OBJECTIVES: Recent research has helped define the complex pathways in sepsis, affording new opportunities for advancing diagnostics tests. Given significant advances in the field, a group of academic investigators from emergency medicine, intensive care, pathology, and pharmacology assembled to develop consensus around key gaps and potential future use for emerging rapid host response diagnostics assays in the emergency department (ED) setting. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted that included 26 panelists (expert consensus panel) from multiple specialties. A smaller steering committee first defined a list of Delphi statements related to the need for and future potential use of a hypothetical sepsis diagnostic test in the ED. Likert scoring was used to assess panelists agreement or disagreement with statements. Two successive rounds of surveys were conducted and consensus for statements was operationally defined as achieving agreement or disagreement of 75% or greater. RESULTS: Significant gaps were identified related to current tools for assessing risk of sepsis in the ED. Strong consensus indicated the need for a test providing an indication of the severity of dysregulated host immune response, which would be helpful even if it did not identify the specific pathogen. Although there was a relatively high degree of uncertainty regarding which patients would most benefit from the test, the panel agreed that an ideal host response sepsis test should aim to be integrated into ED triage and thus should produce results in less than 30 minutes. The panel also agreed that such a test would be most valuable for improving sepsis outcomes and reducing rates of unnecessary antibiotic use. CONCLUSION: The expert consensus panel expressed strong consensus regarding gaps in sepsis diagnostics in the ED and the potential for new rapid host response tests to help fill these gaps. These finding provide a baseline framework for assessing key attributes of evolving host response diagnostic tests for sepsis in the ED.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned.

Abstract Introduction Conservative fluid management in patients with acute lung injury (ALI) increases time alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Vascular pedicle width (VPW) is a non-invasive measurement of intravascular volume status. The VPW was studied in ALI patients to determine the correlation between VPW and intravascular pressure measurements and whether VPW could predict fluid status. Methods This retrospective cohort study involved 152 patients with ALI enrolled in the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) from five NHLBI ARDS (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome) Network sites. VPW and central venous pressure (CVP) or pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) from the first four study days were correlated. The relationships between VPW, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), cumulative fluid balance, and PAOP were also evaluated. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine the ability of VPW to detect PAOP <8 mmHg and PAOP ≥18 mm Hg. Results A total of 71 and 152 patients provided 118 and 276 paired VPW/PAOP and VPW/CVP measurements, respectively. VPW correlated with PAOP (r = 0.41; P < 0.001) and less well with CVP (r = 0.21; P = 0.001). In linear regression, VPW correlated with PAOP 1.5-fold better than cumulative fluid balance and 2.5-fold better than PEEP. VPW discriminated achievement of PAOP <8 mm Hg (AUC = 0.73; P = 0.04) with VPW ≤67 mm demonstrating 71% sensitivity (95% CI 30 to 95%) and 68% specificity (95% CI 59 to 75%). For discriminating a hydrostatic component of the edema (that is, PAOP ≥18 mm Hg), VPW ≥72 mm demonstrated 61.4% sensitivity (95% CI 47 to 74%) and 61% specificity (49 to 71%) (area under the curve (AUC) 0.69; P = 0.001). Conclusions VPW correlates with PAOP better than CVP in patients with ALI. Due to its only moderate sensitivity and specificity, the ability of VPW to discriminate fluid status in patients with acute lung injury is limited and should only be considered when intravascular pressures are unavailable.

