SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination rates in pregnant women in Scotland

Population-level data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnancy and SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are lacking. We describe COVID-19 vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women in Scotland, using whole-population data from a national, prospective cohort. Between the start of a COVID-19 vaccine program in Scotland, on 8 December 2020 and 31 October 2021, 25,917 COVID-19 vaccinations were given to 18,457 pregnant women. Vaccine coverage was substantially lower in pregnant women than in the general female population of 18−44 years; 32.3% of women giving birth in October 2021 had two doses of vaccine compared to 77.4% in all women. The extended perinatal mortality rate for women who gave birth within 28 d of a COVID-19 diagnosis was 22.6 per 1,000 births (95% CI 12.9−38.5; pandemic background rate 5.6 per 1,000 births; 452 out of 80,456; 95% CI 5.1−6.2). Overall, 77.4% (3,833 out of 4,950; 95% CI 76.2−78.6) of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 90.9% (748 out of 823; 95% CI 88.7−92.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with hospital admission and 98% (102 out of 104; 95% CI 92.5−99.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with critical care admission, as well as all baby deaths, occurred in pregnant women who were unvaccinated at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.

Mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM), C-reactive protein (CRP) and other biomarkers in the early identification of disease progression in patients with COVID-19 in the acute NHS setting

AimsThere is a lack of biomarkers validated for assessing clinical deterioration in patients with COVID-19 on presentation to secondary or tertiary care. This evaluation looked at the potential clinical application of C reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, mid-regional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) and white cell count to support prediction of clinical outcomes.Methods135 patients presenting to Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust between April and June 2020 confirmed to have COVID-19 via reverse-transcription-qPCR were included. Biomarkers from within 24 hours of presentation were used to predict disease progression by Cox regression and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. The endpoints assessed were 30-day all-cause mortality, intubation and ventilation, critical care admission and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) use.ResultsElevated MR-proADM was shown to have the greatest ability to predict 30-day mortality adjusting for age, cardiovascular disease, renal disease and neurological disease. A significant association was also noted between raised MR-proADM and CRP concentrations and the requirement for critical care admission and NIV.ConclusionsThe measurement of MR-proADM and CRP in patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection on admission shows significant potential to support clinicians in identifying those at increased risk of disease progression and need for higher level care, subsequently enabling prompt escalation in clinical interventions.

Evaluation of medication changes following severe COVID-19 infection: a multicentre evaluation

BackgroundCritically ill patients often experience several transitions of care following critical illness. Research has explored the challenges which patients have with medication management across these transitions. It is unclear whether patients admitted to critical care due to COVID-19 will have similar challenges. The aim of this study was to explore medication management in critical care survivors following severe COVID-19.MethodsBetween 3 and 7 months post hospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. During the clinic consultation a medication review was performed by a pharmacist. This included medicines reconciliation, assessing the appropriateness of each of the prescribed medications and identification of medication changes. We also assessed changes to pain management in the discharge period.ResultsIn total, 78 patients had a full medication review available. Over 70% of patients were taking an increased dose of medicine or a new medicine at clinic. There was a significant overall increase in new medication during the clinic consultation, across different British National Formulary classifications (OR: 1.73 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.34), p<0.001). Compared with pre critical care admission, there was a significant increase in the number of patients taking regular analgesia following severe COVID-19 infection (23 (29.5%) vs 39 (50%), p<0.001).ConclusionFollowing severe COVID-19, patients may require new or increasing doses of medicines. Ongoing review of these patients is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes.

Population level impact of a pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme on mortality and healthcare utilisation in the people with covid-19 in England: a national analysis using a stepped wedge design

Objectives To identify the population level impact of a national pulse oximetry remote monitoring programme for covid-19 (COVID Oximetry @home; CO@h) in England on mortality and health service use. Design Retrospective cohort study using a stepped wedge pre- and post- implementation design. Setting All Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England implementing a local CO@h programme. Participants 217,650 people with a positive covid-19 polymerase chain reaction test result and symptomatic, from 1st October 2020 to 3rd May 2021, aged ≥65 years or identified as clinically extremely vulnerable. Care home residents were excluded. Interventions A pre-intervention period before implementation of the CO@h programme in each CCG was compared to a post-intervention period after implementation. Main outcome measures Five outcome measures within 28 days of a positive covid-19 test: i) death from any cause; ii) any A&E attendance; iii) any emergency hospital admission; iv) critical care admission; and v) total length of hospital stay. Results Implementation of the programme was not associated with mortality or length of hospital stay. Implementation was associated with increased health service utilisation with a 12% increase in the odds of A&E attendance (95% CI: 6%-18%) and emergency hospital admission (95% CI: 5%-20%) and a 24% increase in the odds of critical care admission in those admitted (95% CI: 5%-47%). In a secondary analysis of CO@h sites with at least 10% or 20% of eligible people enrolled, there was no significant association with any outcome measure. However, uptake of the programme was low, with enrolment data received for only 5,527 (2.5%) of the eligible population. Conclusions At a population level, there was no association with mortality following implementation of the CO@h programme, and small increases in health service utilisation were observed. Low enrolment of eligible people may have diluted the effects of the programme at a population level.

Unique Considerations for Psychologists Working in Pediatric Critical Care

This chapter reviews the roles of pediatric psychologists in critical care settings. Assessment and intervention strategies are discussed while also highlighting the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. Relevant literature is reviewed while also providing practical information regarding psychology practice in these complex settings. The authors summarize adverse psychiatric sequelae and risk factors during and after the critical care admission. The consultation and liaison roles of psychologists, including assessment and intervention, health promotion, interprofessional team support, and familial support through biopsychosocial and developmental frameworks, make a case for the value they bring to critical care teams. The chapter also reviews the key knowledge, skills, and attributes necessary for psychologists to function effectively within pediatric critical care settings.

