Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The COVID-19 surge required the deployment of large numbers of non-intensive care providers to assist in the management of the critically ill. Institutions took a variety of approaches to "uptraining" such providers though studies describing methods and effectiveness are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:One hundred and seventy-five providers underwent a 3 h simulation-based session focused on management of shock, mechanical ventilation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and critical care ultrasound. All participants were sent surveys to assess their comfort with various aspects of critical care following return to their usual work environments. RESULTS:One hundred and eight providers of 175 (62%) completed the survey. Overall, 104/108 responders (96%) felt training either significantly or somewhat improved their knowledge in the management of ICU patients. Responders felt most comfortable in the management of hypoxemia in intubated patients and the management of ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (93% strongly agree or agree, and 86% strongly agree or agree, respectively). Fewer responders felt more comfortable using focused echocardiography (70% strongly agree or agree) and lung ultrasonography in following progression of COVID-19 (76% strongly agree or agree). CONCLUSIONS:Simulation-based training improved provider comfort in the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have become increasingly popular at institutions around the country, although the evidence to support their efficacy is limited. PERTs are mechanisms for rapid involvement of a multidisciplinary team in the management of a time-sensitive condition with many treatment options. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 201 patients with PERT activations since inception, collecting data on demographics, time to treatment, treatment modality, and in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS:Massive pulmonary embolism accounted for 16 (8.7%) PERT activations. The majority of patients were treated without invasive intervention; 91.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1%-95.7%) of patients received anticoagulation alone, 4.5% (95% CI, 0%-18.6%) had catheter-directed therapy (CDT), and 3.0% (95% CI, 0%-16.9%) had systemic administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). The average time to intervention was 665 minutes (95% CI, 249-1080 minutes) for CDT and 22 minutes (95% CI, 0-456 minutes) for systemic TPA. The average time to anticoagulation was 2.3 minutes (95% CI, 0-43 minutes). There was a trend toward higher rates of cardiac events (odds ratio [OR], 12.68; 95% CI, 0.62-65.74) and death (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 0.28-5.18) among patients with massive PE. There was a higher rate of cardiac events (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 1.34-23.83) among patients who received tPA or an invasive intervention. There was no difference in mortality rates of patients who underwent aggressive management compared with anticoagulation alone. CONCLUSIONS:A dedicated PERT results in efficient delivery of care and excellent outcomes, in part owing to the rapid (on average, 8 minutes) time to initiation of a multidisciplinary discussion. Patients who ultimately underwent CDT had an interval of >10 hours on average between diagnosis and CDT. This provisional or delayed approach to CDT in selected patients who were not improving with anticoagulation alone (and therefore had potential for higher net benefit from a procedure with its own inherent risks) may have resulted in a lower rate of CDT.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The rate of thromboembolic events among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is high; however, there is no robust method to identify those at greatest risk. We reviewed thromboelastography studies in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 to characterize their coagulation states. DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary ICU in New York City. PATIENTS/METHODS:Sixty-four patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to the ICU with thromboelastography performed. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:Fifty percent of patients had a clotting index in the hypercoagulable range (clotting index > 3) (median 3.05). Reaction time and K values were below the lower limit of normal in 43.8% of the population consistent with a hypercoagulable profile. The median α angle and maximum amplitude (75.8° and 72.8 mm, respectively) were in the hypercoagulable range. The α angle was above reference range in 70.3% of patients indicative of rapid clot formation. Maximum amplitude, a factor of fibrinogen and platelet count and function, and a measure of clot strength was above reference range in 60.1% of patients. Thirty-one percent had thromboembolic events; thromboelastography parameters did not correlate with events in our cohort. Those with D-dimer values greater than 2,000 were more likely to have shorter reaction times compared with those with D-dimer levels less than or equal to 2,000 (4.8 vs 5.6 min; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:A large proportion of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 have hypercoagulable thromboelastography profiles with additional derangements related to fibrinogen and platelet function. As the majority of patients have an elevated thromboelastography maximum amplitude, a follow-up study evaluating platelet aggregation would be instructive.

OBJECTIVE:<0.001). Rates of adverse events increased with the magnitude of D-dimer elevation; individuals with presenting D-dimer >2000 ng/mL had the highest risk of critical illness (66%), thrombotic event (37.8%), acute kidney injury (58.3%), and death (47%). CONCLUSIONS:Abnormal D-dimer was frequently observed at admission with COVID-19 and was associated with higher incidence of critical illness, thrombotic events, acute kidney injury, and death. The optimal management of patients with elevated D-dimer in COVID-19 requires further study.

•The risk of thromboembolic events in COVID-19 is substantial•Pulmonary embolism should be considered in cases of clinical deterioration•Management of clot in transit is controversial.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has placed an extraordinary strain on healthcare systems across North America. Defining the optimal approach for managing a critically ill COVID-19 patient is rapidly changing. Goal-directed transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is frequently used by physicians caring for intubated critically ill patients as a reliable imaging modality that is well suited to answer questions at bedside. METHODS:A multidisciplinary (intensive care, critical care cardiology, and emergency medicine) group of experts in point-of-care echocardiography and TEE from the United States and Canada convened to review the available evidence, share experiences, and produce a consensus statement aiming to provide clinicians with a framework to maximize the safety of patients and healthcare providers when considering focused point-of-care TEE in critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS:Although transthoracic echocardiography can provide the information needed in most patients, there are specific scenarios in which TEE represents the modality of choice. TEE provides acute care clinicians with a goal-directed framework to guide clinical care and represents an ideal modality to evaluate hemodynamic instability during prone ventilation, perform serial evaluations of the lungs, support cardiac arrest resuscitation, and guide veno-venous ECMO cannulation. To aid other clinicians in performing TEE during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe a set of principles and practical aspects for performing examinations with a focus on the logistics, personnel, and equipment required before, during, and after an examination. CONCLUSIONS:In the right clinical scenario, TEE is a tool that can provide the information needed to deliver the best and safest possible care for the critically ill patients.

Immunoglobulin G4-related disease is a systemic fibroinflammatory disease; pericardial involvement has occasionally been reported in publications. A 79-year-old man with biopsy-proven immunoglobulin G4-related disease with pleural involvement was admitted in acute heart failure, with imaging and hemodynamic studies consistent with constrictive pericarditis. He was treated with corticosteroids for 2 months with partial response manifest by decreases in pericardial thickening and immunoglobulin G4 levels. However, persistent constriction required pericardiectomy, leading to significant symptomatic improvement. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) velocity time integral (VTI), an echocardiographic measure of stroke distance, correlates with cardiac index. We sought to determine the prognostic significance of low RVOT VTI on clinical outcomes among patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of echocardiograms on Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) activations at our institution. The main outcome was a composite of death, cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic deterioration. RESULTS:Of 188 patients, 30 met the combined outcome (16%) and had significantly lower RVOT VTI measurements (9.0 cm v 13.4 cm, p < 0.0001). The AUC for RVOT VTI at a cutoff of 10 cm was 0.78 (95% CI 0.67-0.90) with a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 0.72, 0.81, 0.94, and 0.42, respectively. Fifty-two patients of the cohort were classified as intermediate-high-risk PE and 21% of those met the combined outcome. RVOT VTI was lower among outcome positive patients (7.3 cm v 10.7 cm, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Low RVOT VTI is associated with poor clinical outcomes among patients with acute PE.