The importance of innate immune cells to sense and respond to their physical environment is becoming increasingly recognized. Innate immune cells (e.g. macrophages and neutrophils) are able to receive mechanical signals through several mechanisms. In this review, we discuss the role of mechanosensitive ion channels, such as Piezo1 and transient receptor potential vanilloid 4 (TRPV4), and cell adhesion molecules, such as integrins, selectins, and cadherins in biology and human disease. Furthermore, we explain that these mechanical stimuli activate intracellular signaling pathways, such as MAPK (p38, JNK), YAP/TAZ, EDN1, NF-kB, and HIF-1α, to induce protein conformation changes and modulate gene expression to drive cellular function. Understanding the mechanisms by which immune cells interpret mechanosensitive information presents potential targets to treat human disease. Important areas of future study in this area include autoimmune, allergic, infectious, and malignant conditions.

Disasters, including infectious disease outbreaks, are inevitable. Hospitals need to plan in advance to ensure that their systems can adapt to a rapidly changing environment if necessary.This review provides an overview of 10 general principles that hospitals and health-care systems should consider when developing disaster plans. The principles are consistent with an "allhazards" approach to disaster mitigation. This approach is adapted to planning for a multiplicity of threats but emphasizes highly relevant scenarios, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We also describe specific ways these principles helped prepare our hospital for this pandemic. Key points include acting quickly, identifying and engaging key stakeholders early, providing accurate information, prioritizing employee safety and mental health, promoting a fully integrated clinical response, developing surge plans, preparing for ethical dilemmas, and having a cogent exit strategy for post-disaster recovery.

Objective: Many hospitals were unprepared for the surge of patients associated with the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We describe the processes to develop and implement a surge plan framework for resource allocation, staffing, and standardized management in response to the COVID-19 pandemic across a large integrated regional healthcare system.Setting: A large academic medical center in the Cleveland metropolitan area, with a network of 10 regional hospitals throughout Northeastern Ohio with a daily capacity of more than 500 intensive care unit (ICU) beds.Results: At the beginning of the pandemic, an equitable delivery of healthcare services across the healthcare system was developed. This distribution of resources was implemented with the potential needs and resources of the individual ICUs in mind, and epidemiologic predictions of virus transmissibility. We describe the processes to develop and implement a surge plan framework for resource allocation, staffing, and standardized management in response to the COVID-19 pandemic across a large integrated regional healthcare system. We also describe an additional level of surge capacity, which is available to well-integrated institutions called “extension of capacity.” This refers to the ability to immediately have access to the beds and resources within a hospital system with minimal administrative burden.Conclusions: Large integrated hospital systems may have an advantage over individual hospitals because they can shift supplies among regional partners, which may lead to faster mobilization of resources, rather than depending on local and national governments. The pandemic response of our healthcare system highlights these benefits.

Background: At outset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the significance of bacterial and fungal coinfections in individuals with COVID-19 was unknown. Initial reports indicated that the prevalence of coinfection in the general population was low, but there was uncertainty regarding the risk of coinfection in critically ill patients.Methods: Nine hundred critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 infection were enrolled in this observational case-control study. Patients with a coinfection (case) and patients without a coinfection (control) were compared using univariate and multivariable analyses. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients with coinfection, dividing them into early (infection within 7 days) and late (infection after 7 days) infection groups.Results: Two hundred and thirty-three patients (25.9%) had a bacterial or fungal coinfection. Vasopressor use (P<0.001) and severity of illness (higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, P=0.009) were risk factors for the development of a coinfection. Patients with coinfection had higher mortality and length of stay. Vasopressor and corticosteroid use and central line and foley catheter placement were risk factors for late infection (>7 days). There were high rates of drug-resistant infections.Conclusions: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at risk for both community-acquired and hospital-acquired infections throughout their hospitalization for COVID-19. It is important to consider the development of a coinfection in clinically worsening critically ill patients with COVID-19 and consider the likelihood of drug-resistance when choosing an empiric regimen.

No abstract