FRailty in Australian patients admitted to Intensive care unit after eLective CANCER-related SURGery: a retrospective multicentre cohort study (FRAIL-CANCER-SURG study).

BACKGROUND: The association between frailty and short-term and long-term outcomes in patients receiving elective surgery for cancer remains unclear, particularly in those admitted to the ICU. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective cohort study, we included adults ≥16 yr old admitted to 158 ICUs in Australia from January 1, 2018 to March 31, 2022 after elective surgery for cancer. We investigated the association between frailty and survival time up to 4 yr (primary outcome), adjusting for a prespecified set of covariates. We analysed how this association changed in specific subgroups (age categories [<65, 65-80, ≥80 yr], and those who survived hospitalisation), and over time by splitting the survival information at monthly intervals. RESULTS: We included 35,848 patients (median follow-up: 18.1 months [inter-quartile range: 8.3-31.1 months], 19,979 [56.1%] male, median age 69.0 yr [inter-quartile range: 58.8-76.0 yr]). Some 3502 (9.8%) patients were frail (defined as clinical frailty scale ≥5). Frailty was associated with lower survival (hazard ratio: 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.59-1.86 compared with clinical frailty scale ≤4); this was concordant across several sensitivity analyses. Frailty was most strongly associated with mortality early on in follow-up, up to 10 months (hazard ratio: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.03-1.86), but this association plateaued, and its predictive capacity subsequently diminished with time up until 4 yr (1.96, 95% CI: 0.73-5.28). Frailty was associated with similar effects when stratified based on age, and in those who survived hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with poorer outcomes after an ICU admission after elective surgery for cancer, particularly in the short term. However, its predictive capacity with time diminished, suggesting a potential need for longitudinal reassessment to ensure appropriate prognostication in this population.

Frailty in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: The Lessons Learned.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has unquestionably transformed the field of intensive care medicine. Never have we witnessed millions of patients develop acute respiratory failure in such a short span of time. This led to extensive resource constraints and difficulty in treating patients. However, this also gave rise to several innovations that have spurred the development and progress of intensive care medicine as a specialty. In this chapter, we explore an overview of frailty, the impact of frailty in patients with severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and the available supports, by summarising the current literature. This chapter also discusses the lessons learnt from each of the sections that can be applied to daily clinical practice. The chapter also proposes insights into future research.

Respiratory Support in COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure: Lessons Learnt.

The COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably changed the way intensivists manage acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Paradigms had evolved particularly in the way we support patients with respiratory failure, and the adjunctive therapies which can be used. Many questions have been answered, and many more generated, from the last few years. For example, is COVID-19 acute respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome similar to non-COVID-19? How can we personalize therapy in patients with COVID-19, and what are some new statistical tools that we can use to aid in this approach? Is intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation the only way to support patients with acute respiratory failure, or can we turn to other modalities of respiratory support? And what about patients with the most severe form of respiratory failure, how can we support them? In this chapter, we explore the lessons learnt, identifying gaps and advances in knowledge in terms of the pathophysiology of acute respiratory failure, its prognostic factors, oxygen supports, and other therapies. We also touch on how physicians treating patients can tap on international networks to create a "whole that is more than the sum of its parts", and impart clinical insights on the management of acute respiratory failure. Finally, we highlight the importance of a cautious skepticism in our approach to both clinical medicine and evidence-based medicine, highlighting how evidence in a pandemic can rapidly evolve both within an ICU, and longitudinally around the world.

Oncology and intensive care doctors' perception of intensive care admission of cancer patients: A cross-sectional national survey.

