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.

IMPORTANCE Many patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are critically ill and require care in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE To evaluate the independent risk factors associated with mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring treatment in ICUs in the Lombardy region of Italy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, observational cohort study included 3988 consecutive critically ill patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 referred for ICU admission to the coordinating center (Fondazione IRCCS [Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico] Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy) of the COVID-19 Lombardy ICU Network from February 20 to April 22, 2020. Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assay of nasopharyngeal swabs. Follow-up was completed on May 30, 2020. EXPOSURES Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, long-term medications, and ventilatory support at ICU admission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Time to death in days from ICU admission to hospital discharge. The independent risk factors associated with mortality were evaluated with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Of the 3988 patients included in this cohort study, the median age was 63 (interquartile range [IQR] 56-69) years; 3188 (79.9%; 95% CI, 78.7%-81.1%) were men, and 1998 of 3300 (60.5%; 95% CI, 58.9%-62.2%) had at least 1 comorbidity. At ICU admission, 2929 patients (87.3%; 95% CI, 86.1%-88.4%) required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The median follow-up was 44 (95% CI, 40-47; IQR, 11-69; range, 0-100) days; median time from symptoms onset to ICU admission was 10 (95% CI, 9-10; IQR, 6-14) days; median length of ICU stay was 12 (95% CI, 12-13; IQR, 6-21) days; and median length of IMV was 10 (95% CI, 10-11; IQR, 6-17) days. Cumulative observation time was 164 305 patient-days. Hospital and ICU mortality rates were 12 (95% CI, 11-12) and 27 (95% CI, 26-29) per 1000 patients-days, respectively. In the subgroup of the first 1715 patients, as of May 30, 2020, 865 (50.4%) had been discharged from the ICU, 836 (48.7%) had died in the ICU, and 14 (0.8%) were still in the ICU; overall, 915 patients (53.4%) died in the hospital. Independent risk factors associated with mortality included older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.60-1.92), male sex (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.31-1.88), high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO 2) (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.10-1.19), high positive end-expiratory pressure (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) or low PaO 2 :FiO 2 ratio (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87) on ICU admission, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.28-2.19), hypercholesterolemia (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52), and type 2 diabetes (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39). No medication was independently associated with mortality (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.42; angiotensin receptor blockers HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.29). CONCLUS...

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.

The ERAS pathway reduced overall morbidity rates and shortened the length of hospital stay, without increasing readmission rates. A significant reduction in nonsurgical complications was evident, while no significant reduction was found for surgical complications.

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.

Summary The first person‐to‐person transmission of the 2019 novel coronavirus in Italy on 21 February 2020 led to an infection chain that represents one of the largest known COVID‐19 outbreaks outside Asia. In northern Italy in particular, we rapidly experienced a critical care crisis due to a shortage of intensive care beds, as we expected according to data reported in China. Based on our experience of managing this surge, we produced this review to support other healthcare services in preparedness and training of hospitals during the current coronavirus outbreak. We had a dedicated task force that identified a response plan, which included: (1) establishment of dedicated, cohorted intensive care units for COVID‐19–positive patients; (2) design of appropriate procedures for pre‐triage, diagnosis and isolation of suspected and confirmed cases; and (3) training of all staff to work in the dedicated intensive care unit, in personal protective equipment usage and patient management. Hospital multidisciplinary and departmental collaboration was needed to work on all principles of surge capacity, including: space definition; supplies provision; staff recruitment; and ad hoc training. Dedicated protocols were applied where full isolation of spaces, staff and patients was implemented. Opening the unit and the whole hospital emergency process required the multidisciplinary, multi‐level involvement of healthcare providers and hospital managers all working towards a common goal: patient care and hospital safety. Hospitals should be prepared to face severe disruptions to their routine and it is very likely that protocols and procedures might require re‐discussion and updating on a daily basis.

Background Few small studies have described hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) during COVID-19. Research Question What patient characteristics in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are associated with HAIs and how do HAIs associate with outcomes in these patients? Study Design and Methods Multicenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data including adult patients with severe COVID-19, admitted to 8 Italian hub hospitals from February 20, 2020, to May 20, 2020. Descriptive statistics, univariable and multivariable Weibull regression models were used to assess incidence, microbial etiology, resistance patterns, risk factors (i.e., demographics, comorbidities, exposure to medication), and impact on outcomes (i.e., ICU survival, length of ICU and hospital stay and duration of mechanical ventilation) of microbiologically-confirmed HAIs. Results Of the 774 included patients, 359 (46%) patients developed 759 HAIs (44.7 infections/1000 ICU patient-days, 35% multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (389, 50%), bloodstream infections (183, 34%), and catheter related blood stream infections (74, 10%) were the most frequent HAIs, with 26.0 (23.6-28.8) VAPs/1000 patient intubation-days, 11.7(10.1-13.5) BSIs/1000 ICU patient-days, and 4.7 (3.8-5.9) CRBSIs/1000 patient-days. Gram-negative bacteria (especially Enterobacterales ) and Staphylococcus aureus caused 64% and 28% of VAPs. Variables independently associated with infection were age, PEEP and treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotic at admission. 234 patients (30%) died in ICU (15.3 deaths/1000 ICU patient-days). Patients with HAIs complicated by septic shock had almost doubled mortality (52% vs. 29%), while non-complicated infections did not affect mortality. HAIs prolonged mechanical ventilation (24(14-39) vs. 9(5-13) days; p<0.001), ICU and hospital stay (24(16-41) vs. 9(6-14) days, p=0.003; and (42(25-59) vs. 23(13-34) days, p<0.001). Interpretation Critically-ill COVID-19 patients are at high risk for HAIs, especially VAPs and BSIs due to MDR organisms. HAIs prolong mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, and HAIs complicated by septic-shock almost doubled mortality.

Current literature suggests that DU could be a useful and accurate tool to detect diaphragmatic dysfunction in critically ill patients, to predict extubation success or failure, to monitor respiratory workload, and to assess atrophy in patients who are mechanically ventilated.