The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2-causing Coronavirus Disease 19 , emerged as a public health threat in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Delirium, a dangerous untoward prognostic development, serves as a barometer of systemic injury in critical illness. The early reports of 25% encephalopathy from China are likely a gross underestimation, which we know occurs whenever delirium is not monitored with a valid tool. Indeed, patients with COVID-19 are at accelerated risk for delirium due to at least seven factors including (1) direct central nervous system (CNS) invasion, (2) induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, (3) secondary effect of other organ system failure, (4) effect of sedative strategies, (5) prolonged mechanical ventilation time, (6) immobilization, and (7) other needed but unfortunate environmental factors including social isolation and quarantine without family. Given early insights into the pathobiology of the virus, as well as the emerging interventions utilized to treat the critically ill patients, delirium prevention and management will prove exceedingly challenging, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The main focus during the COVID-19 pandemic lies within organizational issues, i.e., lack of ventilators, shortage of personal protection equipment, resource allocation, prioritization of limited mechanical ventilation options, and end-of-life care. However, the standard of care for ICU patients, including delirium management, must remain the highest quality possible with an eye towards long-term survival and minimization of issues related to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). This article discusses how ICU professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacologists) can use our knowledge and resources to limit the burden of delirium on patients by reducing modifiable risk factors despite the imposed heavy workload and difficult clinical challenges posed by the pandemic.

Objective To assess the knowledge and use of the ABCDEF bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium (PAD) guidelines. Design Worldwide On-line Survey. Setting Intensive care. Intervention A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle (Assessment, prevention and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and Breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise and Family engagement and empowerment.) Measurement and Main Results There were 1521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. SATs and SBTs are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was “prescribed” by most but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs, however only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hours/day for family visits. Conclusions The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift towards patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the PAD guidelines.

In this large cohort of patients with sepsis, higher cumulative fluid balance at day 3 but not in the first 24 hours after ICU admission was independently associated with an increase in the hazard of death.

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the greatest threats to human health in the 21 st century with more than 257 million cases and over 5.17 million deaths reported worldwide (as of November 23, 2021. Various agents were initially proclaimed to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, the etiological agent of COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ribavirin are all examples of therapeutic agents, whose efficacy against COVID-19 was later disproved. Meanwhile, concentrated efforts of researchers and clinicians worldwide have led to the identification of novel therapeutic options to control the disease including PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332). Although COVID-19 cases are currently treated using a comprehensive approach of anticoagulants, oxygen, and antibiotics, the novel Pfizer agent PAXLOVID™ (PF-07321332), an investigational COVID-19 oral antiviral candidate, significantly reduced hospitalization time and death rates, based on an interim analysis of the phase 2/3 EPIC-HR (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients) randomized, double-blind study of non-hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19, who are at high risk of progressing to severe illness. The scheduled interim analysis demonstrated an 89% reduction in risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization or death from any cause compared to placebo in patients treated within three days of symptom onset (primary endpoint). However, there still exists a great need for the development of additional treatments, as the recommended therapeutic options are insufficient in many cases. Thus far, mRNA and vector vaccines appear to be the most effective modalities to control the pandemic. In the current review, we provide an update on the progress that has been made since April 2020 in clinical trials concerning the effectiveness of therapies available to combat COVID-19. We focus on currently recommended therapeutic agents, including steroids, various monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, baricitinib, anticoagulants and PAXLOVID™ summarizing the latest original studies and meta-analyses. Moreover, we aim to discuss other currently and previously studied agents targeting COVID-19 that either show no or only limited therapeutic activity. The results of recent studies report that hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma demonstrate no efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lastly, we summarize the studies on various drugs with incoherent or insufficient data concerning their effectiveness, such as amantadine, ivermectin, or niclosamide.

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, appeared, causing a wide range of symptoms, mainly respiratory infection. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic, therefore the efforts of scientists around the world are focused on finding the right treatment and vaccine for the novel disease. COVID-19 has spread rapidly over several months, affecting patients across all age groups and geographic areas. The disease has a diverse course; patients may range from asymptomatic to those with respiratory failure, complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). One possible complication of pulmonary involvement in COVID-19 is pulmonary fibrosis, which leads to chronic breathing difficulties, long-term disability and affects patients’ quality of life. There are no specific mechanisms that lead to this phenomenon in COVID-19, but some information arises from previous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemics. The aim of this narrative review is to present the possible causes and pathophysiology of pulmonary fibrosis associated with COVID-19 based on the mechanisms of the immune response, to suggest possible ways of prevention and treatment.