Effectiveness of Updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB and BA.2.86/JN.1 Lineage Hospitalization and a Comparison of Clinical Severity - IVY Network, 26 Hospitals, October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024.

Background: Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) and severity of SARS-CoV-2 variants can inform public health risk assessments and decisions about vaccine composition. BA.2.86 and its descendants, including JN.1 (referred to collectively as "JN lineages"), emerged in late 2023 and exhibited substantial genomic divergence from co-circulating XBB lineages. Methods: We analyzed patients hospitalized with COVID-19-like illness at 26 hospitals in 20 U.S. states admitted October 18, 2023-March 9, 2024. Using a test-negative, case-control design, we estimated the effectiveness of an updated 2023-2024 (Monovalent XBB.1.5) COVID-19 vaccine dose against sequence-confirmed XBB and JN lineage hospitalization using logistic regression. Odds of severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death, were compared for JN versus XBB lineage hospitalizations using logistic regression. Results: 585 case-patients with XBB lineages, 397 case-patients with JN lineages, and 4,580 control-patients were included. VE in the first 7-89 days after receipt of an updated dose was 54.2% (95% CI = 36.1%-67.1%) against XBB lineage hospitalization and 32.7% (95% CI = 1.9%-53.8%) against JN lineage hospitalization. Odds of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% CI = 0.46-1.38) and IMV or death (aOR 0.69; 95% CI = 0.34-1.40) were not significantly different among JN compared to XBB lineage hospitalizations. Conclusions: Updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccination provided protection against both XBB and JN lineage hospitalization, but protection against the latter may be attenuated by immune escape. Clinical severity of JN lineage hospitalizations was not higher relative to XBB lineage hospitalizations.

Long-term outcomes after treatment of delirium during critical illness with antipsychotics (MIND-USA): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common during critical illness and is associated with long-term cognitive impairment and disability. Antipsychotics are frequently used to treat delirium, but their effects on long-term outcomes are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of antipsychotic treatment of delirious, critically ill patients on long-term cognitive, functional, psychological, and quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS: This prespecified, long-term follow-up to the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 MIND-USA Study was conducted in 16 hospitals throughout the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) who had been admitted to an intensive care unit with respiratory failure or septic or cardiogenic shock were eligible for inclusion in the study if they had delirium. Participants were randomly assigned-using a computer-generated, permuted-block randomisation scheme with stratification by trial site and age-in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous placebo, haloperidol, or ziprasidone for up to 14 days. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment group assignment. 3 months and 12 months after randomisation, we assessed survivors' cognitive, functional, psychological, quality-of-life, and employment outcomes using validated telephone-administered tests and questionnaires. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01211522, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2011, and Aug 12, 2017, we screened 20 914 individuals, of whom 566 were eligible and consented or had consent provided to participate. Of these 566 patients, 184 were assigned to the placebo group, 192 to the haloperidol group, and 190 to the ziprasidone group. 1-year survival and follow-up rates were similar between groups. Cognitive impairment was common in all three treatment groups, with a third of survivors impaired at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up in all groups. More than half of the surveyed survivors in each group had cognitive or physical limitations (or both) that precluded employment at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up. At both 3 months and 12 months, neither haloperidol (adjusted odds ratio 1·22 [95% CI 0·73-2.04] at 3 months and 1·12 [0·60-2·11] at 12 months) nor ziprasidone (1·07 [0·59-1·96] at 3 months and 0·94 [0·62-1·44] at 12 months) significantly altered cognitive outcomes, as measured by the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status T score, compared with placebo. We also found no evidence that functional, psychological, quality-of-life, or employment outcomes improved with haloperidol or ziprasidone compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In delirious, critically ill patients, neither haloperidol nor ziprasidone had a significant effect on cognitive, functional, psychological, or quality-of-life outcomes among survivors. Our findings, along with insufficient evidence of short-term benefit and frequent inappropriate continuation of antipsychotics at hospital discharge, indicate that antipsychotics should not be used routinely to treat delirium in critically ill adults. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus vs COVID-19 and Influenza Among Hospitalized US Adults.

