Provider Perceptions of Oxygenation Strategies for Critically Ill Trauma Patients With and Without Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: Hypoxia and hyperoxia (pulse oximetry [SpO2] > 96%) are associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients. However, provider practices regarding oxygenation in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients are unknown. This study assesses views on oxygenation of critically ill trauma patients with and without TBI and how this varies between Neurological ICU (NeuroICU) and Surgical-Trauma ICU (STICU) providers. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of Level I trauma center's NeuroICU and STICU providers. We used Likert scales, yes-no questions, and multiple-choice case-based scenarios to characterize provider views on oxygenation with descriptive statistics to characterize responses. Significant differences regarding TBI and non-TBI patients or NeuroICU and STICU providers were determined using Fisher's exact test and a P-value of .05. RESULTS: A total of 83 providers initiated the survey, and 53 providers completed it. Most providers identified a threshold SpO2 < 92% for the administration of supplemental oxygen in critically ill TBI patients. A total of 9% of providers "somewhat or completely agreed" that they were more likely to give supplemental oxygen to a critically ill trauma patient with TBI than one without TBI and the same SpO2. A total of 48% of providers selected an SpO2 < 90% as the point at which supplemental oxygen should be initiated in patients without TBI, compared to 27% of providers in patients with TBI (P < .01). This threshold for supplemental oxygen use varied by provider type for non-TBI patients, but not for TBI patients (30% NeuroICU and 69% STICU providers selected SpO2 < 90% in non-TBI, P < .05; 30% NeuroICU and 35% STICU providers selected SpO2 < 90% in TBI, P = .85). CONCLUSIONS: Critical care providers at UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital approach the oxygenation of critically ill trauma patients with and without TBI differently. Specifically, critical care respondents accepted a different lower oxygen saturation threshold for TBI and non-TBI patients. NeuroICU and STICU respondents differed in their threshold for the down-titration of supplemental oxygen. Targeted education for critical care providers may reduce these discrepancies and optimize oxygen use.

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Invasive Mechanical Ventilation and Death Among Immunocompetent Adults During the Omicron Variant Period - IVY Network, 19 U.S. States, February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023.

As of April 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 1.1 million deaths in the United States, with approximately 75% of deaths occurring among adults aged ≥65 years (1). Data on the durability of protection provided by monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination against critical outcomes of COVID-19 are limited beyond the Omicron BA.1 lineage period (December 26, 2021-March 26, 2022). In this case-control analysis, the effectiveness of 2-4 monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses was evaluated against COVID-19-associated invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital death among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during February 1, 2022-January 31, 2023. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against IMV and in-hospital death was 62% among adults aged ≥18 years and 69% among those aged ≥65 years. When stratified by time since last dose, VE was 76% at 7-179 days, 54% at 180-364 days, and 56% at ≥365 days. Monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccination provided substantial, durable protection against IMV and in-hospital death among adults during the Omicron variant period. All adults should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination to prevent critical COVID-19-associated outcomes.

Massive Trauma and Resuscitation Strategies.

Massive trauma remains the leading cause of mortality among people aged younger than 45 years. In this review, we discuss the initial care and diagnosis of trauma patients followed by a comparison of resuscitation strategies. We discuss various strategies including use of whole blood and component therapy, examine viscoelastic techniques for management of coagulopathy, and consider the benefits and limitations of the resuscitation strategies and consider a series of questions that will be important for researchers to answer to provide the best and most cost-effective therapy for severely injured patients.

Hyperoxemia During Cardiac Surgery Is Associated With Postoperative Pulmonary Complications.

The use of hyperoxemia during cardiac surgery remains controversial. We hypothesized that intraoperative hyperoxemia during cardiac surgery is associated with an increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: We analyzed intraoperative data from five hospitals within the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019. We assessed intraoperative oxygenation of adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Hyperoxemia pre and post CPB was quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of Fio2 above 0.21 in minutes when the corresponding peripheral oxygen saturation was greater than 92% measured by pulse oximetry. We quantified hyperoxemia during CPB as the AUC of Pao2 greater than 200 mm Hg measured by arterial blood gas. We analyzed the association of hyperoxemia during all phases of cardiac surgery with the frequency of postoperative pulmonary complications within 30 days, including acute respiratory insufficiency or failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, need for reintubation, and pneumonia. PATIENTS: Twenty-one thousand six hundred thirty-two cardiac surgical patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During 21,632 distinct cardiac surgery cases, 96.4% of patients spent at least 1 minute in hyperoxemia (99.1% pre-CPB, 98.5% intra-CPB, and 96.4% post-CPB). Increasing exposure to hyperoxemia was associated with an increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications throughout three distinct surgical periods. During CPB, increasing exposure to hyperoxemia was associated with an increased odds of developing postoperative pulmonary complications (p < 0.001) in a linear manner. Hyperoxemia before CPB (p < 0.001) and after CPB (p = 0.02) were associated with increased odds of developing postoperative pulmonary complications in a U-shaped relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperoxemia occurs almost universally during cardiac surgery. Exposure to hyperoxemia assessed continuously as an AUC during the intraoperative period, but particularly during CPB, was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications.

