Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Failure in Patients With Cancer in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the epidemiological effect-magnitude and outcomes of patients with cancer vs those without cancer who are hospitalized with acute respiratory failure (ARF). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed hospitalizations within the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Patients were classified based on a diagnosis of solid-organ cancer, hematologic cancer, or no cancer. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) failure was defined as patients who initially received NIPPV and had progression to invasive mechanical ventilation. Weighted samples were used to derive population estimates. RESULTS: During the study period, there were an estimated 8,837,209 admissions with ARF in the United States, 8.9% (783,625) of which had solid-organ cancer and 2.0% (176,095) had hematologic cancers. Annually, 319,907 patients with cancer are admitted with ARF, with 27.3% (87,302) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and 10.0% (31,998) requiring NIPPV. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with cancer vs those without cancer (24.0% [76,813] vs 12.3% [322,465]; P<.001), and this proprotion persisted when stratified by the highest method of oxygen delivery. Patients with cancer had longer hospital length of stay (7.0 days [3.0 to 12.0 days] vs 5.0 days [3.0 to 10.0 days]; P<.001) and were more likely to have NIPPV failure (14.9% [3,992] vs 12.8% [41,875]). Compared with those with solid-organ cancer, patients with hematologic cancers experienced worse outcomes. The association between underlying cancer diagnosis and outcomes remained consistent when adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities. CONCLUSION: In the United States, patients with cancer account for over 10% of ARF hospital admissions (959,720 of 8,837,209). They experience an approximately 2-fold higher mortality versus those without cancer. Those with hematologic cancers appear to experience worse outcomes than patients with solid-organ cancers.

Orthopnea secondary to brachial plexitis with bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis.

BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic paralysis can present with orthopnea. We report a unique presentation of bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, an uncommon diagnosis secondary to an unusual cause, brachial plexitis. This report thoroughly describes the patient's presentation, workup, management, and outcome. It also reviews the literature on diaphragmatic paralysis and Parsonage-Turner syndrome. CASE PRESENTATION: A 50-year-old male patient developed insidious orthopnea associated with left shoulder and neck pain over three months with no associated symptoms. On examination, marked dyspnea was observed when the patient was asked to lie down; breath sounds were present and symmetrical, and the neurological examination was normal. The chest radiograph showed an elevated right hemidiaphragm. Echocardiogram was normal. There was a 63% positional reduction in Forced Vital Capacity and maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures on pulmonary function testing. The electromyogram was consistent with neuromuscular weakness involving both brachial plexus and diaphragmatic muscle (Parsonage and Turner syndrome). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to unilateral, bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis may be more challenging to diagnose. On PFT, reduced maximal respiratory pressures, especially the maximal inspiratory pressure, are suggestive. Parsonage-Turner syndrome is rare, usually with unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, but bilateral cases have been reported.

COVID-19 outcome is not affected by anti-CD20 or high-titer convalescent plasma in immunosuppressed patients.

The role of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) convalescent plasma in the treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in immunosuppressed individuals remains controversial. We describe the course of COVID-19 in patients who had received anti-CD20 therapy within the 3 years prior to infection. We compared outcomes between those treated with and those not treated with high titer SARS-CoV2 convalescent plasma. We identified 144 adults treated at Mayo clinic sites who had received anti-CD20 therapies within a median of 5.9 months prior to the COVID-19 index date. About one-third (34.7%) were hospitalized within 14 days and nearly half (47.9%) within 90 days. COVID-19 directed therapy included anti-spike monoclonal antibodies (n = 30, 20.8%), and, among those hospitalized within 14 days (n = 50), remdesivir (n = 45, 90.0%), glucocorticoids (n = 36, 72.0%) and convalescent plasma (n = 24, 48.0%). The duration from receipt of last dose of anti-CD20 therapy did not correlate with outcomes. The overall 90-day mortality rate was 14.7%. Administration of convalescent plasma within 14 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis was not significantly associated with any study outcome. Further study of COVID-19 in CD20-depleted individuals is needed focusing on the early administration of new and potentially combination antiviral agents, associated or not with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma.

Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Clinical Outcomes After Heart Failure Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic, March to October 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and 30-day all-cause readmission and mortality between patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 16 hospitals across 3 geographically dispersed US states. The study included 6769 adults (mean age, 74 years; 56% [5033 of 8989] men) with cumulative 8989 HF hospitalizations: 2341 hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 through October 30, 2020) and 6648 in the pre-COVID-19 (October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2020) comparator group. We used Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analysis to determine whether prespecified study outcomes varied by time frames. RESULTS: The adjusted 30-day readmission rate decreased from 13.1% (872 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 10.0% (234 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk reduction, 23%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89). Conversely, all-cause mortality increased from 9.7% (645 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 11.3% (264 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk increase, 16%; number of admissions needed for one additional death, 62.5; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.39). Despite significant differences in rates of index hospitalization, readmission, and mortality across the study time frames, the disease severity, HF subtypes, and treatment patterns remained unchanged (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this large tristate multicenter cohort study of HF hospitalizations suggest lower rates of index hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions but higher incidence of 30-day mortality with broadly similar use of HF medication, surgical interventions, and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-COVID-19 time frame.

End of life decisions in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: To identify patient, disease and organizational factors associated with decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapies (DFLSTs) in critically ill immunocompromised patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute respiratory failure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the international EFRAIM prospective study, which enrolled 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to 68 ICUs in 16 countries between October 2015 and June 2016. Multivariate logistic analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of DFLSTs. RESULTS: The main causes of immunosuppression were hematological malignancies (50%) and solid tumor (38%). Patients had a median age of 63 yo (54-71). A pulmonologist was involved in the patient management in 38% of cases. DFLSTs had been implemented in 28% of the patients. The following variables were independently associated with DFLSTs: 1) patient-related: older age (OR 1.02 per one year increase, 95% confidence interval(CI) 1.01-1.03,P < 0.001), poor performance status (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.98-3.93, P < 0.001); 2) disease-related: shock (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.45-2.75, P < 0.001), liver failure (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.14-2.21, P = 0.006), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.31-2.46, P < 0.001); 3) organizational: having a pulmonologist involved in patient management (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.36-2.52, P < 0.001), and the presence of a critical care outreach services (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.11-2.38, P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: A DFLST is made in one in four immunocompromised patient admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. Involving a pulmonologist in patient's management is associated with less non beneficial care.

Plasma exchange in the intensive care unit: a narrative review.

In this narrative review, we discuss the relevant issues of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in critically ill patients. For many conditions, the optimal indication, device type, frequency, duration, type of replacement fluid and criteria for stopping TPE are uncertain. TPE is a potentially lifesaving but also invasive procedure with risk of adverse events and complications and requires close monitoring by experienced teams. In the intensive care unit (ICU), the indications for TPE can be divided into (1) absolute, well-established, and evidence-based, for which TPE is recognized as first-line therapy, (2) relative, for which TPE is a recognized second-line treatment (alone or combined) and (3) rescue therapy, where TPE is used with a limited or theoretical evidence base. New indications are emerging and ongoing knowledge gaps, notably regarding the use of TPE during critical illness, support the establishment of a TPE registry dedicated to intensive care medicine.

Access to and safety of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in the United States Expanded Access Program: A national registry study.

