Intrapulmonary and Intracardiac Shunts in Adult COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ICU Patients Using Echocardiography and Contrast Bubble Studies (COVID-Shunt Study): A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have suggested intrapulmonary shunts may contribute to hypoxemia in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with worse associated outcomes. We evaluated the presence of right-to-left (R-L) shunts in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS patients using a comprehensive hypoxemia workup for shunt etiology and associations with mortality. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Four tertiary hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated, ICU patients admitted with COVID-19 or non-COVID (November 16, 2020, to September 1, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Agitated-saline bubble studies with transthoracic echocardiography/transcranial Doppler ± transesophageal echocardiography assessed for R-L shunts presence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were shunt frequency and association with hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used for adjustment. The study enrolled 226 patients (182 COVID-19 vs 42 non-COVID). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 47-67 yr) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 30 (IQR, 21-36). In COVID-19 patients, the frequency of R-L shunt was 31 of 182 COVID patients (17.0%) versus 10 of 44 non-COVID patients (22.7%), with no difference detected in shunt rates (risk difference [RD], -5.7%; 95% CI, -18.4 to 7.0; p = 0.38). In the COVID-19 group, hospital mortality was higher for those with R-L shunt compared with those without (54.8% vs 35.8%; RD, 19.0%; 95% CI, 0.1-37.9; p = 0.05). This did not persist at 90-day mortality nor after adjustment with regression. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased R-L shunt rates in COVID-19 compared with non-COVID controls. R-L shunt was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients, but this did not persist at 90-day mortality or after adjusting using logistic regression.

Assessing on-line medical education resources: A primer for acute care medical professionals and others.

The internet is increasingly used to propagate medical education, debate, and even disinformation. Therefore, this primer aims to help acute care medical professionals, as well as the public. This is because we all need to be able to critically appraise digital products, appraise content producers, and reflect upon our own on-line presence. This article discusses the challenges and opportunities associated with online medical resources. We then review Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) and the key tools used to assess the trustworthiness of on-line medical products. Specifically, after discussing the pros and cons of traditional academic quality metrics, we compare and contrast the Social Media Index, the ALiEM AIR score, the Revised METRIQ Score, and gestalt. We also discuss internet search engines, peer review, and the important message behind the seemingly tongue-in-cheek Kardashian Index. Hopefully, this primer bolsters basic digital literacy and helps trainees, practitioners, and the public locate useful and reliable on-line resources. Importantly, we highlight the continued importance of traditional academic medicine and primary source publications.