Hyperoxia is associated with a greater risk for mortality in critically ill traumatic brain injury patients than in critically ill trauma patients without brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: The role of hyperoxia in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to determine the association between hyperoxia and mortality in critically ill TBI patients compared to critically ill trauma patients without TBI. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three regional trauma centers in Colorado, USA, between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2018. PATIENTS: We included 3464 critically injured adults who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) within 24 h of arrival and qualified for inclusion into the state trauma registry. We analyzed all available SpO2 values during the first seven ICU days. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of time spent in hyperoxia (defined as SpO2 > 96%) and ventilator-free days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In-hospital mortality occurred in 163 patients (10.7%) in the TBI group and 101 patients (5.2%) in the non-TBI group. After adjusting for ICU length of stay, TBI patients spent a significantly greater amount of time in hyperoxia versus non-TBI patients (p = 0.024). TBI status significantly modified the effect of hyperoxia on mortality. At each specific SpO2 level, the risk of mortality increases with increasing FiO2 for both patients with and without TBI. This trend was more pronounced at lower FiO2 and higher SpO2 values, where a greater number of patient observations were obtained. Among patients who required invasive mechanical ventilation, TBI patients required significantly more days of ventilation to day 28 than non-TBI patients. CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill trauma patients with a TBI spend a greater proportion of time in hyperoxia compared to those without a TBI. TBI status significantly modified the effect of hyperoxia on mortality. Prospective clinical trials are needed to better assess a possible causal relationship.

Total and Subgenomic RNA Viral Load in Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Alpha, Delta, and Omicron Variants.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genomic and subgenomic RNA levels are frequently used as a correlate of infectiousness. The impact of host factors and SARS-CoV-2 lineage on RNA viral load is unclear. METHODS: Total nucleocapsid (N) and subgenomic N (sgN) RNA levels were measured by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) in specimens from 3204 individuals hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at 21 hospitals. RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) values were used to estimate RNA viral load. The impact of time of sampling, SARS-CoV-2 variant, age, comorbidities, vaccination, and immune status on N and sgN Ct values were evaluated using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Mean Ct values at presentation for N were 24.14 (SD 4.53) for non-variants of concern, 25.15 (SD 4.33) for Alpha, 25.31 (SD 4.50) for Delta, and 26.26 (SD 4.42) for Omicron. N and sgN RNA levels varied with time since symptom onset and infecting variant but not with age, comorbidity, immune status, or vaccination. When normalized to total N RNA, sgN levels were similar across all variants. CONCLUSIONS: RNA viral loads were similar among hospitalized adults, irrespective of infecting variant and known risk factors for severe COVID-19. Total N and subgenomic RNA N viral loads were highly correlated, suggesting that subgenomic RNA measurements add little information for the purposes of estimating infectivity.

Determinants of Professional Fulfillment and Burnout Among Intensivists: A National Survey by the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists in 2022.

BACKGROUND: Increased burnout and decreased professional fulfillment among intensive care physicians is partly due to intensive care unit (ICU) workload. Although the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased ICU workload, it also may have increased feelings of personal fulfillment due to positive public perceptions of physicians caring for COVID patients. We surveyed critical care anesthesiologists to identify the effect of provider demographics, ICU workload, and COVID-19-related workload, on professional fulfillment and burnout. METHODS: We performed an exploratory survey of 606 members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) in January and February 2022. We used the Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index (PFI) to grade levels of professional fulfillment and markers of burnout (ie, work exhaustion and disengagement). Univariable and multivariable models were used to identify associations between provider demographics and practice characteristics and professional fulfillment and work exhaustion. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five intensivists (29%) responded. A total of 65% were male and 49% were between 36 and 45 years old. The overall median PFI score-0 (none) to 24 (most professional fulfillment)-was 17 (IQR, 1-24), with a wide distribution of responses. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with higher professional fulfillment included age >45 years ( P =.004), ≤15 weeks full-time ICU coverage in 2020 ( P =.02), role as medical director ( P =.01), and nighttime home call with supervision of in-house ICU fellows ( P =.01). CONCLUSIONS: Professional fulfillment and work exhaustion in this cross-sectional survey were associated with several demographic and practice characteristics but not COVID-19-related workload, suggesting that COVID-19 workload may not have either positive or negative perceptions on professional fulfillment.