BACKGROUND: The United States (US) Expanded Access Program (EAP) to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) convalescent plasma was initiated in response to the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of COVID-19. While randomized clinical trials were in various stages of development and enrollment, there was an urgent need for widespread access to potential therapeutic agents. The objective of this study is to report on the demographic, geographical, and chronological characteristics of patients in the EAP, and key safety metrics following transfusion of COVID-19 convalescent plasma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Mayo Clinic served as the central institutional review board for all participating facilities, and any US physician could participate as a local physician-principal investigator. Eligible patients were hospitalized, were aged 18 years or older, and had-or were at risk of progression to-severe or life-threatening COVID-19; eligible patients were enrolled through the EAP central website. Blood collection facilities rapidly implemented programs to collect convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Demographic and clinical characteristics of all enrolled patients in the EAP were summarized. Temporal patterns in access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma were investigated by comparing daily and weekly changes in EAP enrollment in response to changes in infection rate at the state level. Geographical analyses on access to convalescent plasma included assessing EAP enrollment in all national hospital referral regions, as well as assessing enrollment in metropolitan areas and less populated areas that did not have access to COVID-19 clinical trials. From April 3 to August 23, 2020, 105,717 hospitalized patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19 were enrolled in the EAP. The majority of patients were 60 years of age or older (57.8%), were male (58.4%), and had overweight or obesity (83.8%). There was substantial inclusion of minorities and underserved populations: 46.4% of patients were of a race other than white, and 37.2% of patients were of Hispanic ethnicity. Chronologically and geographically, increases in the number of both enrollments and transfusions in the EAP closely followed confirmed infections across all 50 states. Nearly all national hospital referral regions enrolled and transfused patients in the EAP, including both in metropolitan and in less populated areas. The incidence of serious adverse events was objectively low (<1%), and the overall crude 30-day mortality rate was 25.2% (95% CI, 25.0% to 25.5%). This registry study was limited by the observational and pragmatic study design that did not include a control or comparator group; thus, the data should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the EAP provided widespread access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma in all 50 states, including for underserved racial and ethnic minority populations. The study design of the EAP may serve as a model for future efforts when broad access to a treatment is needed in response to an emerging infectious disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT#: NCT04338360.

Outcome after intubation for septic shock with respiratory distress and hemodynamic compromise: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure in septic patients contributes to higher in-hospital mortality. Intubation may improve outcome but there are no specific criteria for intubation. Intubation of septic patients with respiratory distress and hemodynamic compromise may result in clinical deterioration and precipitate cardiovascular failure. The decision to intubate is complex and multifactorial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of intubation in patients with respiratory distress and predominant hemodynamic instability within 24 h after ICU admission for septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry of adult patients with septic shock admitted to the medical ICU at Mayo Clinic, between April 30, 2014 and December 31, 2017. Septic shock was defined by persistent lactate > 4 mmol/L, mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg, or vasopressor use after 30 mL/kg fluid boluses and suspected or confirmed infection. Patients who remained hospitalized in the ICU at 24 h were separated into intubated while in the ICU and non-intubated groups. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The first analysis used linear regression models and the second analysis used time-dependent propensity score matching to match intubated to non-intubated patients. RESULTS: Overall, 358 (33%) ICU patients were eventually intubated after their ICU admission and 738 (67%) were not. Intubated patients were younger, transferred more often from an outside facility, more critically ill, had more lung infection, and achieved blood pressure goals more often, but lactate normalization within 6 h occurred less often. Among those who remained hospitalized in the ICU 24 h after sepsis diagnosis, the crude in-hospital mortality was higher in intubated than non-intubated patients, 89 (26%) vs. 82 (12%), p < 0.001, as was the ICU mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay. After adjustment, intubation showed no effect on hospital mortality but resulted in fewer hospital-free days through day 28. One-to-one propensity resulted in similar conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Intubation within 24 h of sepsis was not associated with hospital mortality but resulted in fewer 28-day hospital-free days. Although intubation remains a high-risk procedure, we did not identify an increased risk in mortality among septic shock patients with predominant hemodynamic compromise.

Do ventilatory parameters influence outcome in patients with severe acute respiratory infection? Secondary analysis of an international, multicentre14-day inception cohort study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the possible association between ventilatory settings on the first day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this pre-planned sub-study of a prospective, multicentre observational study, 441 patients with SARI who received controlled IMV during the ICU stay were included in the analysis. RESULTS: ICU and hospital mortality rates were 23.1 and 28.1%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, tidal volume and respiratory rate on the first day of IMV were not associated with an increased risk of death; however, higher driving pressure (DP: odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.1, p = 0.011), plateau pressure (Pplat) (OR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04-1.13, p < 0.001) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (OR 1.13; 95% CI: 1.03-1.24, p = 0.006) were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. In subgroup analysis, in hypoxemic patients and in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), higher DP, Pplat, and PEEP were associated with increased risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SARI receiving IMV, higher DP, Pplat and PEEP, and not tidal volume, were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death, especially in those with hypoxemia or ARDS.