Importance: On June 21, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended the first respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines for adults aged 60 years and older using shared clinical decision-making. Understanding the severity of RSV disease in adults can help guide this clinical decision-making. Objective: To describe disease severity among adults hospitalized with RSV and compare it with the severity of COVID-19 and influenza disease by vaccination status. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, adults aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 US states from February 1, 2022, to May 31, 2023. Clinical data during each patient's hospitalization were collected using standardized forms. Data were analyzed from August to October 2023. Exposures: RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Using multivariable logistic regression, severity of RSV disease was compared with COVID-19 and influenza severity, by COVID-19 and influenza vaccination status, for a range of clinical outcomes, including the composite of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death. Results: Of 7998 adults (median [IQR] age, 67 [54-78] years; 4047 [50.6%] female) included, 484 (6.1%) were hospitalized with RSV, 6422 (80.3%) were hospitalized with COVID-19, and 1092 (13.7%) were hospitalized with influenza. Among patients with RSV, 58 (12.0%) experienced IMV or death, compared with 201 of 1422 unvaccinated patients with COVID-19 (14.1%) and 458 of 5000 vaccinated patients with COVID-19 (9.2%), as well as 72 of 699 unvaccinated patients with influenza (10.3%) and 20 of 393 vaccinated patients with influenza (5.1%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of IMV or in-hospital death were not significantly different among patients hospitalized with RSV and unvaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.13; P = .22) or influenza (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; P = .35); however, the odds of IMV or death were significantly higher among patients hospitalized with RSV compared with vaccinated patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.86; P = .03) or influenza disease (aOR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.62-4.86; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized in this US cohort during the 16 months before the first RSV vaccine recommendations, RSV disease was less common but similar in severity compared with COVID-19 or influenza disease among unvaccinated patients and more severe than COVID-19 or influenza disease among vaccinated patients for the most serious outcomes of IMV or death.

Respiratory drive heterogeneity associated with systemic inflammation and vascular permeability in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory drive often differs among patients with similar clinical characteristics. Readily observable factors like acid-base state, oxygenation, mechanics, and sedation depth do not fully explain drive heterogeneity. This study evaluated the relationship of systemic inflammation and vascular permeability markers with respiratory drive and clinical outcomes in ARDS. METHODS: ARDS patients enrolled in the multicenter EPVent-2 trial with requisite data and plasma biomarkers were included. Neuromuscular blockade recipients were excluded. Respiratory drive was measured as PES0.1, the change in esophageal pressure during the first 0.1 s of inspiratory effort. Plasma angiopoietin-2, interleukin-6, and interleukin-8 were measured concomitantly, and 60-day clinical outcomes evaluated. RESULTS: 54.8% of 124 included patients had detectable respiratory drive (PES0.1 range of 0-5.1 cm H2O). Angiopoietin-2 and interleukin-8, but not interleukin-6, were associated with respiratory drive independently of acid-base, oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, and sedation depth. Sedation depth was not significantly associated with PES0.1 in an unadjusted model, or after adjusting for mechanics and chemoreceptor input. However, upon adding angiopoietin-2, interleukin-6, or interleukin-8 to models, lighter sedation was significantly associated with higher PES0.1. Risk of death was less with moderate drive (PES0.1 of 0.5-2.9 cm H2O) compared to either lower drive (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% CI 0.82-3.05) or higher drive (2.63, 95% CI 1.21-5.70) (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ARDS, systemic inflammatory and vascular permeability markers were independently associated with higher respiratory drive. The heterogeneous response of respiratory drive to varying sedation depth may be explained in part by differences in inflammation and vascular permeability.

From ICU Syndromes to ICU Subphenotypes: Consensus Report and Recommendations For Developing Precision Medicine in ICU.

Critical care uses syndromic definitions to describe patient groups for clinical practice and research. There is growing recognition that a "precision medicine" approach is required and that integrated biologic and physiologic data identify reproducible subpopulations that may respond differently to treatment. This article reviews the current state of the field and considers how to successfully transition to a precision medicine approach. In order to impact clinical care, identified subpopulations must do more than differentiate prognosis. They must differentiate response to treatment, ideally by defining subgroups with distinct functional or pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). There are now multiple examples of reproducible subpopulations of sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and acute kidney or brain injury described using clinical, physiological, and/or biological data. Many of these subpopulations have demonstrated the potential to define differential treatment response, largely in retrospective studies, and that the same treatment-responsive subpopulations may cross multiple clinical syndromes (treatable traits). To bring about a change in clinical practice, a precision medicine approach must be evaluated in prospective clinical studies requiring novel adaptive trial designs. Several such studies are underway but there are multiple challenges to be tackled. Such subpopulations must be readily identifiable and be applicable to all critically ill populations around the world. Subdividing clinical syndromes into subpopulations will require large patient numbers. Global collaboration of investigators, clinicians, industry and patients over many years will therefore be required to transition to a precision medicine approach and ultimately realize treatment advances seen in other medical fields. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

