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

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

Critical Care Clinicians' Experiences of Patient Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown how hospital- and systems-level factors have impacted patient safety in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to understand how the pandemic has exacerbated preexisting patient safety issues and created novel patient safety challenges in ICUs in the United States. METHODS: We performed a national, multi-institutional, mixed-methods survey of critical care clinicians to elicit experiences related to patient safety during the pandemic. The survey was disseminated via email through the Society of Critical Care Medicine listserv. Data were reported as valid percentages, compared by COVID caseload and peak of the pandemic; free-text responses were analyzed and coded for themes. RESULTS: We received 335 survey responses. On general patient safety, 61% felt that conditions were more hazardous when compared with the prepandemic period. Those who took care of mostly COVID-19 patients were more likely to perceive that care was more hazardous (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.49-9.59) compared with those who took care of mostly non-COVID-19 or no COVID-19 patients. In free-text responses, providers identified patient safety risks related to pandemic adaptations, such as ventilator-related lung injury, medication and diagnostic errors, oversedation, oxygen device removal, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Increased COVID-19 case burden was significantly associated with perceptions of a less safe patient care environment by frontline ICU clinicians. Results of the qualitative analysis identified specific patient safety hazards in ICUs across the United States as downstream consequences of hospital and provider strain during periods of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Implementation of a Collaborated Antimicrobial Stewardship Program and Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) Unit-driven Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Program for COVID-19 at an NYC Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the processes and clinical outcomes of a joint collaboration between Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (ASP) and the outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) unit for delivery of monoclonal antibody therapy for mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective, interim analysis of our COVID-19 monoclonal antibody therapy program. Outcomes included clinical response, incidence of hospitalization, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients (casirivimab-imdevimab, n = 130; bamlanivimab, n = 45) were treated between December 2020 and March 1, 2021. The median time from symptom onset was 6 (IQR 4, 8) days at time of treatment. Of 135 patients available for follow-up, 71.9% and 85.9% of patients reported symptom improvement within 3 and 7 days of treatment, respectively. A total of 9 (6.7%) patients required COVID-19-related hospitalization for progression of symptoms, all within 14 days of treatment. A total of 7 (4%) patients experienced an infusion-related reaction. CONCLUSIONS: ASP-OPAT collaboration is a novel approach to implement an efficient and safe monoclonal antibody therapy program for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load Predicts Mortality in Patients with and without Cancer Who Are Hospitalized with COVID-19.

Patients with cancer may be at increased risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the role of viral load on this risk is unknown. We measured SARS-CoV-2 viral load using cycle threshold (CT) values from reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction assays applied to nasopharyngeal swab specimens in 100 patients with cancer and 2,914 without cancer who were admitted to three New York City hospitals. Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate was 38.8% among patients with a high viral load, 24.1% among patients with a medium viral load, and 15.3% among patients with a low viral load (p < 0.001). Similar findings were observed in patients with cancer (high, 45.2% mortality; medium, 28.0%; low, 12.1%; p = 0.008). Patients with hematologic malignancies had higher median viral loads (CT = 25.0) than patients without cancer (CT = 29.2; p = 0.0039). SARS-CoV-2 viral load results may offer vital prognostic information for patients with and without cancer who are hospitalized with COVID-19.

A prognostic model for 6-month mortality in elderly survivors of critical illness.

BACKGROUND: Although 1.4 million elderly Americans survive hospitalization involving intensive care annually, many are at risk for early mortality following discharge. No models that predict the likelihood of death after discharge exist explicitly for this population. Therefore, we derived and externally validated a 6-month postdischarge mortality prediction model for elderly ICU survivors. METHODS: We derived the model from medical record and claims data for 1,526 consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 years who had their first medical ICU admission in 2006 to 2009 at a tertiary-care hospital and survived to discharge (excluding those patients discharged to hospice). We then validated the model in 1,010 patients from a different tertiary-care hospital. RESULTS: Six-month mortality was 27.3% and 30.2% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Independent predictors of mortality (in descending order of contribution to the model's predictive power) were a do-not-resuscitate order, older age, burden of comorbidity, admission from or discharge to a skilled-care facility, hospital length of stay, principal diagnoses of sepsis and hematologic malignancy, and male sex. For the derivation and external validation cohorts, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (SE, 0.01) and 0.71 (SE, 0.02), respectively, with good calibration for both (P = 0.31 and 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical variables available at hospital discharge can help predict 6-month mortality for elderly ICU survivors. Variables that capture elements of frailty, disability, the burden of comorbidity, and patient preferences regarding resuscitation during the hospitalization contribute most to this model's predictive power. The model could aid providers in counseling elderly ICU survivors at high risk of death and their families.