Absolute and Relative Vaccine Effectiveness of Primary and Booster Series of COVID-19 Vaccines (mRNA and Adenovirus Vector) Against COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the United States, December 2021-April 2022.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies are increasingly reporting relative VE (rVE) comparing a primary series plus booster doses with a primary series only. Interpretation of rVE differs from traditional studies measuring absolute VE (aVE) of a vaccine regimen against an unvaccinated referent group. We estimated aVE and rVE against COVID-19 hospitalization in primary-series plus first-booster recipients of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: Booster-eligible immunocompetent adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in the United States during December 25, 2021-April 4, 2022 were included. In a test-negative design, logistic regression with case status as the outcome and completion of primary vaccine series or primary series plus 1 booster dose as the predictors, adjusted for potential confounders, were used to estimate aVE and rVE. Results: A total of 2060 patients were analyzed, including 1104 COVID-19 cases and 956 controls. Relative VE against COVID-19 hospitalization in boosted mRNA vaccine recipients versus primary series only was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55%-74%); aVE was 81% (95% CI, 75%-86%) for boosted versus 46% (95% CI, 30%-58%) for primary. For boosted Janssen vaccine recipients versus primary series, rVE was 49% (95% CI, -9% to 76%); aVE was 62% (95% CI, 33%-79%) for boosted versus 36% (95% CI, -4% to 60%) for primary. Conclusions: Vaccine booster doses increased protection against COVID-19 hospitalization compared with a primary series. Comparing rVE measures across studies can lead to flawed interpretations of the added value of a new vaccination regimen, whereas difference in aVE, when available, may be a more useful metric.

Nationwide Clinical Practice Patterns of Anesthesiology Critical Care Physicians: A Survey to Members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing contributions of critical care anesthesiologists to clinical practice, research, and administrative leadership of intensive care units (ICUs), relatively little is known about the subspecialty-specific clinical practice environment. An understanding of contemporary clinical practice is essential to recognize the opportunities and challenges facing critical care anesthesia, optimize staffing patterns, assess sustainability and satisfaction, and strategically plan for future activity, scope, and training. This study surveyed intensivists who are members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) to evaluate practice patterns of critical care anesthesiologists, including compensation, types of ICUs covered, models of overnight ICU coverage, and relationships between these factors. We hypothesized that variability in compensation and practice patterns would be observed between individuals. METHODS: Board-certified critical care anesthesiologists practicing in the United States were identified using the SOCCA membership distribution list and invited to take a voluntary online survey between May and June 2021. Multiple-choice questions with both single- and multiple-select options were used for answers with categorical data, and adaptive questioning was used to clarify stem-based responses. Respondents were asked to describe practice patterns at their respective institutions and provide information about their demographics, salaries, effort in ICUs, as well as other activities. RESULTS: A total of 490 participants were invited to take this survey, and 157 (response rate 32%) surveys were completed and analyzed. The majority of respondents were White (73%), male (69%), and younger than 50 years of age (82%). The cardiothoracic/cardiovascular ICU was the most common practice setting, with 69.5% of respondents reporting time working in this unit. Significant variability was observed in ICU practice patterns. Respondents reported spending an equal proportion of their time in clinical practice in the operating rooms and ICUs (median, 40%; interquartile range [IQR], 20%-50%), whereas a smaller proportion-primarily those who completed their training before 2009-reported administrative or research activities. Female respondents reported salaries that were $36,739 less than male respondents; however, this difference was not statistically different, and after adjusting for age and practice type, these differences were less pronounced (-$27,479.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], -$57,232.61 to $2273.03; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: These survey data provide a current snapshot of anesthesiology critical care clinical practice patterns in the United States. Our findings may inform decision-making around the initiation and expansion of critical care services and optimal staffing patterns, as well as provide a basis for further work that focuses on intensivist satisfaction and burnout.

Early Estimates of Bivalent mRNA Vaccine Effectiveness in Preventing COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults Aged ≥65 Years - IVY Network, 18 States, September 8-November 30, 2022.

Monovalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, designed against the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2, successfully reduced COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality in the United States and globally (1,2). However, vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization has declined over time, likely related to a combination of factors, including waning immunity and, with the emergence of the Omicron variant and its sublineages, immune evasion (3). To address these factors, on September 1, 2022, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA booster (bivalent booster) dose, developed against the spike protein from ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 sublineages, for persons who had completed at least a primary COVID-19 vaccination series (with or without monovalent booster doses) ≥2 months earlier (4). Data on the effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 hospitalization in the United States are lacking, including among older adults, who are at highest risk for severe COVID-19-associated illness. During September 8-November 30, 2022, the Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the Acutely Ill (IVY) Network§ assessed effectiveness of a bivalent booster dose received after ≥2 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccine against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥65 years. When compared with unvaccinated persons, VE of a bivalent booster dose received ≥7 days before illness onset (median = 29 days) against COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 84%. Compared with persons who received ≥2 monovalent-only mRNA vaccine doses, relative VE of a bivalent booster dose was 73%. These early findings show that a bivalent booster dose provided strong protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization in older adults and additional protection among persons with previous monovalent-only mRNA vaccination. All eligible persons, especially adults aged ≥65 years, should receive a bivalent booster dose to maximize protection against COVID-19 hospitalization this winter season. Additional strategies to prevent respiratory illness, such as masking in indoor public spaces, should also be considered, especially in areas where COVID-19 community levels are high (4,5).

Comparison of test-negative and syndrome-negative controls in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness evaluations for preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Test-negative design (TND) studies have produced validated estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) for influenza vaccine studies. However, syndrome-negative controls have been proposed for differentiating bias and true estimates in VE evaluations for COVID-19. To understand the use of alternative control groups, we compared characteristics and VE estimates of syndrome-negative and test-negative VE controls. METHODS: Adults hospitalized at 21 medical centers in 18 states March 11-August 31, 2021 were eligible for analysis. Case patients had symptomatic acute respiratory infection (ARI) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Control groups were test-negative patients with ARI but negative SARS-CoV-2 testing, and syndrome-negative controls were without ARI and negative SARS-CoV-2 testing. Chi square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to detect differences in baseline characteristics. VE against COVID-19 hospitalization was calculated using logistic regression comparing adjusted odds of prior mRNA vaccination between cases hospitalized with COVID-19 and each control group. RESULTS: 5811 adults (2726 cases, 1696 test-negative controls, and 1389 syndrome-negative controls) were included. Control groups differed across characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, employment, previous hospitalizations, medical conditions, and immunosuppression. However, control-group-specific VE estimates were very similar. Among immunocompetent patients aged 18-64 years, VE was 93 % (95 % CI: 90-94) using syndrome-negative controls and 91 % (95 % CI: 88-93) using test-negative controls. CONCLUSIONS: Despite demographic and clinical differences between control groups, the use of either control group produced similar VE estimates across age groups and immunosuppression status. These findings support the use of test-negative controls and increase confidence in COVID-19 VE estimates produced by test-negative design studies.

Association between treatment failure and hospitalization after receipt of neutralizing monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and mortality among early symptomatic COVID-19 patients in clinical trials and real-world data. While resistance to some mAbs has since emerged among new variants, characteristics associated with treatment failure of mAbs remain unknown. METHODS: This multicenter, observational cohort study included patients with COVID-19 who received mAb treatment between November 20, 2020, and December 9, 2021. We utilized electronic health records from a statewide health system plus state-level vaccine and mortality data. The primary outcome was mAb treatment failure, defined as hospitalization or death within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. RESULTS: COVID-19 mAb was administered to 7406 patients. Hospitalization within 28 days of positive SARS-CoV-2 test occurred in 258 (3.5%) of all patients who received mAb treatment. Ten patients (0.1%) died within 28 days, and all but one were hospitalized prior to death. Characteristics associated with treatment failure included having two or more comorbidities excluding obesity and immunocompromised status (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.52-5.56), lack of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (OR 2.73, 95% CI 2.01-3.77), non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.20-3.82), obesity (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.36-2.34), one comorbidity (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.11-2.57), age ≥ 65 years (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.13-2.35), and male sex (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.02). Immunocompromised status (none, mild, or moderate/severe), pandemic phase, and type of mAb received were not associated with treatment failure (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities, lack of prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, obesity, age ≥ 65 years, and male sex are associated with treatment failure of mAbs.

Time-of-day dependent effects of midazolam administration on myocardial injury in non-cardiac surgery.