A New Global Definition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: Since publication of the 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), several developments have supported the need for an expansion of the definition, including the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, the expansion of the use of pulse oximetry in place of arterial blood gases, the use of ultrasound for chest imaging, and the need for applicability in resource-limited settings. Methods: A consensus conference of 32 critical care ARDS experts was convened, had six virtual meetings (June 2021 to March 2022), and subsequently obtained input from members of several critical care societies. The goal was to develop a definition that would 1) identify patients with the currently accepted conceptual framework for ARDS, 2) facilitate rapid ARDS diagnosis for clinical care and research, 3) be applicable in resource-limited settings, 4) be useful for testing specific therapies, and 5) be practical for communication to patients and caregivers. Results: The committee made four main recommendations: 1) include high-flow nasal oxygen with a minimum flow rate of ⩾30 L/min; 2) use PaO2:FiO2 ⩽ 300 mm Hg or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry SpO2:FiO2 ⩽ 315 (if oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry is ⩽97%) to identify hypoxemia; 3) retain bilateral opacities for imaging criteria but add ultrasound as an imaging modality, especially in resource-limited areas; and 4) in resource-limited settings, do not require positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygen flow rate, or specific respiratory support devices. Conclusions: We propose a new global definition of ARDS that builds on the Berlin definition. The recommendations also identify areas for future research, including the need for prospective assessments of the feasibility, reliability, and prognostic validity of the proposed global definition.

Vaccine Effectiveness Against Influenza A-Associated Hospitalization, Organ Failure, and Death: United States, 2022-2023.

BACKGROUND: Influenza circulation during the 2022-2023 season in the United States largely returned to pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-pandemic patterns and levels. Influenza A(H3N2) viruses were detected most frequently this season, predominately clade 3C.2a1b.2a, a close antigenic match to the vaccine strain. METHODS: To understand effectiveness of the 2022-2023 influenza vaccine against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failure, and death, a multicenter sentinel surveillance network in the United States prospectively enrolled adults hospitalized with acute respiratory illness between 1 October 2022, and 28 February 2023. Using the test-negative design, vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against influenza-associated hospitalization, organ failures, and death were measured by comparing the odds of current-season influenza vaccination in influenza-positive case-patients and influenza-negative, SARS-CoV-2-negative control-patients. RESULTS: A total of 3707 patients, including 714 influenza cases (33% vaccinated) and 2993 influenza- and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-negative controls (49% vaccinated) were analyzed. VE against influenza-associated hospitalization was 37% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27%-46%) and varied by age (18-64 years: 47% [30%-60%]; ≥65 years: 28% [10%-43%]), and virus (A[H3N2]: 29% [6%-46%], A[H1N1]: 47% [23%-64%]). VE against more severe influenza-associated outcomes included: 41% (29%-50%) against influenza with hypoxemia treated with supplemental oxygen; 65% (56%-72%) against influenza with respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal failure treated with organ support; and 66% (40%-81%) against influenza with respiratory failure treated with invasive mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: During an early 2022-2023 influenza season with a well-matched influenza vaccine, vaccination was associated with reduced risk of influenza-associated hospitalization and organ failure.

Symptoms and Impaired Quality of Life After COVID-19 Hospitalization: Effect of Therapeutic Heparin in Non-ICU Patients in the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 Acute Trial: Effect on 3-Month Symptoms and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic-dose heparin decreased days requiring organ support in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but its impact on persistent symptoms or quality of life (QOL) is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: In the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 4 ACUTE (ACTIV-4a) trial, was randomization of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 illness to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin associated with fewer symptoms and better QOL at 90 days? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial at 34 hospitals in the United States and Spain. A total of 727 noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from September 2020 to June 2021 were randomized to therapeutic-dose vs prophylactic heparin. Only patients with 90-day data on symptoms and QOL were analyzed. We ascertained symptoms and QOL by the EQ-5D-5L at 90-day follow-up in a preplanned analysis for the ACTIV-4a trial. Individual domains assessed by the EQ-5D-5L included mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 571 patients, 288 (50.4%) reported at least one symptom. Among 410 patients, 148 (36.1%) reported moderate to severe impairment in one or more domains of the EQ-5D-5L. The presence of 90-day symptoms was associated with moderate-severe impairment in the EQ-5D-5L domains of mobility (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.37; 95% CI, 1.22-4.59), usual activities (aOR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.75-7.65), pain (aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.43-4.12), and anxiety (aOR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.06-9.02), compared with patients reporting no symptoms There were no differences in symptoms or in the overall EQ-5D-5L index score between treatment groups. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less moderate-severe impairment in all physical functioning domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities) but was independently significant only in the self-care domain (aOR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.96). INTERPRETATION: In a randomized controlled trial of hospitalized noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with less severe impairment in the self-care domain of EQ-5D-5L. However, this type of impairment was uncommon, affecting 23 individuals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04505774; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Design and implementation of the hospital airway resuscitation trial.