Rationale: GM-CSF (granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor) has emerged as a promising target against the hyperactive host immune response associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Objectives: We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of gimsilumab, an anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of hospitalized patients with elevated inflammatory markers and hypoxemia secondary to COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, BREATHE (Better Respiratory Education and Treatment Help Empower), at 21 locations in the United States. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive two doses of intravenous gimsilumab or placebo 1 week apart. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality rate at Day 43. Key secondary outcomes were ventilator-free survival rate, ventilator-free days, and time to hospital discharge. Enrollment was halted early for futility based on an interim analysis. Measurements and Main Results: Of the planned 270 patients, 225 were randomized and dosed; 44.9% of patients were Hispanic or Latino. The gimsilumab and placebo groups experienced an all-cause mortality rate at Day 43 of 28.3% and 23.2%, respectively (adjusted difference = 5% vs. placebo; 95% confidence interval [-6 to 17]; P = 0.377). Overall mortality rates at 24 weeks were similar across the treatment arms. The key secondary endpoints demonstrated no significant differences between groups. Despite the high background use of corticosteroids and anticoagulants, adverse events were generally balanced between treatment groups. Conclusions: Gimsilumab did not improve mortality or other key clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and evidence of systemic inflammation. The utility of anti-GM-CSF therapy for COVID-19 remains unclear. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04351243).

Description

Coronavirus disease 2019 convalescent plasma (CCP) has emerged as a potential treatment of COVID-19. However, meta-analysis data and recommendations are limited. The Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB) developed clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of CCP.

Methods

These guidelines are based on 2 living systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CCP from 1 January 2019 to 26 January 2022. There were 33 RCTs assessing 21 916 participants. The results were summarized using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method. An expert panel reviewed the data using the GRADE framework to formulate recommendations.

Recommendation 1 (outpatient)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for outpatients with COVID-19 who are at high risk for disease progression (weak recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence).

Recommendation 2 (inpatient)

The AABB recommends against CCP transfusion for unselected hospitalized persons with moderate or severe disease (strong recommendation, high-certainty evidence). This recommendation does not apply to immunosuppressed patients or those who lack antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

Recommendation 3 (inpatient)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who do not have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies detected at admission (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

Recommendation 4 (inpatient)

The AABB suggests CCP transfusion in addition to the usual standard of care for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and preexisting immunosuppression (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

Recommendation 5 (prophylaxis)

The AABB suggests against prophylactic CCP transfusion for uninfected persons with close contact exposure to a person with COVID-19 (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence).

Good clinical practice statement

CCP is most effective when transfused with high neutralizing titers to infected patients early after symptom onset.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

Prompt intravenous fluid therapy is a fundamental treatment for patients with septic shock. However, the optimal approach for administering intravenous fluid in septic shock resuscitation is unknown. Two competing strategies are emerging: a liberal fluids approach, consisting of a larger volume of initial fluid (50 to 75 mL/kg [4 to 6 L in an 80-kg adult] during the first 6 hours) and later use of vasopressors, versus a restrictive fluids approach, consisting of a smaller volume of initial fluid (≤30 mL/kg [≤2 to 3 L]), with earlier reliance on vasopressor infusions to maintain blood pressure and perfusion. Early fluid therapy may enhance or maintain tissue perfusion by increasing venous return and cardiac output. However, fluid administration may also have deleterious effects by causing edema within vital organs, leading to organ dysfunction and impairment of oxygen delivery. Conversely, a restrictive fluids approach primarily relies on vasopressors to reverse hypotension and maintain perfusion while limiting the administration of fluid. Both strategies have some evidence to support their use but lack robust data to confirm the benefit of one strategy over the other, creating clinical and scientific equipoise. As part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network, we designed a randomized clinical trial to compare the liberal and restrictive fluids strategies, the Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressor Early Resuscitation in Sepsis trial. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on approaches to early fluid resuscitation in adults with septic shock and outline the rationale for the upcoming trial.

Objectives

Given finite ICU bed capacity, knowledge of ICU bed utilization during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is critical to ensure future strategies for resource allocation and utilization. We sought to examine ICU census trends in relation to ICU bed capacity during the rapid increase in severe coronavirus disease 2019 cases early during the pandemic.

Design

Observational cohort study.

Setting

Thirteen geographically dispersed academic medical centers in the United States.

