Comparing Ventilation Parameters for COVID-19 Patients Using Both Long-Term ICU and Anesthetic Ventilators in Times of Shortage.

In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, many patients were treated in hospitals using mechanical ventilation. However, due to a shortage of ICU ventilators, hospitals worldwide needed to deploy anesthesia machines for ICU ventilation (which is off-label use). A joint guidance was written to apply anesthesia machines for long-term ventilation. The goal of this research is to retrospectively evaluate the differences in measurable ventilation parameters between the ICU ventilator and the anesthesia machine as used for COVID-19 patients. In this study, we included 32 patients treated in March and April 2020, who had more than 3 days of mechanical ventilation, either in the regular ICU with ICU ventilators (Hamilton S1), or in the temporary emergency ICU with anesthetic ventilators (Aisys, GE). The data acquired during regular clinical treatment was collected from the Patient Data Management Systems. Available ventilation parameters (pressures and volumes: PEEP, Ppeak, Pinsp, Vtidal), monitored parameters EtCO2, SpO2, derived compliance C, and resistance R were processed and analyzed. A sub-analysis was performed to compare closed-loop ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV) to other ventilation modes. The results showed no major differences in the compared parameters, except for Pinsp. PEEP was reduced over time in the with Hamilton treated patients. This is most likely attributed to changing clinical protocol as more clinical experience and literature became available. A comparison of compliance between the 2 ventilators could not be made due to variances in the measurement of compliance. Closed loop ventilation could be used in 79% of the time, resulting in more stable EtCO2. From the analysis it can be concluded that the off-label usage of the anesthetic ventilator in our hospital did not result in differences in ventilation parameters compared to the ICU treatment in the first 4 days of ventilation.

Allocation of Respirators in the Coronavirus Crisis in Israel: An Ethical Analysis and A Scheme for Triage.

BACKGROUND: This focus article is a theoretical reflection on the ethics of allocating respirators to patients in circumstances of shortage, especially during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Israel. In this article, respirators are placeholders for similar life-saving modalities in short supply, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines and intensive care unit beds. In the article, I propose a system of triage for circumstances of scarcity of respirators. The system separates the hopeless from the curable, granting every treatable person a real chance of cure. The scarcity situation eliminates excesses of medicine, and then allocates respirators by a single scale, combining an evidence-based scoring system with risk-proportionate lottery. The triage proposed embodies continuity and consistency with the healthcare practices in ordinary times. Yet, I suggest two regulatory modifications: one in relation to expediting review of novel and makeshift solutions and the second in relation to mandatory retrospective research on all relevant medical data and standard (as opposed to experimental) interventions that are influenced by the triage.

Emergency 3-Dimensional-Printed Devices for Splitting Ventilators in Lungs With Different Compliances: An In Vitro Study.

Ventilator shortages occurred due to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). This in vitro study evaluated the effectiveness of 3-dimensional (3D)-printed splitters and 3D-printed air flow limiters (AFL) in delivering appropriate tidal volumes (TV) to lungs with different compliances. Groups were divided according to the size of the AFL: AFL-4 was a 4-mm device, AFL-5 a 5-mm device, AFL-6 a 6-mm device, and no limiter (control). A ventilator was split to supply TV to 2 artificial lungs with different compliances. The AFL improved TV distribution.

Medidas para conter a pandemia em Araraquara

Saiba mais em www.saopaulo.sp.gov.br/coronavirus

When Scarcity Meets Disparity: "Resources Allocation and COVID-19 Patients with Diabetes".

The COVID-19 pandemic raised distinct challenges in the field of scarce resource allocation, a long-standing area of inquiry in the field of bioethics. Policymakers and states developed crisis guidelines for ventilator triage that incorporated such factors as immediate prognosis, long-term life expectancy, and current stage of life. Often these depend upon existing risk factors for severe illness, including diabetes. However, these algorithms generally failed to account for the underlying structural biases, including systematic racism and economic disparity, that rendered some patients more vulnerable to these conditions. This paper discusses this unique ethical challenge in resource allocation through the lens of care for patients with severe COVID-19 and diabetes.