Guidelines for the management of in-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation are often drawn from evidence generated in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest populations and applied to the in-hospital setting. Approach to airway management during resuscitation is one example of this phenomenon, with the recommendation to place either a supraglottic airway or endotracheal tube when performing advanced airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest based mainly in clinical trials conducted in the out-of-hospital setting. The Hospital Airway Resuscitation Trial (HART) is a pragmatic cluster-randomized superiority trial comparing a strategy of first choice supraglottic airway to a strategy of first choice endotracheal intubation during resuscitation from in-hospital cardiac arrest. The design includes a number of innovative elements such as a highly pragmatic design drawing from electronic health records and a novel primary outcome measure for cardiac arrest trials-alive-and-ventilator free days. Many of the topics explored in the design of HART have wide relevance to other trials in in-hospital cardiac arrest populations.

Estimated glomerular filtration rate among intensive care unit survivors: From the removal of race coefficient to cystatin C-based equations.

PURPOSE: Black race coefficient used in serum creatinine (sCr)-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculation may perpetuate racial disparities. Among intensive care unit (ICU) survivors, sCr overestimates kidney function due to sarcopenia. Cystatin C (cysC) is a race- and muscle mass-independent eGFR marker. We investigated the impact of removing the race coefficient from sCr-based eGFR and compared cysC- and sCr-based eGFR in ICU survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 30,920 patients from 2 institutions in the Bronx and Boston, eGFR was calculated at hospital discharge using sCr-based equations with and without race coefficient (eGFRsCr2009 and eGFRsCr2021). In a subset with available cysC between ICU admission and 1-year follow-up, sCr- and cysC-based estimates were compared. RESULTS: eGFRsCr2021 was higher than eGFRsCr2009 by a median of 4 ml/min/1.73 m2 among non-Black patients and lower by a median of 8 ml/min/1.73 m2 among Black patients. Removing race coefficient reclassified 12.9% of non-Black subjects and 16.1% of Black subjects to better and worse eGFR category, respectively, and differentially impacted the prevalence of kidney dysfunction between the institutions due to differences in racial composition. Among 51 patients with available cysC (108 measurements), cysC-based estimates were lower than sCr-based estimates (median difference 9 to 16 ml/min/1.73 m2), resulting in reclassification to worse eGFR category in 34% to 53.5% of measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Among ICU survivors, removal of race coefficient leads to lower eGFR in Black patients and may contribute to overestimation of kidney function in non-Black patients. While cysC is rarely used, estimates based on this marker are significantly lower than those based on sCr.

"Postponing it Any Later Would not be so Great": A Cognitive Interview Study of How Physicians Decide to Initiate Goals of Care Discussions in the Hospital.

BACKGROUND: There are missed opportunities to discuss goals and preferences for care with seriously ill patients in the acute care setting. It is unknown which factors most influence clinician decision-making about communication at the point of care. OBJECTIVE: This study utilized a cognitive-interviewing technique to better understand what leads clinicians to decide to have a goals of care (GOC) discussion in the acute care setting. METHODS: A convenience sample of 15 oncologists, intensivists and hospitalists were recruited from a single academic medical center in a large urban area. Participants completed a cognitive interview describing their thought process when deciding whether to engage in GOC discussions in clinical vignettes. RESULTS: 6 interconnected factors emerged as important in determining how likely the physician was to consider engaging in GOC at that time; (1) the participants' mental model of GOC, (2) timing of GOC related to stability, acuity and reversibility of the patient's condition, (3) clinical factors such as uncertainty, prognosis and recency of diagnosis, (4) patient factors including age and emotional state, (5) participants' role on the care team, and (6) clinician factors such as emotion and communication skill level. CONCLUSION: Participants were hesitant to commit to the present moment as the right time for GOC discussions based on variations in clinical presentation. Clinical decision support systems that include more targeted information about risk of clinical deterioration and likelihood of reversal of the acute condition may prompt physicians to discuss GOC, but more support for managing discomfort with uncertainty is also needed.

