Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.

Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has heightened the awareness of aerosol generation by human expiratory events and their potential role in viral respiratory disease transmission. Concerns over high severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral burden of mucosal surfaces has raised questions about the aerosol-generating potential and dangers of many otorhinolaryngologic procedures. However, the risks of aerosol generation and associated viral transmission by droplet or airborne routes for many otorhinolaryngology procedures are largely unknown. Indoor aerosol and droplet viral respiratory transmission risk is influenced by 4 factors: (1) aerosol or droplet properties; (2) indoor airflow; (3) virus-specific factors; and (4) host-specific factors. Herein we elaborate on known aerosol vs droplet properties, indoor airflow, and aerosol-generating events to provide context for risks of aerosol infectious transmission. We also provide simple but typically effective measures for mitigating the spread and inhalation of viral aerosols in indoor settings. Understanding principles of infectious transmission, aerosol and droplet generation, as well as concepts of indoor airflow, will assist in the integration of new data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission and activities that can generate aerosol to best inform on the need for escalation or de-escalation from current societal and institutional guidelines for protection during aerosol-generating procedures.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/alr.22661

Review of indoor aerosol generation, transport, and control in the context of COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16–24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

/pdf/expert-consensus-statements-for-the-management-of-covid-19-14nn5cr0z5.pdf

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

The question of an optimal strategy and outcomes in COVID-19 tracheostomy has not been answered yet. The critical focus in our case study is to evaluate the outcomes of tracheostomy on intubated COVID-19 patients. A multicentric prospective observational study of 1890 COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy across 120 hospitals was conducted over 7 weeks in Spain (March 28 to May 15, 2020). Data were collected with an innovative approach: instant messaging via WhatsApp. Outcome measurements: complications, achieved weaning and decannulation and survival. We performed 1,461 surgical (81.3%) and 429 percutaneous tracheostomies. Median timing of tracheostomy was 12 days (4–42 days) since orotracheal intubation. A close follow-up of 1616/1890 (85.5%) patients at the cut-off time of 1-month follow-up showed that in 842 (52.1%) patients, weaning was achieved, while 391 (24.2%) were still under mechanical ventilation and 383 (23.7%) patients had died from COVID-19. Decannulation among those in whom weaning was successful (n = 842) was achieved in 683 (81%) patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest cohort of COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy. The critical focus is the unprecedented amount of tracheostomies: 1890 in 7 weeks. Weaning could be achieved in over half of the patients with follow-up. Almost one out of four tracheotomized patients died from COVID-19.

/pdf/outcome-of-1890-tracheostomies-for-critical-covid-19-21dfmveidp.pdf

Li Qiang

Papers

Tracheostomy in the COVID-19 era: global and multidisciplinary guidance.