From predictions to prescriptions: A data-driven response to COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges worldwide. Strained healthcare providers make difficult decisions on patient triage, treatment and care management on a daily basis. Policy makers have imposed social distancing measures to slow the disease, at a steep economic price. We design analytical tools to support these decisions and combat the pandemic. Specifically, we propose a comprehensive data-driven approach to understand the clinical characteristics of COVID-19, predict its mortality, forecast its evolution, and ultimately alleviate its impact. By leveraging cohort-level clinical data, patient-level hospital data, and census-level epidemiological data, we develop an integrated four-step approach, combining descriptive, predictive and prescriptive analytics. First, we aggregate hundreds of clinical studies into the most comprehensive database on COVID-19 to paint a new macroscopic picture of the disease. Second, we build personalized calculators to predict the risk of infection and mortality as a function of demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, and lab values. Third, we develop a novel epidemiological model to project the pandemic's spread and inform social distancing policies. Fourth, we propose an optimization model to re-allocate ventilators and alleviate shortages. Our results have been used at the clinical level by several hospitals to triage patients, guide care management, plan ICU capacity, and re-distribute ventilators. At the policy level, they are currently supporting safe back-to-work policies at a major institution and vaccine trial location planning at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and have been integrated into the US Center for Disease Control's pandemic forecast.

Hospital bed capacity and usage across secondary healthcare providers in England during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we describe the pattern of bed occupancy across England during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Descriptive survey. SETTING: All non-specialist secondary care providers in England from 27 March27to 5 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Acute (non-specialist) trusts with a type 1 (ie, 24 hours/day, consultant-led) accident and emergency department (n=125), Nightingale (field) hospitals (n=7) and independent sector secondary care providers (n=195). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Two thresholds for 'safe occupancy' were used: 85% as per the Royal College of Emergency Medicine and 92% as per NHS Improvement. RESULTS: At peak availability, there were 2711 additional beds compatible with mechanical ventilation across England, reflecting a 53% increase in capacity, and occupancy never exceeded 62%. A consequence of the repurposing of beds meant that at the trough there were 8.7% (8508) fewer general and acute beds across England, but occupancy never exceeded 72%. The closest to full occupancy of general and acute bed (surge) capacity that any trust in England reached was 99.8% . For beds compatible with mechanical ventilation there were 326 trust-days (3.7%) spent above 85% of surge capacity and 154 trust-days (1.8%) spent above 92%. 23 trusts spent a cumulative 81 days at 100% saturation of their surge ventilator bed capacity (median number of days per trust=1, range: 1-17). However, only three sustainability and transformation partnerships (aggregates of geographically co-located trusts) reached 100% saturation of their mechanical ventilation beds. CONCLUSIONS: Throughout the first wave of the pandemic, an adequate supply of all bed types existed at a national level. However, due to an unequal distribution of bed utilisation, many trusts spent a significant period operating above 'safe-occupancy' thresholds despite substantial capacity in geographically co-located trusts, a key operational issue to address in preparing for future waves.

Allocation of Mechanical Ventilators During a Pandemic: A Mixed-Methods Study of Perceptions Among Japanese Health Care Workers and the General Public.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, public dialogue on allocation of life-saving medical resources remains taboo, and discussion largely has been avoided. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do Japanese health care workers and the general public agree with principles of ventilator allocation developed internationally? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A four-point Likert scale questionnaire was used to assess the extent of agreement or disagreement with internationally developed triage principles for rationing mechanical ventilators during pandemics. Questionnaires were distributed in person or online, and generalized linear models were used to analyze quantitative data. Free-text descriptions were analyzed qualitatively, both deductively and inductively, to compare respondent opinions with those described in previous US studies. RESULTS: Of 3,191 surveys distributed, 1,520 were returned. Allocation of resources to maximize survival from current illness ("save the most lives") was the most popular triage principle, with 95.8% of respondents in agreement. Allocation to ensure a minimum duration of benefit, as determined by predicted prognosis after illness ("ensure minimum duration of benefit"), and allocation to persons who have experienced fewer life stages ("life cycle") obtained agreement of 82.2% and 80.1%, respectively. Withdrawal and reallocation of mechanical ventilators to more appropriate patients was supported by 64.4% of respondents. Only 28.4% of respondents supported the principle of first-come, first-served access to ventilators. INTERPRETATION: Most respondents supported allocation principles developed internationally and disagreed with the idea of first-come, first-served allocation during resource shortages. The Japanese public seems largely to be prepared to discuss the ethical dilemmas and possible solutions regarding fair and transparent allocation of critical care resources as a necessary step in confronting present and future pandemics and disasters.

