25.00). With increasing HYPSs, median values (interquartile ranges) decreased progressively (lowest risk vs. highest risk) for ventilator-free days (23 [18-26] vs. 1 [0-21], P < .001) and ICU-free days (20 [11-24] vs. 0 [0-13], P < .001). Of the 729 patients in the stable subset, 598 (82%) had complete data for HYPS calculations. Logistic regression analysis showed significantly increasing ORs for the highest risk category for new-onset hypovolemic shock (OR, 7.41; 95% CI, 2.06-26.62); ICU mortality (OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 1.87-13.85); and hospital mortality (OR, 7.08; 95% CI, 2.63-19.07). CONCLUSIONS: As the risk for peri-intubation hypotension increases, according to a validated hypotension prediction tool, so does the risk for adverse clinical events and certain clinical conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02508948).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of racial disparities in deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism events in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Recent studies have characterized racial disparities in the incidence of VTE. The aim of our study was to present a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between race and VTE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review to evaluate the number of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) events reported by racial groups in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. For the qualitative analysis, independent reviewers extracted the data from eligible studies, and we used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of design and content for accurate interpretation. For the quantitative analysis, we pooled the odds ratios with Der Simonian and Laird random effects models. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis included 11 studies, with 6 included in the meta-analysis. All studies were observational, retrospective cohort studies, except for one retrospective case-control study. Six studies were eligible for the meta-analysis owing to the high interstudy heterogeneity; thus, the variable reports of racial groups reduced the cohort to Black/African American and White patients (n = 9723) in the analysis. The estimated proportion for DVT and PE events for Black/African American and White patients was 0.07 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.10) and 0.04 (95% confidence interval, 0.00-0.07), respectively. The P value of .13 suggested nonsignificant differences in the VTE rates between Black/African American and White patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the proportion of DVT and PE events between Black/African American and White patients with COVID-19 were comparable. Future COVID-19 studies should include systematic racial group reporting to identify any disparities in the setting of VTE events.

"Novel Management of Depression Using Ketamine in the Intensive Care Unit".

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.

Multidisciplinary Approach for Lung Transplantation due to COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a novel etiology of end-stage lung disease, has resulted in major disruptions to the process of health care delivery worldwide. These disruptions have led to team-based innovations globally, resulting in a broad range of new processes in cardiopulmonary perioperative management. A key intersection of multidisciplinary teamwork and COVID-19 is found in lung transplantation, in which diverse teams collaborate throughout the perioperative period to achieve optimal outcomes. In this article, we describe the multidisciplinary approach taken by Mayo clinic in Florida to manage patients with COVID-19 presenting for lung transplantation.

Low antispike antibody levels correlate with poor outcomes in COVID-19 breakthrough hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: While 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. METHODS: All 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. RESULTS: Among 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. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized 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.

V.I.T.A.M. in COVID 19: A Systematic Approach to a Global Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19. METHODS: At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.

Quantifying the Importance of COVID-19 Vaccination to Our Future Outlook.

Predictive models have played a critical role in local, national, and international response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the United States, health care systems and governmental agencies have relied on several models, such as the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Youyang Gu (YYG), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ensemble, to predict short- and long-term trends in disease activity. The Mayo Clinic Bayesian SIR model, recently made publicly available, has informed Mayo Clinic practice leadership at all sites across the United States and has been shared with Minnesota governmental leadership to help inform critical decisions during the past year. One key to the accuracy of the Mayo Clinic model is its ability to adapt to the constantly changing dynamics of the pandemic and uncertainties of human behavior, such as changes in the rate of contact among the population over time and by geographic location and now new virus variants. The Mayo Clinic model can also be used to forecast COVID-19 trends in different hypothetical worlds in which no vaccine is available, vaccinations are no longer being accepted from this point forward, and 75% of the population is already vaccinated. Surveys indicate that half of American adults are hesitant to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, and lack of understanding of the benefits of vaccination is an important barrier to use. The focus of this paper is to illustrate the stark contrast between these 3 scenarios and to demonstrate, mathematically, the benefit of high vaccine uptake on the future course of the pandemic.

Oxygen therapy via a noninvasive helmet: A COVID-19 novelty with potential post-pandemic uses.

COVID-19 has placed a significant strain upon healthcare resources at a global level and refractory hypoxemia is the leading cause of death among COVID-19 patients. The management of limited resources such as mechanical ventilators has remained a contentious issue both at an individual and institutional level since the beginning of the pandemic. As a result, the COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to critical care practitioners to find innovative ways to provide supplemental oxygen therapy to their patients. We present a single-center experience: a case series of five COVID-19 infected patients managed with a novel approach to provide supplemental oxygen and positive end-expiration pressure (PEEP) via the helmet. Three of the five patients responded to therapy, did not require intubation, and survived to discharge. The other two patients continued to deteriorate clinically, required endotracheal intubation, and subsequently expired during their hospitalization. We extrapolated our accumulated experience with non-invasive oxygen support by helmet in COVID-19 patients to a non-COVID-19 postoperative patient who underwent sinus surgery and developed hypoxemic respiratory failure also resulting in avoidance of endotracheal intubation. We conclude that oxygen therapy via a helmet is a safe, cost-effective technique to prevent intubation in carefully selected patients with infectious and non-infectious causes of hypoxic respiratory failure. Our positive experience with the system warrants further large-scale study and possible technique refinement.

Reducing Blood Loss by Changing to Small Volume Tubes for Laboratory Testing.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce diagnostic blood loss by using small volume tubes for routine laboratory testing throughout the hospital, as blood loss from laboratory testing can be substantial for patients and may lead to hospital-acquired anemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Diagnostic blood loss was evaluated in hospitalized patients between April 1, 2017, and June 1, 2018. The preintervention, during intervention, and postintervention mean diagnostic blood loss per hospitalized patient was compared across the floors and for each type of tube for hematology, basic metabolic panel, and coagulation tests. Mean hemoglobin levels, blood transfusions per hospitalized patient, and percent redraws were also compared. RESULTS: The total volume of blood drawn for all the 3 tests decreased across each implementation phase; however, only patients admitted to the transplant and critical care (T/CC) units had increased hemoglobin levels. In addition, there was a significant reduction in transfusions across implementation phases. The incidence risk ratio for transfusion reduced even more in patients admitted to the T/CC units. Finally, there was no significant difference in the overall percent redraws across all the units. CONCLUSION: The use of small volume tubes in exchange for standard sized tubes markedly decreased diagnostic blood loss by 25.7% in all the units and 22.9% in the T/CC units. Also, the number of transfusions decreased across units, with the greatest decrease in the T/CC units. An increase in mean hemoglobin levels was observed specifically in patients admitted to the T/CC units, with no corresponding change in percent redraws across all the units.