INTRODUCTION: Prognosis in oncology has improved with early diagnosis and novel therapies. However, critical illness continues to trigger clinical and ethical dilemmas for the treating oncology and intensive care unit (ICU) doctors. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the perceptions of oncology and ICU doctors in managing critically ill cancer patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey exploring the management of a fictitious acutely deteriorating case vignette with solid-organ malignancy. The survey weblink was distributed between May and July 2022 to all Australian oncology and ICU doctors via newsletters to the members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia, the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, and the College of Intensive Care Medicine inviting them to participate. The weblink was active till August 2022. The six domains included patient prognostication, advanced care plan, collaborative management, legal/ethical/moral challenges, ICU referral, and protocol-based ICU admission. The outcomes were reported as the level of agreement between oncology and ICU doctors for each domain/question. RESULTS: 184 responses (64 oncology and 120 ICU doctors) were analysed. Most respondents were specialists (78.1% [n = 50] oncology, 78.3% [n = 94] ICU doctors). Oncology doctors more commonly reported managing cancer patients with poor prognosis than ICU doctors (p < 0.001). Oncology doctors less commonly referred such patients for ICU admission (29.7% [n = 19] vs. 80.8% [n = 97], p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] = 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.16) and infrequently encountered patients with prior goals of care (GOC) in medical emergency team escalations (40.6% [n = 26] vs. 86.7% [n = 104]; p < 0.001; OR = 0.06; 95% CI: 0.02-0.15; p < 0.001). Oncology doctors were less likely to discuss GOC during medical emergency team calls or within 24 h of ICU admission. More oncology doctors than ICU doctors thought that training rotation in the corresponding speciality group was beneficial (56.3% [n = 36] vs. 31.7% [n = 38]; p = 0.012; OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.02-4.23; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Oncology doctors were less likely to encounter acute patient deterioration or establish timely GOC for such patients. Oncology doctors believed that an ICU rotation during their training may have helped manage challenging situations.

Current practice, education and recommendations for training of central line insertion for trainees and fellows in adult intensive care units across Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: Central venous access device (CVAD) is a common procedure in ICU which, although generally safe, can lead to acute and delayed complications. Training and accreditation process for its insertion vary worldwide. AIMS: The objective of this study was to explore variability in existing training and accreditation processes for central venous access device (CVAD) insertion among different intensive care units (ICU), current practices of CVAD insertion among fellows of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) working in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) and their recommendations for improvement. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional web-based survey was sent through email and CICM e-newsletter to intensivists and directors of ICU across ANZ. All responses were tabulated, post-hoc exploratory analysis using multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used and free texts were analysed thematically and summarised. RESULTS: A total of 115 responses was received from various public and private ICU from all states of ANZ; 32% of the participants did not have any accreditation process for CVAD insertion skill in their ICU, whereas 91% of respondents revealed there were no processes to assess deskilling. Most intensivists recommended supervision, simulation, various education tools and ultrasound training to improve training and assessment. Thirty-five percent of the participants inserted 0-5 CVAD and more than half of the intensivists had inserted <10 CVAD in a 1-year period. Two-thirds of the respondents recommended inserting between 6 and 20 CVAD each year to maintain competence. CONCLUSION: The study identified wide variability in current practice, training methods and accreditation process for CVAD insertion among intensivists and ICU trainees in ANZ. Policy makers should consider revising the current clinical practice and training policies to new policies for accreditation and ongoing assessment for CVAD insertions across ANZ ICU.

Family satisfaction with intensive care unit communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective multicentre Australian study Family Satisfaction - COVID ICU.

BACKGROUND: Virtual communication has become common practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of visitation restrictions. AIMS: The authors aimed to evaluate overall family satisfaction with the intensive care unit (FS-ICU) care involving virtual communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre study involving three metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, the next of kin (NOK) of all eligible ICU patients between 1 July 2020 and 31 October 2020 were requested to complete an adapted version of the FS-ICU 24-questionnaire. Group comparisons were analysed and calculated for family satisfaction scores: ICU/care (satisfaction with care), FS-ICU/dm (satisfaction with information/decision-making) and FS-ICU/total (overall satisfaction with the ICU). The essential predictors that influence family satisfaction were identified using quantitative and qualitative analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-three of the 227 patients' NOK who initially agreed completed the FS-ICU questionnaire (response rate 32.2%). The mean FS-ICU/total was 63.9 (standard deviation [SD], 30.8). The mean score for satisfaction with FS-ICU/dm was lower than the FS-ICU/care (62.1 [SD, 30.3) vs 65.4 (SD, 31.4); P < 0.001]. There was no difference in mean FS-ICU/total scores between survivors (n = 65; 89%) and non-survivors (n = 8, 11%). Higher patient Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, female NOK and the patient dying in the ICU were independent predictors for FS-ICU/total score, while a telephone call at least once a day by an ICU doctor was related to family satisfaction for FS-ICU/dm. CONCLUSIONS: There was low overall family satisfaction with ICU care and virtual communication strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts should be targeted for improving factors with virtual communication that cause low family satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Comparison of the predictive ability of clinical frailty scale and hospital frailty risk score to determine long-term survival in critically ill patients: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is the most commonly used frailty measure in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The hospital frailty risk score (HFRS) was recently proposed for the quantification of frailty. We aimed to compare the HFRS with the CFS in critically ill patients in predicting long-term survival up to one year following ICU admission. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre cohort study from 16 public ICUs in the state of Victoria, Australia between 1st January 2017 and 30th June 2018, ICU admission episodes listed in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database registry with a documented CFS, which had been linked with the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset and the Victorian Death Index were examined. The HFRS was calculated for each patient using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes that represented pre-existing conditions at the time of index hospital admission. Descriptive methods, Cox proportional hazards and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) were used to investigate the association between each frailty score and long-term survival up to 1 year, after adjusting for confounders including sex and baseline severity of illness on admission to ICU (Australia New Zealand risk-of-death, ANZROD). RESULTS: 7001 ICU patients with both frailty measures were analysed. The overall median (IQR) age was 63.7 (49.1-74.0) years; 59.5% (n = 4166) were male; the median (IQR) APACHE II score 14 (10-20). Almost half (46.7%, n = 3266) were mechanically ventilated. The hospital mortality was 9.5% (n = 642) and 1-year mortality was 14.4% (n = 1005). HFRS correlated weakly with CFS (Spearman's rho 0.13 (95% CI 0.10-0.15) and had a poor agreement (kappa = 0.12, 95% CI 0.10-0.15). Both frailty measures predicted 1-year survival after adjusting for confounders, CFS (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21-1.31) and HFRS (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15). The CFS had better discrimination of 1-year mortality than HFRS (AUROC 0.66 vs 0.63 p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Both HFRS and CFS independently predicted up to 1-year survival following an ICU admission with moderate discrimination. The CFS was a better predictor of 1-year survival than the HFRS.

