Prolonged Unconsciousness is Common in COVID-19 and Associated with Hypoxemia.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the time to recovery of command-following and associations between hypoxemia with time to recovery of command-following. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective, cohort study during the initial surge of the United States' pandemic (March-July 2020) we estimate the time from intubation to recovery of command-following, using Kaplan Meier cumulative-incidence curves and Cox proportional hazard models. Patients were included if they were admitted to 1 of 3 hospitals because of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), required endotracheal intubation for at least 7 days, and experienced impairment of consciousness (Glasgow Coma Scale motor score <6). RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients of the 795 patients recovered command-following. The median time to recovery of command-following was 30 days (95% confidence interval [CI] = 27-32 days). Median time to recovery of command-following increased by 16 days for patients with at least one episode of an arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2 ) value ≤55 mmHg (p < 0.001), and 25% recovered ≥10 days after cessation of mechanical ventilation. The time to recovery of command-following  was associated with hypoxemia (PaO2 ≤55 mmHg hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.46-0.68; PaO2 ≤70 HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.85-0.91), and each additional day of hypoxemia decreased the likelihood of recovery, accounting for confounders including sedation. These findings were confirmed among patients without any imagining evidence of structural brain injury (n = 199), and in a non-overlapping second surge cohort (N = 427, October 2020 to April 2021). INTERPRETATION: Survivors of severe COVID-19 commonly recover consciousness weeks after cessation of mechanical ventilation. Long recovery periods are associated with more severe hypoxemia. This relationship is not explained by sedation or brain injury identified on clinical imaging and should inform decisions about life-sustaining therapies. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:740-755.

Outcomes of COVID-19 and Factors Associated With Its Severity Among Hospitalized Patients With and Without Systemic Rheumatic Disease During the First Wave of the Pandemic in New York City.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Conflicting data exist regarding whether patients with systemic rheumatic disease (SRD) experience more severe outcomes related to COVID-19. Using data from adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in New York City during the first wave of the pandemic, we evaluated whether patients with SRD were at an increased risk for severe outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a medical records review study including patients aged ≥18 years with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection hospitalized at 3 NewYork-Presbyterian sites, March 3-May 15, 2020. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to a multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association between SRD status and the composite of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death. RESULTS: Of 3710 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [17.0] years; 41% female, 29% White, and 34% Hispanic/Latinx), 92 (2.5%) had SRD. Patients with SRD had similar age and body mass index but were more likely to be female, ever smokers, and White or Black, compared with those without SRD. A higher proportion of patients with versus without SRD had hypertension and pulmonary disease, and used hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroids, and immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive medications before admission. In the weighted multivariable analysis, patients with SRD had an odds ratio of 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.41; p < 0.01) for the composite of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, or death, compared with patients without SRD. CONCLUSIONS: During the initial peak of the pandemic in New York City, patients with versus without SRD hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 24% increased likelihood of having severe COVID-19 after multivariable adjustment.

Patient care in rapid-expansion intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the unfortunate reality that many hospitals have insufficient intensive care unit (ICU) capacity to meet massive, unanticipated increases in demand. To drastically increase ICU capacity, NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center modified its existing operating rooms and post-anaesthesia care units during the initial expansion phase to accommodate the surge of critically ill patients. METHODS: This retrospective chart review examined patient care in non-standard Expansion ICUs as compared to standard ICUs. We compared clinical data between the two settings to determine whether the expeditious development and deployment of critical care resources during an evolving medical crisis could provide appropriate care. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were admitted to Expansion ICUs from March 1st to April 30th, 2020 and 343 were admitted to standard ICUs. Most patients were male (70%), White (30%), 45-64 years old (35%), non-smokers (73%), had hypertension (58%), and were hospitalized for a median of 40 days. For patients that died, there was no difference in treatment management, but the Expansion cohort had a higher median ICU length of stay (q = 0.037) and ventilatory length (q = 0.015). The cohorts had similar rates of discharge to home, but the Expansion ICU cohort had higher rates of discharge to a rehabilitation facility and overall lower mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significantly worse outcomes for the Expansion ICU cohort compared to the standard ICU cohort at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic, which demonstrates the feasibility of providing safe and effective care for patients in an Expansion ICU.