Patients/subjects

We obtained daily ICU censuses from March 26 to June 30, 2020, as well as prepandemic ICU bed capacities. The primary outcome was daily census of ICU patients stratified by coronavirus disease 2019 and mechanical ventilation status in relation to ICU capacity.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and main results

Prepandemic overall ICU capacity ranged from 62 to 225 beds (median 109). During the study period, the median daily coronavirus disease 2019 ICU census per hospital ranged from 1 to 84 patients, and the daily ICU census exceeded overall ICU capacity for at least 1 day at five institutions. The number of critically ill patients exceeded ICU capacity for a median (interquartile range) of 17 (12-50) of 97 days at these five sites. All 13 institutions experienced decreases in their noncoronavirus disease ICU population, whereas local coronavirus disease 2019 cases increased. Coronavirus disease 2019 patients reached their greatest proportion of ICU capacity on April 12, 2020, when they accounted for 44% of ICU patients across all participating hospitals. Maximum ICU census ranged from 52% to 289% of overall ICU capacity, with three sites less than 80%, four sites 80-100%, five sites 100-128%, and one site 289%.

Conclusions

From March to June 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to ICU censuses greater than ICU bed capacity at fives of 13 institutions evaluated. These findings demonstrate the short-term adaptability of U.S. healthcare institutions in redirecting limited resources to accommodate a public health emergency.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac function of critically ill patients with COVID-19 generally has been reported from clinically obtained data. Echocardiographic deformation imaging can identify ventricular dysfunction missed by traditional echocardiographic assessment. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the prevalence of ventricular dysfunction and what are its implications for the natural history of critical COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. We performed serial echocardiography and lower extremity vascular ultrasound on hospitalization days 1, 3, and 8. We defined left ventricular (LV) dysfunction as the absolute value of longitudinal strain of < 17% or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of < 50%. Primary clinical outcome was inpatient survival. RESULTS: We enrolled 110 patients. Thirty-nine (35.5%) died before hospital discharge. LV dysfunction was present at admission in 38 patients (34.5%) and in 21 patients (36.2%) on day 8 (P = .59). Median baseline LVEF was 62% (interquartile range [IQR], 52%-69%), whereas median absolute value of baseline LV strain was 16% (IQR, 14%-19%). Survivors and nonsurvivors did not differ statistically significantly with respect to day 1 LV strain (17.9% vs 14.4%; P = .12) or day 1 LVEF (60.5% vs 65%; P = .06). Nonsurvivors showed worse day 1 right ventricle (RV) strain than survivors (16.3% vs 21.2%; P = .04). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with critical COVID-19, LV and RV dysfunction is common, frequently identified only through deformation imaging, and early (day 1) RV dysfunction may be associated with clinical outcome.

Background

We sought to assess whether persistent COVID-19 symptoms beyond 6 months (Long-COVID) among patients with mild COVID-19 is associated with poorer health status, quality of life, and psychological distress.

Methods

This was a multicenter prospective cohort study that included adult outpatients with acute COVID-19 from eight sites during 2-week sampling periods from April 1 and July 28, 2020. Participants were contacted 6-11 months after their first positive SARS-CoV-2 to complete a survey, which collected information on the severity of eight COVID-19 symptoms using a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not present) to 3 (severe) at 1 month before COVID-19 (pre-illness) and at follow-up; the difference for each was calculated as an attributable persistent symptom severity score. A total attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was calculated by summing the attributable persistent severity scores for all eight symptoms. Outcomes measured at long-term follow-up comprised overall health status (EuroQol visual analogue scale), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The association between the total attributable persistent COVID-19 burden score and each outcome was analyzed using multivariable proportional odds regression.

Results

Of the 2092 outpatients with COVID-19, 436 (21%) responded to the survey. The median (IQR) attributable persistent COVID-19 symptom burden score was 2 (0, 4); higher scores were associated with lower overall health status (aOR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.57-0.69), lower quality of life (aOR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.59-0.72), and higher psychological distress (aOR: 1.40; 95%CI, 1.28-1.54) after adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, education, and income.

Conclusions

In participants with mild acute COVID-19, the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.