Impact of frailty on clinical outcomes in patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis admitted to intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand: a retrospective registry data analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if the impact of frailty on mortality differs between patients with viral pneumonitis due to COVID-19 or other causes. We aimed to determine if a difference exists between patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis. METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database included patients aged ≥ 16 years admitted to 153 ICUs between 01/012020 and 12/31/2021 with admission diagnostic codes for viral pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 4620 patients were studied, and 3077 (66.6%) had COVID-19. The patients with COVID-19 were younger (median [IQR] 57.0 [44.7-68.3] vs. 66.1 [52.0-76.2]; p < 0.001) and less frail (median [IQR] CFS 3 [2-4] vs. 4 [3-5]; p < 0.001) than non-COVID-19 patients. The overall hospital mortality was similar between the patients with and without COVID-19 (14.7% vs. 14.9%; p = 0.82). Frailty alone as a predictor of mortality showed only moderate discrimination in differentiating survivors from those who died but was similar between patients with and without COVID-19 (AUROC 0.68 vs. 0.66; p = 0.42). Increasing frailty scores were associated with hospital mortality, after adjusting for Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death score and sex. However, the effect of frailty was similar in patients with and without COVID-19 (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.19-1.41 vs. OR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.11-1.37). CONCLUSION: The presence of frailty was an independent risk factor for mortality. However, the impact of frailty on outcomes was similar in COVID-19 patients compared to other causes of viral pneumonitis.

Association between frailty and clinical outcomes in surgical patients admitted to intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative frailty may be a strong predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes. We investigated the association between frailty and clinical outcomes in surgical patients admitted to the ICU. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for relevant articles. We included full-text original English articles that used any frailty measure, reporting results of surgical adult patients (≥18 yr old) admitted to ICUs with mortality as the main outcome. Data on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and discharge destination were extracted. The quality of included studies and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. RESULTS: Thirteen observational studies met inclusion criteria. In total, 58 757 patients were included; 22 793 (39.4%) were frail. Frailty was associated with an increased risk of short-term (risk ratio [RR]=2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.99-3.56) and long-term mortality (RR=2.66; 95% CI: 1.32-5.37). Frail patients had longer ICU length of stay (mean difference [MD]=1.5 days; 95% CI: 0.8-2.2) and hospital length of stay (MD=3.9 days; 95% CI: 1.4-6.5). Duration of mechanical ventilation was longer in frail patients (MD=22 h; 95% CI: 1.7-42.3) and they were more likely to be discharged to a healthcare facility (RR=2.34; 95% CI: 1.36-4.01). CONCLUSION: Patients with frailty requiring postoperative ICU admission for elective and non-elective surgeries had increased risk of mortality, lengthier admissions, and increased likelihood of non-home discharge. Preoperative frailty assessments and risk stratification are essential in patient and clinician planning, and critical care resource utilisation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020210121.

Case Fatality Rates for Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. A Meta-analysis.

Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable.Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV.Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the "reported CFR" for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. "Definitive hospital CFR" for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4-49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3-85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger's regression test suggesting no publication bias.Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies.Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997).