Mortality in individuals treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma varies with the geographic provenance of donors.

Successful therapeutics and vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have harnessed the immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Evidence that SARS-CoV-2 exists as locally evolving variants suggests that immunological differences may impact the effectiveness of antibody-based treatments such as convalescent plasma and vaccines. Considering that near-sourced convalescent plasma likely reflects the antigenic composition of local viral strains, we hypothesize that convalescent plasma has a higher efficacy, as defined by death within 30 days of transfusion, when the convalescent plasma donor and treated patient were in close geographic proximity. Results of a series of modeling techniques applied to approximately 28,000 patients from the Expanded Access to Convalescent Plasma program (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04338360) support this hypothesis. This work has implications for the interpretation of clinical studies, the ability to develop effective COVID-19 treatments, and, potentially, for the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as additional locally-evolving variants continue to emerge.

Prioritizing studies of COVID-19 and lessons learned.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 altered research in Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs in an unprecedented manner, leading to adjustments for COVID-19 research. METHODS: CTSA members volunteered to conduct a review on the impact of CTSA network on COVID-19 pandemic with the assistance from NIH survey team in October 2020. The survey questions included the involvement of CTSAs in decision-making concerning the prioritization of COVID-19 studies. Descriptive and statistical analyses were conducted to analyze the survey data. RESULTS: 60 of the 64 CTSAs completed the survey. Most CTSAs lacked preparedness but promptly responded to the pandemic. Early disruption of research triggered, enhanced CTSA engagement, creation of dedicated research areas and triage for prioritization of COVID-19 studies. CTSAs involvement in decision-making were 16.75 times more likely to create dedicated diagnostic laboratories (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17-129.39; P < 0.01). Likewise, institutions with internal funding were 3.88 times more likely to establish COVID-19 dedicated research (95% CI = 1.12-13.40; P < 0.05). CTSAs were instrumental in securing funds and facilitating establishment of laboratory/clinical spaces for COVID-19 research. Workflow was modified to support contracting and IRB review at most institutions with CTSAs. To mitigate chaos generated by competing clinical trials, central feasibility committees were often formed for orderly review/prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: The lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic emphasize the pivotal role of CTSAs in prioritizing studies and establishing the necessary research infrastructure, and the importance of prompt and flexible research leadership with decision-making capacity to manage future pandemics.

Propofol, Ketamine, and Etomidate as Induction Agents for Intubation and Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Propofol, ketamine, and etomidate are common anesthetic agents for induction of anesthesia in the ICU. The choice between these agents is complex and may not depend solely upon severity of illness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between the administration of propofol, ketamine, and etomidate and ICU, hospital mortality, and length of stay. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective single-center cohort study. ICUs in a tertiary medical center, between January 01, 2012, and December 31, 2017. Critically ill adult patients given a single IV anesthetic for intubation. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU- and hospital-free days through 28 days. An inverse probability of treatment weighed approach was used. The propensity score was estimated using a generalized logit model as a function of patient characteristics, admission source, ICU type, readmission status, length of ICU stays prior to intubation, and acute physiology score. Mortality outcomes were assessed with weighted logistic regression and -free days assessed by weighted linear regression with Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Of 2,673 patients, 36% received propofol, 30% ketamine and 34% etomidate. Overall ICU and hospital mortality were 19% and 29%, respectively. Patients given ketamine had higher odds of ICU mortality (1.45; [95% CI, 1.07-1.94]; p = 0.015) and patients given etomidate had higher odds of ICU mortality (1.87; 1.40-2.49; p < 0.001), hospital mortality (1.43; 1.09-1.86; p = 0.009), and less ICU-free days (-2.10; -3.21 to -1.00; p < 0.001) than those given propofol. Patients given ketamine and etomidate had similar odds of hospital mortality (1.06; 0.80-1.42; p = 0.761) and similar hospital-free days (0.30; -0.81 to 1.40; p = 0.600). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with ketamine and etomidate, propofol was associated with better outcome in critically ill patients undergoing anesthesia for intubation. Even after adjusting for severity of illness prior to intubation, residual confounders cannot be excluded.