A brief educational intervention to teach residents shared decision making in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication is essential for shared decision making with families of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), yet there is limited evidence on effective strategies to teach these skills. OBJECTIVE: The study's objective was to pilot test an educational intervention to teach internal medicine interns skills in discussing goals of care and treatment decisions with families of critically ill patients using the shared decision making framework. DESIGN: The intervention consisted of a PowerPoint online module followed by a four-hour workshop implemented at a retreat for medicine interns training at an urban, academic medical center. MEASUREMENTS: Participants (N=33) completed post-intervention questionnaires that included self-assessed skills learned, an open-ended question on the most important learning points from the workshop, and retrospective pre- and post-workshop comfort level with ICU communication skills. Participants rated their satisfaction with the workshop. RESULTS: Twenty-nine interns (88%) completed the questionnaires. Important self-assessed communication skills learned reflect key components of shared decision making, which include assessing the family's understanding of the patient's condition (endorsed by 100%) and obtaining an understanding of the patient/family's perspectives, values, and goals (100%). Interns reported significant improvement in their comfort level with ICU communication skills (pre 3.26, post 3.73 on a five-point scale, p=0.004). Overall satisfaction with the intervention was high (mean 4.45 on a five-point scale). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that a brief intervention designed to teach residents communication skills in conducting goals of care and treatment discussions in the ICU is feasible and can improve their comfort level with these conversations.

How does care differ for neurological patients admitted to a neurocritical care unit versus a general ICU?

BACKGROUND: Neurological patients have lower mortality and better outcomes when cared for in specialized neurointensive care units than in general ICUs. However, little is known about how the process of care differs between these types of units. METHODS: The Greater New York Hospital Association conducted a city-wide 24-h ICU prevalence survey on March 15th, 2007. Data was collected on all patients admitted to 143 ICUs in 69 different hospitals. RESULTS: Of 1,906 ICU patients surveyed, 231 had a primary neurological diagnosis. Of these, 52 (22%) were admitted to one of 9 neuro-ICU's in NY and 179 (78%) to a medical or surgical ICU. Neurological patients in neuro-ICUs were more likely to have been transferred from an outside hospital (37% vs. 11%, P < 0.0001). Hemorrhagic stroke was more frequent in neuro-ICUs (46% vs. 16%, P < 0.0001), whereas traumatic brain injury (2% vs. 24%, P < 0.0001) and ischemic stroke (0% vs. 19%, P = 0.001) were less common. Despite a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (39% vs. 50%, P = 0.15), ICU length of stay was longer in neuro-ICU patients (≥10 days, 40% vs. 17%, P < 0.0001). More neuro-ICU patients had undergone tracheostomy (35% vs. 15%, P = 0.04), invasive hemodynamic monitoring (40% vs. 20%, P = 0.002), and invasive intracranial pressure monitoring (29% vs. 9%, P < 0.001) than patients cared for in general ICUs. Intravenous sedation was less prevalent in neuro-ICUs (12% vs. 30%, P = 0.009) and more patients were receiving nutritional support compared to general ICUs (67% vs. 39%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Neurological patients cared for in specialty neuro-ICUs underwent more invasive intracranial and hemodynamic monitoring, tracheostomy, and nutritional support, and received less IV sedation than patients in general ICUs. These differences in care may explain previously observed disparities in outcome between neurocritical care and general ICUs.

A system's approach to improve organ donation.

Using lessons learned from the US Department of Health and Human Services National Donation Breakthrough Collaborative, New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System (NYPHS) partnered with 5 donor service areas covering its member hospitals to improve donation across the system. By integrating established communication networks with the "spread" techniques of the Breakthrough Collaborative, the NYPHS identified hospital champions and best practices and established standardized outcome metrics. The improvements that resulted were a sustained increase of 40.23% in consent rate and an initial 41.7% increase in conversion rate during the first 6 months, although that conversion rate was not sustainable. During the 8 measured periods, 21 hospitals met or exceeded the 75% conversion rate during 1 or more quarters. NYPHS was able to spread these successes and outcome metrics through its established communication networks of quarterly report cards, regular senior leader meetings, and real-time access to a secure member-only Web site, thus keeping organ and tissue donation at the forefront of hospital leaders' priorities.