Angiotensin II treatment is associated with improved oxygenation in ARDS patients with refractory vasodilatory shock.

BACKGROUND: The physiological effects of renin-angiotensin system modulation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain controversial and have not been investigated in randomized trials. We sought to determine whether angiotensin-II treatment is associated with improved oxygenation in shock-associated ARDS. METHODS: Post-hoc subgroup analysis of the Angiotensin Therapy for High Output Shock (ATHOS-3) trial. We studied patients who met modified Berlin ARDS criteria at enrollment. The primary outcome was PaO2/FiO2-ratio (P:F) at 48-h adjusted for baseline P:F. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation index, ventilatory ratio, PEEP, minute-ventilation, hemodynamic measures, patients alive and ventilator-free by day-7, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 81 ARDS patients, 34 (42%) and 47 (58%) were randomized to angiotensin-II or placebo, respectively. In angiotensin-II patients, mean P:F increased from 155 mmHg (SD: 69) at baseline to 265 mmHg (SD: 160) at hour-48 compared with no change with placebo (148 mmHg (SD: 63) at baseline versus 164 mmHg (SD: 74) at hour-48)(baseline-adjusted difference: + 98.4 mmHg [95%CI 35.2-161.5], p = 0.0028). Similarly, oxygenation index decreased by - 6.0 cmH2O/mmHg at hour-48 with angiotensin-II versus - 0.4 cmH2O/mmHg with placebo (baseline-adjusted difference: -4.8 cmH2O/mmHg, [95%CI - 8.6 to - 1.1], p = 0.0273). There was no difference in PEEP, minute ventilation, or ventilatory ratio. Twenty-two (64.7%) angiotensin-II patients had sustained hemodynamic response to treatment at hour-3 versus 17 (36.2%) placebo patients (absolute risk-difference: 28.5% [95%CI 6.5-47.0%], p = 0.0120). At day-7, 7/34 (20.6%) angiotensin-II patients were alive and ventilator-free versus 5/47(10.6%) placebo patients. Day-28 mortality was 55.9% in the angiotensin-II group versus 68.1% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In post-hoc analysis of the ATHOS-3 trial, angiotensin-II was associated with improved oxygenation versus placebo among patients with ARDS and catecholamine-refractory vasodilatory shock. These findings provide a physiologic rationale for trials of angiotensin-II as treatment for ARDS with vasodilatory shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT02338843 (Registered January 14th 2015).

Early Serial Echocardiographic and Ultrasonographic Findings in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

Background: Cardiac function of critically ill patients with COVID-19 generally has been reported from clinically obtained data. Echocardiographic deformation imaging can identify ventricular dysfunction missed by traditional echocardiographic assessment. Research Question: What is the prevalence of ventricular dysfunction and what are its implications for the natural history of critical COVID-19? Study Design and Methods: This is a multicenter prospective cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. We performed serial echocardiography and lower extremity vascular ultrasound on hospitalization days 1, 3, and 8. We defined left ventricular (LV) dysfunction as the absolute value of longitudinal strain of < 17% or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of < 50%. Primary clinical outcome was inpatient survival. Results: We enrolled 110 patients. Thirty-nine (35.5%) died before hospital discharge. LV dysfunction was present at admission in 38 patients (34.5%) and in 21 patients (36.2%) on day 8 (P = .59). Median baseline LVEF was 62% (interquartile range [IQR], 52%-69%), whereas median absolute value of baseline LV strain was 16% (IQR, 14%-19%). Survivors and nonsurvivors did not differ statistically significantly with respect to day 1 LV strain (17.9% vs 14.4%; P = .12) or day 1 LVEF (60.5% vs 65%; P = .06). Nonsurvivors showed worse day 1 right ventricle (RV) strain than survivors (16.3% vs 21.2%; P = .04). Interpretation: Among patients with critical COVID-19, LV and RV dysfunction is common, frequently identified only through deformation imaging, and early (day 1) RV dysfunction may be associated with clinical outcome.