The COVID-OR Study: 1 year Observation of Recovery from critical illness following COVID-19 and feasibility of smartwatch assisted rehabilitation. (Preprint)

BACKGROUND As a sequelae of the COVID-19 pandemic, a large cohort of critical illness survivors have had to recover in the context of ongoing societal restrictions. OBJECTIVE To observe the recovery of survivors of critical care admission with COVID-19 using smartwatches, evaluate how these devices enabled a remote multidisciplinary team (MDT) to support patient recovery, and assess the usability of these devices. METHODS A prospective multi-centre observational trial in eight UK critical care units. 50 participants with moderate or severe lung injury as a result of confirmed COVID-19 disease were recruited at discharge from critical care and given a smartwatch (Fitbit Charge 3). Data collected included step count and daily resting heart rate (HR). A subgroup, the ‘MDT site’ (n=19), had their smartwatch data used to inform a regular MDT meeting. Devices were evaluated by use of a patient feedback questionnaire and direct feedback from the MDT. Participants that did not upload smartwatch data were excluded from analysis. RESULTS From the overall cohort, 35 (70%) participants used and uploaded data from their smartwatch during the 1 year period. 14 users uploaded data from the MDT site. The overall cohort recorded a mean increase of 4359 (±3488) steps per day in the first month following discharge, to 7914(±4146) steps at 1 year (p<0.01). HR reduced from a mean of 79 (7) beats per minute in the first month to 69 (4) at one year following discharge (p<0.01)). The MDT subgroup increased mean step count by more than the control group (176 vs 42%, p=0.04) over the 1 year. 94% of fitbit users found their smartwatch easy to use and 80% felt that the technology helped and motivated them to recover. CONCLUSIONS This is the first study to report 1-year recovery of patients who survived COVID-19 critical illness using smartwatch technology. Future work could explore the role of smartwatches as part of a randomised controlled trial to assess clinical and economic effectiveness. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2020.0102

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Inpatient Mortality Associated With Nosocomial and Community COVID-19 Exposes the Vulnerability of Immunosuppressed Adults

BackgroundLittle is known about the mortality of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) COVID-19 infection globally. We investigated the risk of mortality and critical care admission in hospitalised adults with nosocomial COVID-19, relative to adults requiring hospitalisation due to community-acquired infection.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the peer-reviewed and pre-print literature from 1/1/2020 to 9/2/2021 without language restriction for studies reporting outcomes of nosocomial and community-acquired COVID-19. We performed a random effects meta-analysis (MA) to estimate the 1) relative risk of death and 2) critical care admission, stratifying studies by patient cohort characteristics and nosocomial case definition.Results21 studies were included in the primary MA, describing 8,251 admissions across 8 countries during the first wave, comprising 1513 probable or definite nosocomial COVID-19, and 6738 community-acquired cases. Across all studies, the risk of mortality was 1.3 times greater in patients with nosocomial infection, compared to community-acquired (95% CI: 1.005 to 1.683). Rates of critical care admission were similar between groups (Relative Risk, RR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.08). Immunosuppressed patients diagnosed with nosocomial COVID-19 were twice as likely to die in hospital as those admitted with community-acquired infection (RR=2.14, 95% CI: 1.76 to 2.61).ConclusionsAdults who acquire SARS-CoV-2 whilst already hospitalised are at greater risk of mortality compared to patients admitted following community-acquired infection; this finding is largely driven by a substantially increased risk of death in individuals with malignancy or who had undergone transplantation. These findings inform public health and infection control policy and argue for individualised clinical interventions to combat the threat of nosocomial COVID-19, particularly for immunosuppressed groups.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42021249023

EP.WE.573Outcomes of Emergency Laparotomies during the COVID-19 Pandemic - A retrospective cohort study

Aims A better understanding of patient monitoring and outcomes is required following emergency laparotomy. We aimed to evaluate recovery following emergency laparotomy during the ‘first wave’ of the COVID-19 pandemic and assess for COVID-19-associated coagulopathy in this group. Methods We performed a single-centre, retrospective cohort study on adult patients undergoing emergency laparotomy from 23rdMarch – 16thMay 2020 comparing patients with or without suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2. Main outcome measures included; 30-day mortality, post-operative respiratory failure, ARDS and other complications, critical care admission and length of stay (CCLOS) and total length of stay (LOS). Laboratory results were collected for three days post-operatively including platelet counts and clotting screen. Results 33 patients undergoing 36 emergency laparotomies were included, of which 9 had confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to have severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) (9/9 vs 5/24; p &lt; 0.001), post-operative respiratory failure (9/9 vs 2/24; p &lt; 0.001), ARDS (3/9 vs 0/24; p = 0.015) and need for critical care stay (9/9 vs 12/24; p = 0.012) with a longer LOS and CCLOS (17 vs 7 days; p = 0.004 and 6 vs 1 day; p &lt; 0.001 respectively). Platelet counts were consistently lower on all peri-operative days and patients had a higher incidence of coagulopathy (7/11 vs 3/17; p = 0.020). Conclusions Emergency laparotomy is associated with increased post-operative morbidity in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 with increased respiratory complications and critical care stay. Post-operative patients with COVID-19 show mildly reduced platelet counts and deranged clotting that may be part of a COVID-19-associated coagulopathy.