Interhospital Transfer of Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure in the United States: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Interhospital transfer of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is relevant in the current landscape of critical care delivery. However, current transfer practices for patients with ARF are highly variable, poorly formalized, and lack evidence. We aim to synthesize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and highlight persisting questions related to interhospital transfer of patients with ARF. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and American Psychological Association. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that evaluated or described hospital transfers of adult (age > 18) patients with ARF between January 2020 and 2024 conducted in the United States. Using predetermined search terms and strategies, a total of 3369 articles were found across all databases. After deduplication, 1748 abstracts were screened by authors with 45 articles that advanced to full-text review. This yielded 16 studies that fit our inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: The studies were reviewed in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews by three authors. DATA SYNTHESIS: Included studies were mostly retrospective analyses of heterogeneous patients with various etiologies and severity of ARF. Overall, transferred patients were younger, had high severity of illness, and were more likely to have commercial insurance compared with nontransferred cohorts. There is a paucity of data examining why patients get transferred. Studies that retrospectively evaluated outcomes between transferred and nontransferred cohorts found no differences in mortality, although transferred patients have a longer length of stay. There is limited evidence to suggest that patients transferred early in their course have improved outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review highlights the sparse evidence and the urgent need for further research into understanding the complexity behind ARF transfers. Future studies should focus on defining best practices to inform clinical decision-making and improve downstream outcomes.

Implementation of an Interdisciplinary Transfer Huddle Intervention for Prolonged Wait Times During Inter-ICU Transfer.

BACKGROUND: ICU transfers from a regional to a tertiary-level hospital are initiated typically for a higher level of care. Extended transfer wait times can negatively affect survival, length of stay (LOS), and cost. METHODS: In this prospective single-center study, the subjects were adult ICU patients admitted to regional hospitals between January and October 2022, for whom a request was made to transfer to a tertiary-level medical ICU. The authors developed and implemented an interdisciplinary transfer huddle intervention (THI) with the goal of reducing wait times by providing a consistent channel of communication between key stakeholders. The primary outcome was the number of hours elapsed between transfer request and the time of transfer to the tertiary hospital. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS. Data were abstracted from electronic health records and periods before (January to June 2022) and after (June to October 2022) the intervention were compared. Data were analyzed using logistic regression or negative binomial regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. ICU fellows also completed a daily survey about barriers they perceived to the THI application. RESULTS: During the study period, 76 patients were transferred. The THI was completed 75.0% of the time. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary and secondary outcomes before and after the intervention. The top perceived barriers to transfer were lack of physical beds (50.0%) and staffing limitations (37.5%). CONCLUSION: The authors successfully developed and implemented a transfer huddle to ensure consistent interdisciplinary communication for patients being transferred between ICUs and identified barriers to such transfer. However, transfer times and patient outcomes were not significantly different after the change. Future studies should consider staffing challenges, hospital capacity, and the role of dedicated transfer teams in in decreasing inter-ICU transfer wait times.

Multidisciplinary Center Care for Long COVID Syndrome-A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Persistent multi-organ symptoms after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been termed "long COVID" or "post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection." The complexity of these clinical manifestations posed challenges early in the pandemic as different ambulatory models formed out of necessity to manage the influx of patients. Little is known about the characteristics and outcomes of patients seeking care at multidisciplinary post-COVID centers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients evaluated at our multidisciplinary comprehensive COVID-19 center in Chicago, Ill, between May 2020 and February 2022. We analyzed specialty clinic utilization and clinical test results according to severity of acute COVID-19. RESULTS: We evaluated 1802 patients a median of 8 months from acute COVID-19 onset, including 350 post-hospitalization and 1452 non-hospitalized patients. Patients were seen in 2361 initial visits in 12 specialty clinics, with 1151 (48.8%) in neurology, 591 (25%) in pulmonology, and 284 (12%) in cardiology. Among the patients tested, 742/878 (85%) reported decreased quality of life, 284/553 (51%) had cognitive impairment, 195/434 (44.9%) had alteration of lung function, 249/299 (83.3%) had abnormal computed tomography chest scans, and 14/116 (12.1%) had elevated heart rate on rhythm monitoring. Frequency of cognitive impairment and pulmonary dysfunction was associated with severity of acute COVID-19. Non-hospitalized patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 testing had findings similar to those with negative or no test results. CONCLUSIONS: The experience at our multidisciplinary comprehensive COVID-19 center shows common utilization of multiple specialists by long COVID patients, who harbor frequent neurologic, pulmonary, and cardiologic abnormalities. Differences in post-hospitalization and non-hospitalized groups suggest distinct pathogenic mechanisms of long COVID in these populations.

