ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Providing analgesia and sedation is an essential component of caring for many mechanically ventilated patients. The selection of analgesic and sedative medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of these sedation practices on patient outcomes, remain incompletely characterized. RESEARCH QUESTION: What were the hospital patterns of analgesic and sedative use for patients with COVID-19 who received mechanical ventilation (MV), and what differences in clinical patient outcomes were observed across prevailing sedation practices? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of hospitalized adults who received MV for COVID-19 from February 2020 through April 2021 within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 Registry. To describe common sedation practices, we used hierarchical clustering to group hospitals based on the percentage of patients who received various analgesic and sedative medications. We then used multivariable regression models to evaluate the association between hospital analgesia and sedation cluster and duration of MV (with a placement of death [POD] approach to account for competing risks). RESULTS: We identified 1,313 adults across 35 hospitals admitted with COVID-19 who received MV. Two clusters of analgesia and sedation practices were identified. Cluster 1 hospitals generally administered opioids and propofol with occasional use of additional sedatives (eg, benzodiazepines, alpha-agonists, and ketamine); cluster 2 hospitals predominantly used opioids and benzodiazepines without other sedatives. As compared with patients in cluster 2, patients admitted to cluster 1 hospitals underwent a shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD (ß-estimate, -5.9; 95% CI, -11.2 to -0.6; P = .03). INTERPRETATION: Patients who received MV for COVID-19 in hospitals that prioritized opioids and propofol for analgesia and sedation experienced shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD as compared with patients who received MV in hospitals that primarily used opioids and benzodiazepines.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of "guideline-based care" for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of "guideline-based care" for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in "guideline-based care." A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.4) for receipt of "guideline-based care" compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47-62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use "guideline-based care" quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received "guideline-based care" for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.