Timely goals of care documentation in patients with frailty in the COVID-19 era: a retrospective multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: Older frail patients are more likely to have timely goals of care (GOC) documentation than non-frail patients. AIMS: To investigate whether timely documentation of GOC within 72 h differed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (2019) for older frail patients. METHODS: Multi-site retrospective cohort study was conducted in two public hospitals where all consecutive frail adult patients aged ≥65 years were admitted under medical units for at least 24 h between 1 March 31 and October in 2019 and between 1 March and 31 October 2020 were included. The GOC was derived from electronic records. Frailty status was derived from hospital coding data using hospital frailty risk score (frail ≥5). The primary outcome was the documentation of GOC within 72 h of hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, rapid response call, intensive care unit admission, prolonged hospital length of stay (≥10 days) and time to the documentation of GOC. RESULTS: The study population comprised 2021 frail patients admitted in 2019 and 1849 admitted in 2020, aged 81.2 and 90.9 years respectively. The proportion of patients with timely GOC was lower in 2020, than 2019 (48.3% (893/1849) vs 54.9% (1109/2021); P = 0.021). After adjusting for confounding factors, patients in 2020 were less likely to receive timely GOC (odds ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.88). Overall time to GOC documentation was longer in 2020 (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93). CONCLUSION: Timely GOC documentation occurred less frequently in frail patients during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the pre-COVID-19 era.

Frailty and mortality associations in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational data during the pandemic have demonstrated mixed associations between frailty and mortality. AIM: To examine associations between frailty and short-term mortality in patients hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase and the COVID-19 living systematic review from 1 December 2019 to 15 July 2021. Studies reporting mortality and frailty scores in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (age ≥18 years) were included. Data on patient demographics, short-term mortality (in hospital or within 30 days), intensive care unit (ICU) admission and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies reporting 34 628 patients were included. Overall, 26.2% (n = 9061) died. Patients who died were older (76.7 ± 9.6 vs 69.2 ± 13.4), more likely male (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.11) and had more comorbidities. Fifty-eight percent of patients were frail. Adjusting for age, there was no difference in short-term mortality between frail and non-frail patients (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.84-1.28). The non-frail patients were commonly admitted to ICU (27.2% (4256/15639) vs 29.1% (3567/12274); P = 0.011) and had a higher mortality risk (RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.30-2.03) than frail patients. Among patients receiving IMV, there was no difference in mortality between frail and non-frail (RR = 1.62; 95% CI 0.93-2.77). CONCLUSION: This systematic review did not demonstrate an independent association between frailty status and short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19. Patients with frailty were less commonly admitted to ICU and non-frail patients were more likely to receive IMV and had higher mortality risk. This finding may be related to allocation decisions for patients with frailty amidst the pandemic.

Defining ICD-10 surrogate variables to estimate the modified frailty index: a Delphi-based approach.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no validated globally and freely available tools to estimate the modified frailty index (mFI). The widely available and non-proprietary International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) coding could be used as a surrogate for the mFI. We aimed to establish an appropriate set of the ICD-10 codes for comorbidities to be used to estimate the eleven-variable mFI. METHODS: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of intensivists and geriatricians using iterative rounds of an online survey, was conducted between March and July 2021. The consensus was set a priori at 75% overall agreement. Additionally, we assessed if survey responses differed between intensivists and geriatricians. Finally, we ascertained the level of agreement. RESULTS: A total of 21 clinicians participated in all 3 Delphi surveys. Most (86%, 18/21) had more than 5-years' experience as specialists. The agreement proportionately increased with every Delphi survey. After the third survey, the panel had reached 75% consensus in 87.5% (112/128) of ICD-10 codes. The initially included 128 ICD-10 variables were narrowed down to 54 at the end of the 3 surveys. The inter-rater agreements between intensivists and geriatricians were moderate for surveys 1 and 3 (κ = 0.728, κ = 0.780) respectively, and strong for survey 2 (κ = 0.811). CONCLUSIONS: This quantitative Delphi survey of a panel of experienced intensivists and geriatricians achieved consensus for appropriate ICD-10 codes to estimate the mFI. Future studies should focus on validating the mFI estimated from these ICD-10 codes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Risk perception and emotional wellbeing in healthcare workers involved in rapid response calls during the COVID-19 pandemic: A substudy of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has effected major changes to healthcare delivery within acute care settings. Rapid response calls (RRCs) in healthcare organisations have been effective at identifying and urgently managing acute clinical deterioration. Code-95 RRC were introduced to prewarn healthcare workers (HCWs) attending to patients suspected or confirmed with COVID-19 infection. AIMS: The primary aim of the study was to identify the personal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCWs involved in attending Code-95 RRC. We sought to evaluate their perception of risks and effects on wellbeing and identify potential opportunities for improvement at organisational levels. METHODS: We undertook a detailed survey on HCWs attending Code-95 RRCs, including questions that sought to understand the impact of the pandemic as well as their perception of infection risk and emotional wellbeing. This was a substudy of the prospective cross-sectional single-centre survey of HCWs that was conducted over a 3-week period at Frankston Hospital, Victoria, Australia. We adopted a quantitative content analysis approach for free-text responses in this secondary analysis. RESULTS: Four hundred two free-text comments were received from 297 respondents and were analysed. More than two-thirds (68%, 223/297) were female. Of all comments, 39% (155/402) were related to organisational issues including communication, confusion due to constantly changing infection control policies, and insufficient training. Thirty-three percent of comments (133/402) raised issues regarding the adequacy of personal protective equipment. Anxiety was reported in 25% of comments (101/402) with concerns predominantly relating to emotional stress and fatigue, risks of virus exposure and transmitting the infection to others, and COVID-19 precautions impairing care delivery. CONCLUSION(S): Our study raises important issues that have relevance for all healthcare organisations in the management of patients with COVID-19. These include the importance of improving communication, especially when infection control policies are revised, optimising training, maintaining adequate personal protective equipment, and HCW support. Early recognition and management of these issues are crucial to maintain optimal healthcare delivery.

