Background The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men.

Different neurological manifestations of COVID-19 in adults and children and their impact have not been well characterized. We aimed to determine the prevalence of neurological manifestations and in-hospital complications among hospitalized COVID-19 patients and ascertain differences between adults and children. We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium cohort across 1507 sites worldwide from January/30th/2020 to May/25th/2021. Analyses of neurological manifestations and neurological complications considered unadjusted prevalence estimates for predefined patient subgroups, and adjusted estimates as a function of patient age and time of hospitalization using generalized linear models. Overall, 161,239 patients (158,267 adults; 2,972 children) hospitalized with COVID-19 and assessed for neurological manifestations and complications were included. In adults and children, the most frequent neurological manifestations at admission were fatigue (adults: 37.4%; children: 20.4%), altered consciousness (20.9%; 6.8%), myalgia (16.9%; 7.6%), dysgeusia (7.4%; 1.9%), anosmia (6.0%; 2.2%), and seizure (1.1%; 5.2%). In adults, the most frequent in-hospital neurological complications were stroke (1.5%), seizure (1%), and central nervous system (CNS) infection (0.2%). Each occurred more frequently in ICU than in non-ICU patients. In children, seizure was the only neurological complication to occur more frequently in ICU vs. non-ICU (7.1% vs. 2.3%, P &lt; .001). Stroke prevalence increased with increasing age, while CNS infection and seizure steadily decreased with age. There was a dramatic decrease in stroke over time during the pandemic. Hypertension, chronic neurological disease, and the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with increased risk of stroke. Altered consciousness was associated with CNS infection, seizure, and stroke. All in-hospital neurological complications were associated with increased odds of death. The likelihood of death rose with increasing age, especially after 25 years of age. In conclusion, adults and children have different neurological manifestations and in-hospital complications associated with COVID-19. Stroke risk increased with increasing age, while CNS infection and seizure risk decreased with age.

Background The joint committee of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Japanese Respiratory Society/Japanese Society of Respiratory Care Medicine on ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline has created and released the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021. Methods The 2016 edition of the Clinical Practice Guideline covered clinical questions (CQs) that targeted only adults, but the present guideline includes 15 CQs for children in addition to 46 CQs for adults. As with the previous edition, we used a systematic review method with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as well as a degree of recommendation determination method. We also conducted systematic reviews that used meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy and network meta-analyses as a new method. Results Recommendations for adult patients with ARDS are described: we suggest against using serum C-reactive protein and procalcitonin levels to identify bacterial pneumonia as the underlying disease (GRADE 2D); we recommend limiting tidal volume to 4–8 mL/kg for mechanical ventilation (GRADE 1D); we recommend against managements targeting an excessively low SpO2 (PaO2) (GRADE 2D); we suggest against using transpulmonary pressure as a routine basis in positive end-expiratory pressure settings (GRADE 2B); we suggest implementing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for those with severe ARDS (GRADE 2B); we suggest against using high-dose steroids (GRADE 2C); and we recommend using low-dose steroids (GRADE 1B). The recommendations for pediatric patients with ARDS are as follows: we suggest against using non-invasive respiratory support (non-invasive positive pressure ventilation/high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) (GRADE 2D), we suggest placing pediatric patients with moderate ARDS in the prone position (GRADE 2D), we suggest against routinely implementing NO inhalation therapy (GRADE 2C), and we suggest against implementing daily sedation interruption for pediatric patients with respiratory failure (GRADE 2D). Conclusions This article is a translated summary of the full version of the ARDS Clinical Practice Guideline 2021 published in Japanese (URL: https://www.jsicm.org/publication/guideline.html). The original text, which was written for Japanese healthcare professionals, may include different perspectives from healthcare professionals of other countries.

We retrospectively analyzed data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III critical care database to determine whether visually-assessed right ventricular (RV) dysfunction was associated with clinical outcomes in septic shock patients. Associations between visually-assessed RV dysfunction by echocardiography and in-hospital mortality, lethal arrhythmia, and hemodynamic indicators to determine the prognostic value of RV dysfunction in patients with septic shock were analyzed. Propensity score analysis showed RV dysfunction was associated with increased risk of in-hospital death in patients with septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.99–2.32; P < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, RV dysfunction was associated with in-hospital death (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.91–2.53; P < 0.001), lethal arrhythmia (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.34–3.57; P < 0.001), and tendency for increased blood lactate levels (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.14–1.50; P < 0.001) independent of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. RV dysfunction was associated with lower cardiac output, pulmonary artery pressure index, and RV stroke work index. In patients with septic shock, visually-assessed RV dysfunction was associated with in-hospital mortality, lethal arrhythmia, and circulatory insufficiency independent of LV dysfunction. Visual assessment of RV dysfunction using echocardiography might help to identify the short-term prognosis of patients with septic shock by reflecting hemodynamic status.

Japan has the highest proportion of older adults worldwide but has fewer critical care beds than most high-income countries. Although the COVID-19 infection rate in Japan is low compared with Europe and the United States, by the end of 2020, several infected people died in ambulances because they could not find hospitals to accept them. Our study aimed to examine the Japanese healthcare system's capacity to accommodate critically ill COVID-19 patients during the pandemic. We created a model to estimate bed and staff capacity at 3 levels of pandemic response (conventional, contingency, and crisis), as defined by the US National Academy of Medicine, and the function of Japan's healthcare system at each level. We then compared our estimates of the number of COVID-19 patients requiring intensive care at peak times with the national health system capacity using expert panel data. Our findings suggest that Japan's healthcare system currently can accommodate only a limited number of critically ill COVID-19 patients. It could accommodate the surge of pandemic demands by converting nonintensive care unit beds to critical care beds and using nonintensive care unit staff for critical care. However, bed and staff capacity should not be expanded uniformly, so that the limited number of physicians and nurses are allocated efficiently and so staffing does not become the bottleneck of the expansion.Training and deploying physicians and nurses to provide immediate intensive care is essential. The key is to introduce and implement the concept and mechanism of tiered staffing in the Japanese healthcare system. More importantly, most intensive care facilities in Japanese hospitals are small-scaled and thinly distributed in each region. The government needs to introduce an efficient system for smooth dispatching of medical personnel among hospitals regardless of their founding institutions.