Six-Minute Walk Distance After Critical Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Impaired physical functioning is common and long lasting after an intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is a validated and widely used test of functional capacity. This systematic review synthesizes existing data in order to: (1) evaluate 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) in meters over longitudinal follow-up after critical illness, (2) compare 6MWD between acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) versus non-ARDS survivors, and (3) evaluate patient- and ICU-related factors associated with 6MWD. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry) were searched to identify studies reporting 6MWT after hospital discharge in survivors from general (ie, nonspeciality) ICUs. The last search was run on February 14, 2018. Databases were accessed via Johns Hopkins University Library. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pooled mean 6MWD were reported, with separate linear random effects models used to evaluate associations of 6MWD with ARDS status, and patient- and ICU-related variables. Twenty-six eligible articles on 16 unique participant groups were included. The pooled mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) 6MWD results at 3- and 12-months post discharge were 361 (321-401) and 436 (391-481) meters, respectively. There was a significant increase in 6MWD at 12 months compared to 3 months (P = .017). In ARDS versus non-ARDS survivors, the mean (95% CI) 6MWD difference over 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up was 73 [13-133] meters lower. Female sex and preexisting comorbidity also were significantly associated with lower 6MWD, with ICU-related variables having no consistent associations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to initial assessment at 3 months, significant improvement in 6MWD was reported at 12 months. Female sex, preexisting comorbidity, and ARDS (vs non-ARDS) were associated with lower 6MWT results. Such factors warrant consideration in the design of clinical research studies and in the interpretation of patient status using the 6MWT.

Patient outcomes after critical illness: a systematic review of qualitative studies following hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in patient outcomes following critical illness, with an increasing number and different types of studies conducted, and a need for synthesis of existing findings to help inform the field. For this purpose we conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies evaluating patient outcomes after hospital discharge for survivors of critical illness. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases from inception to June 2015. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the study population was >50 % adults discharged from the ICU, with qualitative evaluation of patient outcomes. Studies were excluded if they focused on specific ICU patient populations or specialty ICUs. Citations were screened in duplicate, and two reviewers extracted data sequentially for each eligible article. Themes related to patient outcome domains were coded and categorized based on the main domains of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) framework. RESULTS: A total of 2735 citations were screened, and 22 full-text articles were eligible, with year of publication ranging from 1995 to 2015. All of the qualitative themes were extracted from eligible studies and then categorized using PROMIS descriptors: satisfaction with life (16 studies), including positive outlook, acceptance, gratitude, independence, boredom, loneliness, and wishing they had not lived; mental health (15 articles), including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and irritability/anger; physical health (14 articles), including mobility, activities of daily living, fatigue, appetite, sensory changes, muscle weakness, and sleep disturbances; social health (seven articles), including changes in friends/family relationships; and ability to participate in social roles and activities (six articles), including hobbies and disability. CONCLUSION: ICU survivors may experience positive emotions and life satisfaction; however, a wide range of mental, physical, social, and functional sequelae occur after hospital discharge. These findings are important for understanding patient-centered outcomes in critical care and providing focus for future interventional studies aimed at improving outcomes of importance to ICU survivors.

Development of Compartment Syndrome after Radial Artery Puncture in a Patient with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure due to COVID-19.

A 71-year-old man who was recently hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia complicated by acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and severe ARDS requiring noninvasive ventilation was transferred to our hospital from a rehabilitation facility for new onset right wrist and hand pain and swelling which had been attributed to arterial thrombosis and empirically treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. He developed numbness and paralysis in his right hand and was diagnosed with right forearm compartment syndrome requiring emergent fasciotomy. After a prolonged hospital stay complicated by respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, he was discharged with improved, but not resolved, sensorimotor deficits. Arterial blood gas sampling is commonly performed in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, for assessment of oxygenation and acid-base status. It is considered a benign procedure, but it can lead to serious complications, such as bleeding and compartment syndrome. Risks and benefits of any procedure need to be weighed carefully and less is often more. Compartment syndrome is characterized by the 5 P's-pain, pallor, paresthesia, pulselessness, and paralysis.

Development of a large spontaneous pneumothorax after recovery from mild COVID-19 infection.

A previously healthy 37-year-old man presented with fevers and myalgias for a week with a minimal dry cough. Initial SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal testing was negative, but in light of high community prevalence, he was diagnosed with COVID-19, treated with supportive care and self-quarantined at home. Three days after resolution of all symptoms, he developed sudden onset chest pain. Chest imaging revealed a large right-sided pneumothorax and patchy subpleural ground glass opacities. IgM and IgG antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 were positive. His pneumothorax resolved after placement of a small-bore chest tube, which was removed after 2 days.This case demonstrates that patients with COVID-19 can develop a significant pulmonary complication, a large pneumothorax, despite only minimal lower respiratory tract symptoms and after resolution of the original illness. Medical professionals should consider development of a pneumothorax in patients who have recovered from COVID-19 and present with new respiratory symptoms.

Participant Retention in Follow-Up Studies of Acute Respiratory Failure Survivors.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of follow-up studies of acute respiratory failure survivors, there is need for a better understanding of participant retention and its reporting in this field of research. Hence, our objective was to synthesize participant retention data and associated reporting for this field. METHODS: Two screeners independently searched for acute respiratory failure survivorship studies within a published scoping review to evaluate subject outcomes after hospital discharge in critical illness survivors. RESULTS: There were 21 acute respiratory failure studies (n = 4,342 survivors) over 47 follow-up time points. Six-month follow-up (range: 2-60 months) was the most frequently reported time point, in 81% of studies. Only 1 study (5%) reported accounting for loss to follow-up in sample-size calculation. Retention rates could not be calculated for 5 (24%) studies. In 16 studies reporting on retention across all time points, retention ranged from 32% to 100%. Pooled retention rates at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months were 85%, 89%, 82%, and 88%, respectively. Retention rates did not significantly differ by publication year, participant mean age, or when comparing earlier (3 months) versus each later follow-up time point (6, 12, or 24 months). CONCLUSIONS: Participant retention was generally high but varied greatly across individual studies and time points, with 24% of studies reporting inadequate data to calculate retention rate. High participant retention is possible, but resources for optimizing retention may help studies retain participants. Improved reporting guidelines with greater adherence would be beneficial.