Clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in a tertiary community hospital in upstate New York

Main Body

Introduction

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel coronavirus belonging to the Coronaviridae family, that has gripped the world in a pandemic of proportions last seen over a century ago during the Spanish flu outbreak of 1918. Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in late December 2019 in Wuhan, China, there are now more than 2,980,000 confirmed cases globally, with the United States (US) leading the global tally with more than 980,000 cases. In the US, the state of New York (NY) has emerged as the epicenter of the outbreak with disproportionately large cases, totaling at 293,000 as of April 26^th, 2020.

With high infectivity represented by an R0 of greater than 2¹, human-to-human transmission and presence of a presymptomatic stage, SARS-CoV-2 led to an exponential growth of cases in a short period, overwhelming healthcare systems across the state and resulting in unprecedented effects on social, economic and healthcare sectors. This has galvanized hospital systems, including our own to come up with innovative means to handle the surge of cases at the peak of this pandemic, including expanding intensive care unit (ICU) teams, personal protective equipment conservation strategies, and grim conversations about resource allocation.

SARS-Cov-2 is an enveloped virus with a large plus-strand RNA genome, and acts primarily as a respiratory pathogen, infecting cells by attaching to ACE-2 receptors. The clinical spectrum of COVID-19 ranges from mild to critically ill cases² with reports indicating 5-9% of all cases are admitted to the ICU with severe respiratory failure^{3, 4}.

Despite several observational studies and case series on COVID-19 patients from the inpatient and outpatient setting, there are currently limited reports describing critically ill patients in the US.^{5, 6} In this case series, we describe demographic characteristics, co-existing conditions, ventilation parameters, and clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the medical ICU at Rochester General Hospital (RGH), a tertiary community hospital in Monroe county, NY, which also functions as a safety net hospital for the area. We aim to help guide identification of those at greatest risk of deterioration, and improve decision making in managing this unique subset of patients.

Methods

Results

Clinical Outcomes [Figure 1, Table 4 (4a, 4b)]

Follow up was complete until April 18, 2020, with mean (±SD) follow-up of 21 (±7) days, minimum of 7 days and a maximum of 35 days. Figure 1 outlines the disposition status of all 32 patients and Table 4 (4a, 4b) list our clinical outcomes. Of the 32 patients, 5 (15.6%) had died, 11 (34.4%) had been discharged home, and 16 (50%) remained hospitalized, 8 (25%) of which were still in ICU. A greater percentage of patients aged 60 years or above had died compared to patients under 60 years (21% vs. 7.7%). Of the 23 patients that received IMV, 11 (47.8%) had been extubated during follow up, with mean (±SD) number of days of invasive mechanical ventilation of 10 (±6.85) days. 8 remained intubated, with mean (±SD) ventilator days of 14.9 (± 6.7) days. The mean (±SD) length of ICU stay among all patients was 10.2 (±7.7) days, and mean (±SD) length of hospital stay was 14.8 (±7.7) days. In those still hospitalized, mean (±SD) length of stay was 18 (±7.4) days which is likely to be an underestimate. The lengths of ICU stay and hospital stay were significantly higher in those who received IMV than those managed by NIV (12.8 vs 3.4 days and 16.9 vs 9.2 days) respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Disposition of patients at the time of analysis of results:

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4a:

Clinical outcomes, as per status of invasive mechanical ventilation

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 4b:

Clinical outcomes, as per age < or ≥60 years

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first case series exclusively on critically ill COVID-19 patients in the state of NY. Older persons, men and those with medical comorbidities were common in our series, suggesting that these patients may be at higher risk of severe illness and ICU admission, findings similar to other reports from New York City and Seattle^{7, 5}. Fever, cough and dyspnea seem to be the most common symptoms. Since a majority of the patients had CRP ≥100, this could be used in creating risk calculators to identify patients at higher risk of critical illness. Interestingly only half of our cases with elevated procalcitonin had bacterial infections, suggesting that procalcitonin is more likely a marker of sepsis in the critically ill than of bacterial infection, corresponding to prior published studies⁸. Initial chest X-ray was normal in a third (33.4%) of patients, therefore a normal X-ray cannot rule out infection with COVID-19.

