Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. Methods:We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. Results:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy.Recommendation 9. For the acute resuscitation of adults with COVID-19 and shock, we suggest using a conservative over a liberal fluid strategy. Weak recommendation, low-quality evidence.

Given the rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, clinicians and policy makers require urgent review and summary of the literature, and synthesis of evidence-based guidelines to inform practice. The WHO advocates for rapid reviews in these circumstances. The purpose of this rapid guideline is to provide recommendations on the organizational management of intensive care units caring for patients with COVID-19 including: planning a crisis surge response; crisis surge response strategies; triage, supporting families, and staff.

BACKGROUND:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide. Given the rapidly growing evidence base, we implemented a living guideline model to provide guidance on the management of patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. METHODS:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Disease 2019 panel has expanded to include 43 experts from 14 countries; all panel members completed an electronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form. In this update, the panel addressed nine questions relevant to managing severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU. We used the World Health Organization's definition of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019. The systematic reviews team searched the literature for relevant evidence, aiming to identify systematic reviews and clinical trials. When appropriate, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis to summarize treatment effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, then used the evidence-to-decision framework to generate recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued nine statements (three new and six updated) related to ICU patients with severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019. For severe or critical coronavirus disease 2019, the panel strongly recommends using systemic corticosteroids and venous thromboprophylaxis but strongly recommends against using hydroxychloroquine. In addition, the panel suggests using dexamethasone (compared with other corticosteroids) and suggests against using convalescent plasma and therapeutic anticoagulation outside clinical trials. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel suggests using remdesivir in nonventilated patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 and suggests against starting remdesivir in patients with critical coronavirus disease 2019 outside clinical trials. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue a recommendation on the use of awake prone positioning. CONCLUSION:The Surviving Sepsis Campaign Coronavirus Diease 2019 panel issued several recommendations to guide healthcare professionals caring for adults with critical or severe coronavirus disease 2019 in the ICU.

Objectives Although diffuse alveolar damage, a subtype of acute lung injury (ALI), is the most common microscopic pattern in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), other pathologic patterns have been described. The aim of the study was to review autopsies from COVID-19 decedents to evaluate the spectrum of pathology and correlate the results with clinical, laboratory, and radiologic findings. Methods A comprehensive and quantitative review from 40 postmortem examinations was performed. The microscopic patterns were categorized as follows: “major” when present in more than 50% of cases and “novel” if rarely or not previously described and unexpected clinically. Results Three major pulmonary patterns were identified: ALI in 29 (73%) of 40, intravascular fibrin or platelet-rich aggregates (IFPAs) in 36 (90%) of 40, and vascular congestion and hemangiomatosis-like change (VCHL) in 20 (50%) of 40. The absence of ALI (non-ALI) was novel and seen in 11 (27%) of 40. Compared with ALI decedents, those with non-ALI had a shorter hospitalization course (P = .02), chest radiographs with no or minimal consolidation (P = .01), and no pathologically confirmed cause of death (9/11). All non-ALI had VCHL and IFPAs, and clinically most had cardiac arrest. Conclusions Two distinct pulmonary phenotypic patterns—ALI and non-ALI—were noted. Non-ALI represents a rarely described phenotype. The cause of death in non-ALI is most likely COVID-19 related but requires additional corroboration.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2017. Other selected articles can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/annualupdate2017. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and acute lung injury (ALI) are conditions associated with an estimated mortality of 40–50%. The use of inhaled vasodilators can help to improve oxygenation without hemodynamic effects. This article reviews relevant studies addressing the safety and efficacy of inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) and aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) in the treatment of life-threatening hypoxemia associated with ARDS and ALI. In addition, the article also provides a practicable guide to the clinical application of these therapies. Nine prospective randomized controlled trials were included for iNO reporting on changes in oxygenation or clinical outcomes. Seven reports of aEPO were examined for changes in oxygenation. Based on currently available data, the use of either iNO or aEPO is safe to use in patients with ALI or ARDS to transiently improve oxygenation. No differences have been observed in survival, ventilator-free days, or attenuation in disease severity. Further studies with consistent end points using standard delivery devices and standard modes of mechanical ventilation are needed to determine the overall benefit with iNO or aEPO.

Although the application of ECMO during severe ARDS resulted in a period of maximum sedation exposure that was both greater and took longer to reach, factors other than ECMO, particularly high-dose opioid administration, appeared more likely to account for this maximum sedation use. Further research surrounding sedative requirements, clearance, and patient response during ECMO is required.