Asthma and coronavirus disease 2019-related outcomes in hospitalized patients: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Several chronic conditions have been associated with a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including asthma. However, there are conflicting conclusions regarding risk of severe disease in this population. OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of asthma on COVID-19 outcomes in a cohort of hospitalized patients and whether there is any association between asthma severity and worse outcomes. METHODS: We identified hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with confirmatory polymerase chain reaction testing with (n = 183) and without asthma (n = 1319) using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes between March 1 and December 30, 2020. We determined asthma maintenance medications, pulmonary function tests, highest historical absolute eosinophil count, and immunoglobulin E. Primary outcomes included death, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Analysis was adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, smoking status, and timing of illness in the pandemic. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, we found no difference in our primary outcomes between patients with asthma and patients without asthma. However, in adjusted analyses, patients with asthma were more likely to have mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.44; P = .04), ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.29; P = .02), longer hospital length of stay (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55; P < .003), and higher mortality (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.33; P = .04) compared with the non-asthma cohort. Inhaled corticosteroid use and eosinophilic phenotype were not associated with considerabledifferences. Interestingly, patients with moderate asthma had worse outcomes whereas patients with severe asthma did not. CONCLUSION: Asthma was associated with severe COVID-19 after controlling for other factors.

Revisiting Mild Asthma: Current Knowledge and Future Needs.

Asthma is a common chronic airways disease with significant impact on patients, caregivers, and the health care system. Although most research and novel interventions mainly have focused on patients with uncontrolled severe asthma, most patients with asthma have mild disease. Epidemiologic studies suggest that many patients with mild asthma report frequent exacerbations of the disease and uncontrolled symptoms. However, despite its impact, mild asthma does not have either a uniformly agreed on definition for or a consensus on its clinical and pathophysiologic progression. More recently, the approach to treatment of patients with mild asthma has undergone significant changes primarily based on emerging evidence that airway inflammation in this population is important. This led to clinical research studies that explored the efficacy of as-needed inhaled corticosteroids along with the rescue medications that traditionally have been the mainstay of treatment. Despite some advancement in the field in recent years, many controversies and unmet needs remain. In this review, we examine the current understanding of the pathophysiologic features and management of mild asthma. In addition, we outline unmet needs for future research. We conclude that mild asthma contributes significantly to the morbidity and mortality of asthma and should be the focus of future research.

Causes and characteristics of death in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are associated with high in-hospital mortality. However, in cohorts of ARDS patients from the 1990s, patients more commonly died from sepsis or multi-organ failure rather than refractory hypoxemia. Given increased attention to lung-protective ventilation and sepsis treatment in the past 25 years, we hypothesized that causes of death may be different among contemporary cohorts. These differences may provide clinicians with insight into targets for future therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We identified adult patients hospitalized at a single tertiary care center (2016-2017) with AHRF, defined as PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 while receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for > 12 h, who died during hospitalization. ARDS was adjudicated by multiple physicians using the Berlin definition. Separate abstractors blinded to ARDS status collected data on organ dysfunction and withdrawal of life support using a standardized tool. The primary cause of death was defined as the organ system that most directly contributed to death or withdrawal of life support. RESULTS: We identified 385 decedents with AHRF, of whom 127 (33%) had ARDS. The most common primary causes of death were sepsis (26%), pulmonary dysfunction (22%), and neurologic dysfunction (19%). Multi-organ failure was present in 70% at time of death, most commonly due to sepsis (50% of all patients), and 70% were on significant respiratory support at the time of death. Only 2% of patients had insupportable oxygenation or ventilation. Eighty-five percent died following withdrawal of life support. Patients with ARDS more often had pulmonary dysfunction as the primary cause of death (28% vs 19%; p = 0.04) and were also more likely to die while requiring significant respiratory support (82% vs 64%; p <  0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary cohort of patients with AHRF, the most common primary causes of death were sepsis and pulmonary dysfunction, but few patients had insupportable oxygenation or ventilation. The vast majority of deaths occurred after withdrawal of life support. ARDS patients were more likely to have pulmonary dysfunction as the primary cause of death and die while requiring significant respiratory support compared to patients without ARDS.