Secondary infection with positive sputum cultures were noted in a third (37.5%) of the patients, incidence similar to that in seasonal influenza⁹. Yet, co-infections with other respiratory viruses were not noted. As the protocol developed in our hospital for repeat testing of SARS-CoV-2, we noted that a very large number (13/16, 81.3%) of the patients tested positive after 2 weeks. Whether this implies continued infectivity, viral shedding, or mere inert viral RNA remains unclear.

Profound hypoxia seems to be the driving factor leading to intubation, as majority (62.5%) of the patients were hypoxic; interestingly, about a third [7/20, (35%)] of these were ‘silently’ hypoxic, with no reported dyspnea. To explain this Conde et al, describe an interesting theory of the virus manifesting neurotropism¹⁰, by involving the midbrain, respiratory and cardiovascular control centers, leading to decreased perception of dyspnea, despite hypoxia.

We noted low pre-ventilation PaO2/FiO2 ratios, consistent with ARDS definition by the Berlin criteria.¹¹ However, our median driving pressures and static compliance values suggest findings of near-normal compliance, which is unusual for ARDS. Higher PEEP was used early on but with more experience, intensivists started using lower PEEP. Prone positioning was attempted in a third of patients receiving IMV, to help improve oxygenation by increasing alveolar recruitment¹². The threshold to prone was relaxed from strict PROSEVA study¹³ indications to anyone with refractory hypoxemia; 2 patients on HFNC were tried on awake prone positioning, with improved oxygenation. The median FiO2 needs were high, with most patients requiring 50-60% FiO2 for long periods of time, underscoring prolonged profound hypoxia in this illness. Most patients were able to draw good tidal volumes despite low inspiratory pressures. These findings raise the question about the factors involved in pathogenesis and response to treatment in COVID-19. The findings of severe hypoxemia with preserved compliance have been noted in recent literature¹⁴. Current evidence on the pathophysiology of hypoxia in COVID-19 is changing. The hypoxia is hypothesized to be from 3 mechanisms, dysregulation of pulmonary perfusion, pulmonary microthrombi and ARDS.¹⁵ Gatinnoni et al¹⁶ recently described two possible phenotypes of patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19; Type L -characterized by near normal pulmonary compliance and low recruitability, low PEEP response wherein the primary pathology is theorized to be loss of hypoxic vasoconstriction and possibly pulmonary microthrombi; Type H on the other hand behaves more like traditional ARDS with poor pulmonary compliance and hence better response to high PEEP ventilation and lung recruitment techniques. Type L is peculiar for hypoxia out of proportion to lung infiltrates on imaging.¹⁶ As none of our deceased patients had autopsies (these being cancelled due to high risk of exposure), it is difficult for us to associate our findings with these theories.¹⁷ Due to such variability in response, personalized ventilator settings and management have been advised for COVID-19 patients.¹⁸ Figure 2 demonstrates the proposed ventilatory strategies for management of critically ill COVID-19 patients at RGH.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Proposed ventilation strategies for management of critically ill COVID-19 patients at RGH

^inspired by ESICM webinar on ventilation strategies in COVID-19¹⁵

Among other ICU therapies, epoprostenol was used in a third of the patients, and a variable response was perceived. It has been noted that in some cases of COVID-19, despite low PaO2/FiO2 ratio, perfusion is maintained, which along with atelectasis, leads to a right to left shunt phenomenon¹⁹. Therefore pulmonary vasodilators such as epoprostenol may not be useful in these cases. Only a third of the patients required vasopressor support, and shock and multiorgan failure were uncommon in our patient series. These findings are inconsistent with some prior reports.⁵