Personal protective equipment preparedness in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An Asia-Pacific follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections. OBJECTIVES: To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2. FINDINGS: Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.

Development and validation of a tool to appraise guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 infection control strategies in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines on infection control strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are incomprehensive and/or ambiguous may compromise HCWs' safety. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection control strategies in HCWs based on the guidelines published early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND OUTCOMES: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was performed. The tool was validated by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific, and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income. RESULTS: Overall consensus (≥75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The Delphi panel recommended an ideal infection control guideline should encompass six domains: general characteristics (domain 1), engineering recommendations (domain 2), personal protective equipment (PPE) use (domain 3), and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection control. The appraisal tool performed well across the six domains, and the inter-rater agreement was excellent for the 40 guidelines. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 than in domains 4-6, and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries. CONCLUSION: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Engineering recommendations aspects of infection control, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use, and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high-quality HCW infection control guidelines during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development.

Colorectal Surgery in Critically Unwell Patients: A Multidisciplinary Approach.

A proportion of patients require critical care support following elective or urgent colorectal procedures. Similarly, critically ill patients in intensive care units may also need colorectal surgery on occasions. This patient population is increasing in some jurisdictions given an aging population and increasing societal expectations. As such, this population often includes elderly, frail patients or patients with significant comorbidities. Careful stratification of operative risks including the need for prolonged intensive care support should be part of the consenting process. In high-risk patients, especially in setting of unplanned surgery, treatment goals should be clearly defined, and appropriate ceiling of care should be established to minimize care that is not in the best interest of the patient. In this article we describe approaches to critically unwell patients requiring colorectal surgery and how a multidisciplinary approach with proactive intensive care involvement can help achieve the best outcomes for these patients.

Prone Positioning of Nonintubated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

A Systematic Review of the Incidence and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of readmitted COVID-19 survivors.

The objective of the present study is to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients who were readmitted to hospital emergency departments or required re-hospitalisation following an index hospitalisation with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and pre-print websites was conducted between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Studies reporting on the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who represent or require hospital admission were included. Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. Data were synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Six studies reporting on 547 readmitted patients were included. The overall incidence was 4.4%, most common in males (57.2%), and due to respiratory distress or prolonged COVID-19. Readmitted patients had a shorter initial hospital length of stay (LOS) compared with those with a single hospitalisation (8.1 ± 10.6 vs 13.9 ± 10.2 days). The mean time to readmission was 7.6 ± 6.0 days; the mean LOS on re-hospitalisation was 6.3 ± 5.6 days. Hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69-2.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.38-2.27; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and chronic renal failure (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.09-5.14; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were more common in these patients. Intensive care admission rates were similar between the two groups; 12.8% (22/172) of readmitted patients died. In summary, readmitted patients following an index hospitalisation for COVID-19 were more commonly males with multiple comorbidities. Shorter initial hospital LOS and unresolved primary illness may have contributed to readmission.