Comparison of Ventilator Mechanics and Mortality Between COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: We aim to assess the differences in ventilator mechanics and mortality of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) between patients with and without COVID-19. It might serve as a milestone in reshaping management protocols by providing very preliminary evidence in this direction. Methods: It was a cross-sectional study that included adult patients aged 18 years or above admitted to the medical intensive care unit of our tertiary care hospital from January to December 2021 with the diagnosis of ARDS. Patients were divided into two groups. Group I were patients who had ARDS with COVID-19 infection while group II were those who had ARDS without COVID-19 infection. Both groups were compared in terms of clinical and respiratory mechanics of mechanical ventilators and mortality. Results: The study included 135 patients, 68 of whom were in group I, and 67 were in group II. In the COVID-19 group, the median age was 60; while in the non-COVID-19 group, it was 64. There were 50% male patients in both groups. ARDS was more severe in COVID-19 (n = 44, 58%) than in the non-COVID group (n = 31, 41.3%, p-value = 0.030). The median PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 122.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 93-160) in COVID-19 and was 180 (IQR: 127-248) in the non-COVID-19 group. Patient proning was higher (63% vs. 37%) in the COVID-19 group. In the COVID-19 group, 44 patients died compared to 32 in the non-COVID group (p-value = 0.060). Conclusions: COVID-19 patients had severe ARDS compared with non-COVID patients. Despite this, ventilator mechanics and mortality were not significantly different between both groups. It appears that more proning strategies were observed in the COVID-19 group and may have some positive effects.

Disparities in adult critical care resources across Pakistan: findings from a national survey and assessment using a novel scoring system.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, concerted efforts were made by provincial and federal governments to invest in critical care infrastructure and medical equipment to bridge the gap of resource-limitation in intensive care units (ICUs) across Pakistan. An initial step in creating a plan toward strengthening Pakistan's baseline critical care capacity was to carry out a needs-assessment within the country to assess gaps and devise strategies for improving the quality of critical care facilities. METHODS: To assess the baseline critical care capacity of Pakistan, we conducted a series of cross-sectional surveys of hospitals providing COVID-19 care across the country. These hospitals were pre-identified by the Health Services Academy (HSA), Pakistan. Surveys were administered via telephonic and on-site interviews and based on a unique checklist for assessing critical care units which was created from the Partners in Health 4S Framework, which is: Space, Staff, Stuff, and Systems. These components were scored, weighted equally, and then ranked into quartiles. RESULTS: A total of 106 hospitals were surveyed, with the majority being in the public sector (71.7%) and in the metropolitan setting (56.6%). We found infrastructure, staffing, and systems lacking as only 19.8% of hospitals had negative pressure rooms and 44.4% had quarantine facilities for staff. Merely 36.8% of hospitals employed accredited intensivists and 54.8% of hospitals maintained an ideal nurse-to-patient ratio. 31.1% of hospitals did not have a staffing model, while 37.7% of hospitals did not have surge policies. On Chi-square analysis, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were noted between public and private sectors along with metropolitan versus rural settings in various elements. Almost all ranks showed significant disparity between public-private and metropolitan-rural settings, with private and metropolitan hospitals having a greater proportion in the 1st rank, while public and rural hospitals had a greater proportion in the lower ranks. CONCLUSION: Pakistan has an underdeveloped critical care network with significant inequity between public-private and metropolitan-rural strata. We hope for future resource allocation and capacity development projects for critical care in order to reduce these disparities.

New onset refractory status epilepticus as an unusual presentation of a suspected organophosphate poisoning.

New onset refractory status epilepticus (NORSE) is a new entity in medical literature. It has different infectious and noninfectious etiologies showing a devastating impact onto the clinical outcome of patients. Therapy with anaesthetic and antiepileptic agents often fails to improve the condition, unless the primary cause is rectified. Here is presented the case of a young female with a history of depression who after a recent bereavement came to the Emergency Department of Aga Khan University Hospital with complaints of drowsiness that lasted for few hours. Though she had no history of organophosphate poisoning, her physical examination and further investigations were suggestive of the diagnosis. During her hospital stay, she developed refractory status epilepticus. Her seizures did not respond to standard antiepileptic and intravenous anesthetic agents and subsided only after intravenous infusion of atropine for a few days. Organophosphate poisoning is a very common presentation in the developing world and the associated status epilepticus poses a devastating problem for emergency physicians. In patients with suspected organophosphate poisoning with favoring clinical exam findings, the continuation of atropine intravenous infusion can be a safe option to abate seizures.