The choice of COVID19-directed medication therapy was based on judgment of the infectious disease specialists and treating intensivists, and mostly based on an indigenous institutional algorithm [Figure 3 (3a, 3b)]. Just above half the patients received Hydroxychloroquine or Azithromycin during their hospitalization. None of the patients received Remdesivir. When compared to the recent study of compassionate use of Remdesivir by Grien et al²⁰, our patient population appeared to have had similar baseline characteristics and outcomes in terms of mortality, rate of extubation, ICU LOS and hospital discharges. Yet, we have insufficient data to draw meaningful associations about these medications.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3a: Proposed algorithm for COVID-19 directed medication therapy at RGH

*npMOF = non-pulmonary multiorgan failure

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3b:

Treatment Plans A and B described

At 15.6%, our case fatality rate (CFR) appears to be lower than prior published literature internationally from Italy, and locally from NYC and Seattle.^{21, 22, 5} This could be due to the fact that our hospital was not yet over-capacity, and we had received timely information and guidance about the natural course and complications of the disease. This suggests that with adequate availability of health care resources, critically ill COVID-19 patients may experience lower morbidity and mortality than suggested by current data.²² This re-enforces the concept of ‘flattening the curve’ to prevent strain on the healthcare system.

In our case series, there were no statistically significant differences in patients aged 60 years or older vs. those younger than 60 years of age, which suggests that other prognostic factors, apart from age, play a role in morbidity and mortality in COVID-19. Longer duration of ICU and hospital stays were noted in patients who received IMV. This appears intuitive as patients who undergo IMV usually have more severe disease, more comorbidities and are at higher risk of developing complications during hospital stay (secondary infections, VTE) etc. These numbers need to be interpreted with caution, since they may be an underestimate for the 16 patients that remained in the hospital at time of data calculation.

Regarding complications, VTE events were the most common (15.6%) and additional non-pulmonary organ failure rate was low. Thrombotic complications in patients with severe COVID-19 is an area of debate, with some studies reporting rates of thrombotic complication as high as 31% despite adequate thromboprophylaxis.²³ The increased risk in thrombotic complications with COVID-19 is difficult to ascertain especially in critically ill patients where risk of clotting is ∼20%.^24. It is hypothesized that with severe inflammatory state, there is increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α, leading to increased thrombin generation and stimulation of the coagulation pathway. Additionally, in hypoxia, there is upregulation of hypoxia-inducible transcription factor (HITF) which stimulates tissue factor and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) gene expression, predisposing to increased VTE complications.²⁵. Regardless of etiology, the importance of weight-adjusted, renal function based thromboprophylaxis is underscored, as per latest International Society of Thrombosis Hemostasis (ISTH) consensus²⁶. To preemptively treat these patients with full dose of anticoagulation seems pre-mature, without stable epidemiological data, and efficacy and safety outcomes from randomized trials.

Limitations

The main limitation of our study is the small sample size, however, our study focuses on the critically ill patients with most severe disease. Second, due to short follow up, outcomes of the patients that remain in hospital are not known, however we aimed to report the in-hospital outcomes and complications of these patients. Third, patients who had do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders were included in the NIV group; these patients are likely to be older and sicker, and have higher likelihood of having worse clinical outcomes and complications. Nevertheless, the NIV group only had 1 death compared to 4 deaths in the IMV group. Fourth, we did not include the patients managed in the step-down unit of the hospital, but this came to our advantage as it served as an unbiased measure in selecting the sickest patients in the cohort who were then managed in the ICU. Finally being a retrospective, observational study, there are inherent biases including selection bias, confounding bias and the inability to attribute causation.

Conclusion

Our case series describes early experience of critically ill patients at a tertiary center upstate NY. Our findings underscore the higher risk of severe illness in older persons and those with pre-existing medical conditions; and also inform us of the prolonged need of critical care resources in those critically ill with COVID-19. These findings can be used to screen patients at higher risk, and to guide resource allocation. Our case fatality rate (CFR) was lower than prior published data, rendering hope that with adequate medical infrastructure and timely resource allocation, mortality from COVID-19 may not be as high as currently reported in parts of the world where healthcare systems have become strained. Nevertheless, much remains unknown about the appropriate ventilation and management strategies of these patients. Large scale prospective studies are needed to further elucidate the efficacy of novel treatments, and identify specific predictors of mortality and other outcomes in the COVID-19 population.