Background: Animal studies have shown that midazolam can increase vulnerability to cardiac ischemia, potentially via circadian-mediated mechanisms. We hypothesized that perioperative midazolam administration is associated with an increased incidence of myocardial injury in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (MINS) and that circadian biology may underlie this relationship. Methods: We analyzed intraoperative data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group for the occurrence of MINS across 50 institutions from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome was the occurrence of MINS. MINS was defined as having at least one troponin-I lab value ≥0.03 ng/ml from anesthesia start to 72 h after anesthesia end. To account for bias, propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting were applied. Results: A total of 1,773,118 cases were available for analysis. Of these subjects, 951,345 (53.7%) received midazolam perioperatively, and 16,404 (0.93%) met criteria for perioperative MINS. There was no association between perioperative midazolam administration and risk of MINS in the study population as a whole (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, confidence interval (CI) [0.94, 1.01]). However, we found a strong association between midazolam administration and risk of MINS when surgery occurred overnight (OR 3.52, CI [3.10, 4.00]) or when surgery occurred in ASA 1 or 2 patients (OR 1.25, CI [1.13, 1.39]). Conclusion: Perioperative midazolam administration may not pose a significant risk for MINS occurrence. However, midazolam administration at night and in healthier patients could increase MINS, which warrants further clinical investigation with an emphasis on circadian biology.

Effectiveness of Monovalent mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization Among Immunocompetent Adults During BA.1/BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 Predominant Periods of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant in the United States - IVY Network, 18 States, December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529 or BA.1) became predominant in the United States by late December 2021 (1). BA.1 has since been replaced by emerging lineages BA.2 (including BA.2.12.1) in March 2022, followed by BA.4 and BA.5, which have accounted for a majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections since late June 2022 (1). Data on the effectiveness of monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against BA.4/BA.5-associated hospitalizations are limited, and their interpretation is complicated by waning of vaccine-induced immunity (2-5). Further, infections with earlier Omicron lineages, including BA.1 and BA.2, reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates because certain persons in the referent unvaccinated group have protection from infection-induced immunity. The IVY Network† assessed effectiveness of 2, 3, and 4 doses of monovalent mRNA vaccines compared with no vaccination against COVID-19-associated hospitalization among immunocompetent adults aged ≥18 years during December 26, 2021-August 31, 2022. During the BA.1/BA.2 period, VE 14-150 days after a second dose was 63% and decreased to 34% after 150 days. Similarly, VE 7-120 days after a third dose was 79% and decreased to 41% after 120 days. VE 7-120 days after a fourth dose was 61%. During the BA.4/BA.5 period, similar trends were observed, although CIs for VE estimates between categories of time since the last dose overlapped. VE 14-150 days and >150 days after a second dose was 83% and 37%, respectively. VE 7-120 days and >120 days after a third dose was 60%and 29%, respectively. VE 7-120 days after the fourth dose was 61%. Protection against COVID-19-associated hospitalization waned even after a third dose. The newly authorized bivalent COVID-19 vaccines include mRNA from the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain and from shared mRNA components between BA.4 and BA.5 lineages and are expected to be more immunogenic against BA.4/BA.5 than monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (6-8). All eligible adults aged ≥18 years§ should receive a booster dose, which currently consists of a bivalent mRNA vaccine, to maximize protection against BA.4/BA.5 and prevent COVID-19-associated hospitalization.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States.

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

Modeling clinical trajectory status of critically ill COVID-19 patients over time: A method for analyzing discrete longitudinal and ordinal outcomes.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization stressed the importance of daily clinical assessments of infected patients, yet current approaches frequently consider cross-sectional timepoints, cumulative summary measures, or time-to-event analyses. Statistical methods are available that make use of the rich information content of longitudinal assessments. We demonstrate the use of a multistate transition model to assess the dynamic nature of COVID-19-associated critical illness using daily evaluations of COVID-19 patients from 9 academic hospitals. We describe the accessibility and utility of methods that consider the clinical trajectory of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Year in Review 2021: Noteworthy Literature in Cardiothoracic Anesthesia.

In 2021, progress in clinical science related to Cardiac Anesthesiology continued, but at a slower rate due to the ongoing pandemic and disruptions to clinical research. Most progress was incremental and addressed persistent questions related to our field. To identify articles for this review, we completed a structured review using our previously reported methods (1). Specifically, we used the search terms: "cardiac anesthesiology and outcomes" (n = 177), "cardiothoracic anesthesiology" (n = 34), "cardiac anesthesia," and "clinical outcomes" (n = 42) filtered on clinical trials and the year 2021 in PubMed. We also reviewed clinical trials from the most prominent clinical journals to identify additional studies for a narrative review. We then selected the most noteworthy publications for inclusion in this review and identified key themes.