Faculty Bibliography

The coexistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pulmonary embolism (PE), two life-threatening illnesses, in the same patient presents a unique challenge. Guidelines have delineated how best to diagnose and manage patients with PE. However, the unique aspects of COVID-19 confound both the diagnosis and treatment of PE, and therefore require modification of established algorithms. Important considerations include adjustment of diagnostic modalities, incorporation of the prothrombotic contribution of COVID-19, management of two critical cardiorespiratory illnesses in the same patient, and protecting patients and health-care workers while providing optimal care. The benefits of a team-based approach for decision-making and coordination of care, such as that offered by pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs), have become more evident in this crisis. The importance of careful follow-up care also is underscored for patients with these two diseases with long-term effects. This position paper from the PERT Consortium specifically addresses issues related to the diagnosis and management of PE in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND:Thrombosis is a prominent feature of the novel Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The incidence of thrombosis during hospitalization for non-COVID-19 viral respiratory infections is uncertain. We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses compared to COVID-19. METHODS:Adults age >18 years hospitalized with a non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness between 2002-2014 were identified. The primary study outcome was a composite of venous and arterial thrombotic events, including myocardial infarction (MI), acute ischemic stroke, and venous thromboembolism, as defined by ICD-9 codes. The incidence of thrombosis in non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illnesses was compared to the recently published incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19 from 3,334 patients hospitalized in New York in 2020. RESULTS:Among 954,521 hospitalizations with viral pneumonia from 2002 to 2014 (mean age 62.3 years, 57.1% female), the combined incidence of arterial and venous thrombosis was 5.0%. Acute MI occurred in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. Patients with thrombosis had higher in-hospital mortality (14.9% vs. 3.3%, p<0.001) than those without thrombosis. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (median age 64; 39.6% female) in 2020 (5% vs. 16%; p<0.001) CONCLUSION: In a nationwide analysis of hospitalizations for viral pneumonias, thrombosis risk was lower than that observed in patients with COVID-19. Investigations into mechanisms of thrombosis and risk reduction strategies in COVID-19 and other viral respiratory infections are necessary. SHORT ABSTRACT/UNASSIGNED:We evaluated the incidence of thrombosis in patients hospitalized with non-COVID-19 acute viral respiratory illnesses nationwide from 2012 to 2014 and compared this to the incidence among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a large health system in New York. Non-COVID-19 viral respiratory illness was complicated by acute MI in 2.8% of hospitalizations, VTE in 1.6%, ischemic stroke in 0.7%, and other systemic embolism in 0.1%. The proportion of hospitalizations complicated by thrombosis was lower in patients with viral respiratory illness in 2002-2014 than in COVID-19 (5% vs. 16%; p<0.001).

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.

Objective: We present a patient who developed prolonged coma following treatment of ethanol withdrawal with large doses of diazepam and demonstrated prolonged elimination toxicokinetics. Case report: A 68-year-old man who drank 5-6 alcoholic beverages/day was admitted for an elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Two days post-procedure, he developed agitation and was presumptively treated for ethanol withdrawal with diazepam (470 mg IV over 24 hours). He remained comatose for four days prompting a toxicology consult. On day 7 of persistent coma from presumed benzodiazepine excess, flumazenil (0.5 mg) was administered; he opened his eyes for the first time, began speaking, and answering simple questions, but 30 minutes later was comatose again. Flumazenil infusion 0.25mg/h was trialed with unclear effect. His hospitalization was complicated by gastrointestinal bleeding and mild ischemic stroke deemed noncontributory to his clinical status. The flumazenil infusion was discontinued 1 week later. His evaluation was extensive (brain magnetic resonance imaging and computerised tomography, lumbar puncture, and blood cultures) and unremarkable. On hospital week 4, he became only gradually more awake, and was eventually discharged to a rehabilitation facility on hospital week 6, awake, conversive but still confused. Six weeks later, he was discharged home fully recovered. He remains amnestic to his hospitalization. Serum diazepam and nordiazepam concentrations were determined via liquid-chromatography mass-spectrometry. Concentrations obtained four days after the last dose were: diazepam 963 mug/L (therapeutic: 200-1000 mug/L) and nordiazepam 240 mug/L (therapeutic: 100-1500 mug/L). Elimination kinetics were calculated with apparent half-lives of 294 hours and 797 hours for diazepam and nordiazepam, respectively. Genotyping of CYP3A4 and CYP2C19, the two primary metabolizers of diazepam, demonstrated no abnormalities.
Conclusion(s): Diazepam demonstrated extremely atypical elimination kinetics despite normal renal and hepatic function. Acute tolerance which is expected after prolonged benzodiazepine exposure was not clearly demonstrated. The relationship between his serum concentration and clinical status is unclear at this time

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.

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.

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.

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.

•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.