Impact of COVID-19 on a Neurosurgical Service: Lessons from the University of California San Diego.

BACKGROUND: The institution-wide response of the University of California San Diego Health system to the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic was founded on rapid development of in-house testing capacity, optimization of personal protective equipment usage, expansion of intensive care unit capacity, development of analytic dashboards for monitoring of institutional status, and implementation of an operating room (OR) triage plan that postponed nonessential/elective procedures. We analyzed the impact of this triage plan on the only academic neurosurgery center in San Diego County, California, USA. METHODS: We conducted a de-identified retrospective review of all operative cases and procedures performed by the Department of Neurosurgery from November 24, 2019, through July 6, 2020, a 226-day period. Statistical analysis involved 2-sample z tests assessing daily case totals over the 113-day periods before and after implementation of the OR triage plan on March 16, 2020. RESULTS: The neurosurgical service performed 1429 surgical and interventional radiologic procedures over the study period. There was no statistically significant difference in mean number of daily total cases in the pre-versus post-OR triage plan periods (6.9 vs. 5.8 mean daily cases; 1-tail P = 0.050, 2-tail P = 0.101), a trend reflected by nearly every category of neurosurgical cases. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the University of California San Diego Department of Neurosurgery maintained an operative volume that was only modestly diminished and continued to meet the essential neurosurgical needs of a large population. Lessons from our experience can guide other departments as they triage neurosurgical cases to meet community needs.

Respuesta rápida a COVID-19, estrategias de escalada y desescalada para ajustar la capacidad suplementaria de camas de UVI a una epidemia de gran magnitud / Rapid response to COVID-19, escalation and de-escalation strategies to match surge capacity of Intensive Care beds to a large scale epidemic

INTRODUCCIÓN: Uno de los principales retos en el manejo de la COVID-19 es el aumento súbito de la demanda de camas de cuidados intensivos. En este artículo se describen las estrategias de gestión hospitalaria durante la escalada y desescalada de la respuesta a la epidemia de COVID-19 en un hospital terciario de Madrid. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Los datos derivan del sistema informático del hospital y del plan de contingencia del mismo. RESULTADOS: La epidemia de COVID-19 produjo un rápido aumento de los pacientes con necesidad de cuidados intensivos, lo que saturó las camas de UVI disponibles en pocos días. El hospital tuvo que aumentar su capacidad abriendo cuatro UVI adicionales para proporcionar los cuidados necesarios a todos los pacientes. Los retos principales fueron relativos a la infraestructura hospitalaria, los materiales y el personal. Gracias a las estrategias de gestión utilizadas, el hospital fue capaz de aumentar su capacidad de camas de UVI en un 340%, proporcionar cuidados a todos los pacientes con necesidad y mantener una mínima actividad quirúrgica programada. CONCLUSIONES: La capacidad de un hospital de aumentar su capacidad para enfrentarse a eventos excepcionales es difícil de cuantificar y se enfrenta a limitaciones físicas (materiales, personal, espacios). Con una gestión flexible y adaptable durante eventos excepcionales se pueden alargar significativamente estos límites

BACKGROUND: A major challenge during the COVID-19 outbreak is the sudden increase in ICU bed occupancy rate. In this article we reviewed the strategies of escalation and de-escalation put in place at a large university hospital in Madrid during the COVID-19 outbreak, in order to meet the growing demand of ICU beds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data displayed originated from the hospital information system and the hospital contingency plan. RESULTS: The COVID-19 outbreak produced a surge of ICU patients which saturated the available ICU capacity within a few days. A total of four new ICUs had to be opened in order to accommodate all necessary new ICU admissions. Management challenges included infrastructure, material allocation and ICU staffing. Through the strategies put in place the hospital was able to generate a surge capacity of ICU beds of 340%, meet all requirements and also maintain minimal surgical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital surge capacity is to date hardly quantifiable and often has to face physical limitations (material, personnel, spaces). However an extremely flexible and adaptable management strategy can help to overcome some of these limitations and stretch the system capacities during times of extreme need

Using Simulation to Develop Solutions for Ventilator Shortages From the Epicenter.

