Faculty Bibliography

Since the first recognition of a cluster of novel respiratory viral infections in China in late December 2019, intensivists in the United States have watched with growing concern as infections with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus-now named coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19)-have spread to hospitals in the United States. Because COVID-19 is extremely transmissible and can progress to a severe form of respiratory failure, the potential to overwhelm available critical care resources is high and critical care management of COVID-19 patients has been thrust into the spotlight. COVID-19 arrived in the United States in January and, as anticipated, has dramatically increased the usage of critical care resources. Three of the hardest-hit cities have been Seattle, New York City, and Chicago with a combined total of over 14,000 cases as of March 23, 2020.In this special article, we describe initial clinical impressions of critical care of COVID-19 in these areas, with attention to clinical presentation, laboratory values, organ system effects, treatment strategies, and resource management. We highlight clinical observations that align with or differ from already published reports. These impressions represent only the early empiric experience of the authors and are not intended to serve as recommendations or guidelines for practice, but rather as a starting point for intensivists preparing to address COVID-19 when it arrives in their community.

There is a current paucity of information about the obstetric and perinatal outcomes of pregnant novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in North America. Data from China suggest that pregnant women with COVID-19 have favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes, with rare cases of critical illness or respiratory compromise. However, we report two cases of pregnant women diagnosed with COVID-19 in the late preterm period admitted to tertiary care hospitals in New York City for respiratory indications. After presenting with mild symptoms, both quickly developed worsening respiratory distress requiring intubation, and both delivered preterm via caesarean delivery. These cases highlight the potential for rapid respiratory decompensation in pregnant COVID-19 patients and the maternal-fetal considerations in managing these cases.

BACKGROUND:Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are designed to restore baseline physiology, mitigate surgical stressors, and hasten recovery. Paramount to this approach is optimal pain control through multimodal analgesia and limiting reliance on opioid-based medications. Recent studies have fostered growing controversy surrounding the use of epidural analgesia in the ERAS setting, especially for higher-risk procedures. We examine the analgesic end points associated with the use of epidural within the ERAS framework for open hepatectomy. METHODS:From November 2013 through March 2016, postoperative analgesic end points including daily morphine equivalent administration and self-reported pain scores were prospectively collected and analyzed for 180 consecutive patients scheduled for open hepatectomy. Patients whose surgeries performed prior to July 2014 were managed using traditional strategy (pre-ERAS, n = 60), and those after July 1 underwent a comprehensive perioperative ERAS pathway (ERAS, n = 120). RESULTS:Patients managed using the ERAS pathway had a significant reduction in morphine equivalent requirements at 24 hours (median, 10.0 vs 116.0 mg; P < 0.001), 48 hours (median, 10.1 vs 85.4 mg; P < 0.001), and 72 hours (median, 2.5 vs 60.0 mg; P < 0.001) compared with pre-ERAS counterparts with a reduction in average pain scores at 24 hours (numeric pain rating scale, 4.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.1 ± 1.8) and similar scores at other time points. Within ERAS, patients who received epidural (n = 87) required significantly less morphine equivalents at 24 hours (median, 2.7 vs 65.0 mg; P < 0.001) and 48 hours (median, 8.0 vs 50.0 mg; P < 0.001) but not at 72 hours (median, 1.3 vs 4.5 mg; P = 0.56), as well as improved pain scores at 24 hours (visual analog scale score, 3.8 ± 1.3 vs 5.0 ± 1.8; P < 0.001) and 48 hours (3.4 ± 1.8 vs 4.7 ± 1.9; P = 0.001) compared with those who did not receive epidural (n = 33). Other associated postoperative end points including provision of fluids, rates of clinically significant hypotension, and lengths of stay between epidural and nonepidural groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS:A novel ERAS protocol for open hepatectomy successfully reduced reliance on perioperative opioids without expensing adequate analgesia compared with traditional care. Patients within ERAS benefitted from application of epidural, which further reduced opioid requirements and optimized pain control without increasing complication rates. Epidurals should remain an integral part of ERAS protocols for liver resection surgery.