Disease Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Compared with COVID-19 and Influenza Among Hospitalized Adults Aged ≥60 Years - IVY Network, 20 U.S. States, February 2022-May 2023.

On June 21, 2023, CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination for adults aged ≥60 years, offered to individual adults using shared clinical decision-making. Informed use of these vaccines requires an understanding of RSV disease severity. To characterize RSV-associated severity, 5,784 adults aged ≥60 years hospitalized with acute respiratory illness and laboratory-confirmed RSV, SARS-CoV-2, or influenza infection were prospectively enrolled from 25 hospitals in 20 U.S. states during February 1, 2022-May 31, 2023. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare RSV disease severity with COVID-19 and influenza severity on the basis of the following outcomes: 1) standard flow (<30 L/minute) oxygen therapy, 2) high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), 3) intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 4) invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death. Overall, 304 (5.3%) enrolled adults were hospitalized with RSV, 4,734 (81.8%) with COVID-19 and 746 (12.9%) with influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive standard flow oxygen, HFNC or NIV, and ICU admission than were those hospitalized with COVID-19 or influenza. Patients hospitalized with RSV were more likely to receive IMV or die compared with patients hospitalized with influenza (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; 95% CI = 1.33-3.26). Among hospitalized older adults, RSV was less common, but was associated with more severe disease than COVID-19 or influenza. High disease severity in older adults hospitalized with RSV is important to consider in shared clinical decision-making regarding RSV vaccination.

Inflammatory subphenotypes in patients at risk of ARDS: evidence from the LIPS-A trial.

PURPOSE: Latent class analysis (LCA) has identified hyper- and non-hyper-inflammatory subphenotypes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is unknown how early inflammatory subphenotypes can be identified in patients at risk of ARDS. We aimed to test for inflammatory subphenotypes upon presentation to the emergency department. METHODS: LIPS-A was a trial of aspirin to prevent ARDS in at-risk patients presenting to the emergency department. In this secondary analysis, we performed LCA using clinical, blood test, and biomarker variables. RESULTS: Among 376 (96.4%) patients from the LIPS-A trial, two classes were identified upon presentation to the emergency department (day 0): 72 (19.1%) patients demonstrated characteristics of a hyper-inflammatory and 304 (80.9%) of a non-hyper-inflammatory subphenotype. 15.3% of patients in the hyper- and 8.2% in the non-hyper-inflammatory class developed ARDS (p = 0.07). Patients in the hyper-inflammatory class had fewer ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range, IQR] 28[23-28] versus 28[27-28]; p = 0.010), longer intensive care unit (3[2-6] versus 0[0-3] days; p < 0.001) and hospital (9[6-18] versus 5[3-9] days; p < 0.001) length of stay, and higher 1-year mortality (34.7% versus 20%; p = 0.008). Subphenotypes were identified on day 1 and 4 in a subgroup with available data (n = 244). 77.9% of patients remained in their baseline class throughout day 4. Patients with a hyper-inflammatory subphenotype throughout the study period (n = 22) were at higher risk of ARDS (36.4% versus 10.4%; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Hyper- and non-hyper-inflammatory subphenotypes may precede ARDS development, remain identifiable over time, and can be identified upon presentation to the emergency department. A hyper-inflammatory subphenotype predicts worse outcomes.

Long short-term memory model identifies ARDS and in-hospital mortality in both non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and in-hospital mortality using long short-term memory (LSTM) framework in a mechanically ventilated (MV) non-COVID-19 cohort and a COVID-19 cohort. METHODS: We included MV ICU patients between 2017 and 2018 and reviewed patient records for ARDS and death. Using active learning, we enriched this cohort with MV patients from 2016 to 2019 (MV non-COVID-19, n=3905). We collected a second validation cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in 2020 (COVID+, n=5672). We trained an LSTM model using 132 structured features on the MV non-COVID-19 training cohort and validated on the MV non-COVID-19 validation and COVID-19 cohorts. RESULTS: Applying LSTM (model score 0.9) on the MV non-COVID-19 validation cohort had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 57%. The model identified the risk of ARDS 10 hours before ARDS and 9.4 days before death. The sensitivity (70%) and specificity (84%) of the model on the COVID-19 cohort are lower than MV non-COVID-19 cohort. For the COVID-19 + cohort and MV COVID-19 + patients, the model identified the risk of in-hospital mortality 2.4 days and 1.54 days before death, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our LSTM algorithm accurately and timely identified the risk of ARDS or death in MV non-COVID-19 and COVID+ patients. By alerting the risk of ARDS or death, we can improve the implementation of evidence-based ARDS management and facilitate goals-of-care discussions in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Using the LSTM algorithm in hospitalised patients identifies the risk of ARDS or death.

Effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on severe acute kidney injury and death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC randomized trial.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 is partly mediated by thromboinflammation. In noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. Objectives: We investigated whether therapeutic-dose heparin reduces the incidence of AKI or death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: We report a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC open-label, multiplatform randomized trial of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of severe AKI (≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) or all-cause mortality in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Bayesian statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, D-dimer, enrollment period, country, site, and platform. Results: Among 1922 enrolled, 23 were excluded due to pre-existing end stage kidney disease and 205 were missing baseline or follow-up creatinine measurements. Severe AKI or death occurred in 4.4% participants assigned to therapeutic-dose heparin and 5.5% assigned to thromboprophylaxis (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.47, 1.10); the posterior probability of superiority for therapeutic-dose heparin (relative risk < 1.0) was 93.6%. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a 97.7% probability of superiority to reduce the composite of stage 3 AKI or death (3.1% vs 4.6%; aRR: 0.64; 95% CrI: 0.40, 0.99) compared to thromboprophylaxis. Conclusion: Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a high probability of superiority to reduce the incidence of in-hospital severe AKI or death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Modifiable in-hospital factors for 12-month global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and depression symptoms in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify potentially modifiable in-hospital factors associated with global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and depression symptoms at 12 months. METHODS: This was a multi-center prospective cohort study in adult hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. The following in-hospital factors were assessed: delirium; frequency of in-person and virtual visits by friends and family; and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroid, and remdesivir administration. Twelve-month global cognition was characterized by the MOCA-Blind. Twelve-month PTSD and depression were characterized using the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-V and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, respectively. FINDINGS: Two hundred three patients completed the 12-month follow-up assessments. Remdesivir use was associated with significantly higher cognition at 12 months based on the MOCA-Blind (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06, 3.70). Delirium was associated with worsening 12-month PTSD (aOR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.89, 6.28) and depression (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.84) symptoms. Multiple virtual visits per day during hospitalization was associated with lower 12-month depression symptoms compared to those with less than daily virtual visits (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.85). CONCLUSION: Potentially modifiable factors associated with better long-term outcomes included remdesivir use (associated with better cognitive function), avoidance of delirium (associated with less PTSD and depression symptoms), and increased virtual interactions with friends and family (associated with less depression symptoms).

Development of an automated, general-purpose prediction tool for postoperative respiratory failure using machine learning: A retrospective cohort study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Postoperative respiratory failure is a major surgical complication and key quality metric. Existing prediction tools underperform, are limited to specific populations, and necessitate manual calculation. This limits their implementation. We aimed to create an improved, machine learning powered prediction tool with ideal characteristics for automated calculation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We retrospectively reviewed 101,455 anesthetic procedures from 1/2018 to 6/2021. The primary outcome was the Standardized Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine consensus definition for postoperative respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes were respiratory quality metrics from the National Surgery Quality Improvement Sample, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and CMS. We abstracted from the electronic health record 26 procedural and physiologic variables previously identified as respiratory failure risk factors. We randomly split the cohort and used the Random Forest method to predict the composite outcome in the training cohort. We coined this the RESPIRE model and measured its accuracy in the validation cohort using area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) analysis, among other measures, and compared this with ARISCAT and SPORC-1, two leading prediction tools. We compared performance in a validation cohort using score cut-offs determined in a separate test cohort. MAIN RESULTS: The RESPIRE model exhibited superior accuracy with an AUROC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) compared to 0.82 for both ARISCAT and SPORC-1 (P-for-difference < 0.0001 for both). At comparable 80-90% sensitivities, RESPIRE had higher positive predictive value (11%, 95% CI: 10-12%) and lower false positive rate (12%, 95% CI: 12-13%) compared to 4% and 37% for both ARISCAT and SPORC-1. The RESPIRE model also better predicted the established quality metrics for postoperative respiratory failure. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a general-purpose, machine learning powered prediction tool with superior performance for research and quality-based definitions of postoperative respiratory failure.