SUMMARY STATEMENT: The COVID-19 pandemic threatened to overwhelm the medical system of New York City, and the threat of ventilator shortages was real. Using high-fidelity simulation, a variety of solutions were tested to solve the problem of ventilator shortages including innovative designs for safely splitting ventilators, converting noninvasive ventilators to invasive ventilators, and testing and improving of ventilators created by outside companies. Simulation provides a safe environment for testing of devices and protocols before use on patients and should be vital in the preparation for emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Against Personal Ventilator Reallocation.

The COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease of 2019) pandemic has led to intense conversations about ventilator allocation and reallocation during a crisis standard of care. Multiple voices in the media and multiple state guidelines mention reallocation as a possibility. Drawing upon a range of neuroscientific, phenomenological, ethical, and sociopolitical considerations, the authors argue that taking away someone's personal ventilator is a direct assault on their bodily and social integrity. They conclude that personal ventilators should not be part of reallocation pools and that triage protocols should be immediately clarified to explicitly state that personal ventilators will be protected in all cases.

The US Strategic National Stockpile Ventilators in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Comparison of Functionality and Analysis Regarding the Emergency Purchase of 200,000 Devices.

BACKGROUND: Early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was serious concern that the United States would encounter a shortfall of mechanical ventilators. In response, the US government, using the Defense Production Act, ordered the development of 200,000 ventilators from 11 different manufacturers. These ventilators have different capabilities, and whether all are able to support COVID-19 patients is not evident. RESEARCH QUESTION: Evaluate ventilator requirements for affected COVID-19 patients, assess the clinical performance of current US Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) ventilators employed during the pandemic, and finally, compare ordered ventilators' functionality based on COVID-19 patient needs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Current published literature, publicly available documents, and lay press articles were reviewed by a diverse team of disaster experts. Data were assembled into tabular format, which formed the basis for analysis and future recommendations. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients often develop severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and adult respiratory defense syndrome (ARDS), requiring high levels of ventilator support. Current SNS ventilators were unable to fully support all COVID-19 patients, and only approximately half of newly ordered ventilators have the capacity to support the most severely affected patients; ventilators with less capacity for providing high-level support are still of significant value in caring for many patients. INTERPRETATION: Current SNS ventilators and those on order are capable of supporting most but not all COVID-19 patients. Technologic, logistic, and educational challenges encountered from current SNS ventilators are summarized, with potential next-generation SNS ventilator updates offered.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic's Effect on Critical Care Resources and Health-Care Providers: A Global Survey.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected ICUs and critical care health-care providers (HCPs) worldwide. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do regional differences and perceived lack of ICU resources affect critical care resource use and the well-being of HCPs? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Between April 23 and May 7, 2020, we electronically administered a 41-question survey to interdisciplinary HCPs caring for patients critically ill with COVID-19. The survey was distributed via critical care societies, research networks, personal contacts, and social media portals. Responses were tabulated according to World Bank region. We performed multivariate log-binomial regression to assess factors associated with three main outcomes: limiting mechanical ventilation (MV), changes in CPR practices, and emotional distress and burnout. RESULTS: We included 2,700 respondents from 77 countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%). The reported lack of ICU nurses was higher than that of intensivists (32% vs 15%). Limiting MV for patients with COVID-19 was reported by 16% of respondents, was lowest in North America (10%), and was associated with reduced ventilator availability (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.61-2.74). Overall, 66% of respondents reported changes in CPR practices. Emotional distress or burnout was high across regions (52%, highest in North America) and associated with being female (mechanical ventilation, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33), being a nurse (ARR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.53), reporting a shortage of ICU nurses (ARR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33), reporting a shortage of powered air-purifying respirators (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55), and experiencing poor communication from supervisors (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46). INTERPRETATION: Our findings demonstrate variability in ICU resource availability and use worldwide. The high prevalence of provider burnout and its association with reported insufficient resources and poor communication from supervisors suggest a need for targeted interventions to support HCPs on the front lines.

Saving the most lives-A comparison of European triage guidelines in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2020, the rapid increase in severe COVID-19 cases overwhelmed the healthcare systems in several European countries. The capacities for artificial ventilation in intensive care units were too scarce to care for patients with acute respiratory disorder connected to the disease. Several professional associations published COVID-19 triage recommendations in an extremely short time: in 21 days between March 6 and March 27. In this article, we compare recommendations from five European countries, which combine medical and ethical reflections on this situation in some detail. Our aim is to provide a detailed overview on the ethical elements of the recommendations, the differences between them and their coherence. In more general terms we want to identify shortcomings in regard to a common European response to the current situation.