Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes of Candidemia Associated with Severe COVID-19

COVID-19 can cause serious illness requiring multimodal treatment and is associated with secondary infections. Studies have suggested an increased risk of fungal infections, including candidemia following severe COVID-19 though understanding of risk factors and clinical outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To describe clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors of candidemia among patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, case-control study of patients with severe COVID-19 was conducted to evaluate risk factors and clinical outcomes in patients who developed candidemia between August 2020 and August 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Chart review evaluating institutional and patient demographics, clinical and mycological characteristics, concomitant interventions (antibiotics, immunosuppressive agents, parenteral nutrition, degree of oxygen support, mechanical ventilation, surgery), treatment regimens, and outcomes (length of stay and discharge disposition) RESULTS: A total of 275 patients were enrolled in the study, including 91 patients with severe COVID-19 and subsequent candidemia and 184 with severe COVID-19 without candidemia. Most patients received antibiotics prior to candidemia episode (93%), while approximately one-quarter of patients received biologic for COVID-19. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the cases compared with the controls (68% vs 40%; p < 0.01). Candida albicans was the most common (53%), followed by C. glabrata (19%). Use of central lines, biologic, and paralytics were independent risk factors for candidemia. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Candidemia following COVID-19 infection is a concern that requires clinical consideration and patient monitoring. Risk factors for the development of candidemia in the setting of COVID-19 infection are largely consistent with traditional risk factors for candidemia in hospitalized patients

Multicenter Retrospective Review of Ketamine Use in the ICU

IMPORTANCE: The response of ICU patients to continuously infused ketamine when it is used for analgesia and/or sedation remains poorly established. OBJECTIVES: To describe continuous infusion (CI) ketamine use in critically ill patients, including indications, dose and duration, adverse effects, patient outcomes, time in goal pain/sedation score range, exposure to analgesics/sedatives, and delirium. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, retrospective, observational study from twenty-five diverse institutions in the United States. Patients receiving CI ketamine between January 2014 and December 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Chart review evaluating institutional and patient demographics, ketamine indication, dose, administration, and adverse effects. Pain/sedation scores, cumulative doses of sedatives and analgesics, and delirium screenings in the 24 hours prior to ketamine were compared with those at 0–24 hours and 25–48 hours after. RESULTS: A total of 390 patients were included (median age, 54.5 yr; interquartile range, 39–65 yr; 61% males). Primary ICU types were medical (35.3%), surgical (23.3%), and trauma (17.7%). Most common indications were analgesia/sedation (n = 357, 91.5%). Starting doses were 0.2 mg/kg/hr (0.1–0.5 mg/kg/hr) and continued for 1.6 days (0.6–2.9 d). Hemodynamics in the first 4 hours after ketamine were variable (hypertension 24.0%, hypotension 23.5%, tachycardia 19.5%, bradycardia 2.3%); other adverse effects were minimal. Compared with 24 hours prior, there was a significant increase in proportion of time spent within goal pain score after ketamine initiation (24 hr prior: 68.9% [66.7–72.6%], 0–24 hr: 78.6% [74.3–82.5%], 25–48 hr: 80.3% [74.6–84.3%]; p \u3c 0.001) and time spent within goal sedation score (24 hr prior: 57.1% [52.5–60.0%], 0–24 hr: 64.1% [60.7–67.2%], 25–48 hr: 68.9% [65.5–79.5%]; p \u3c 0.001). There was also a significant reduction in IV morphine (mg) equivalents (24 hr prior: 120 [25–400], 0–24 hr: 118 [10–363], 25–48 hr: 80 [5–328]; p \u3c 0.005), midazolam (mg) equivalents (24 hr prior: 11 [4–67], 0–24 hr: 6 [0–68], 25–48 hr: 3 [0–57]; p \u3c 0.001), propofol (mg) (24 hr prior: 942 [223–4,018], 0–24 hr: 160 [0–2,776], 25–48 hr: 0 [0–1,859]; p \u3c 0.001), and dexmedetomidine (µg) (24 hr prior: 1,025 [276–1,925], 0–24 hr: 285 [0–1,283], 25–48 hr: 0 [0–826]; p \u3c 0.001). There was no difference in proportion of time spent positive for delirium (24 hr prior: 43.0% [17.0–47.0%], 0–24 hr: 39.5% [27.0–43.8%], 25–48 hr: 0% [0–43.7%]; p = 0.233). Limitations to these data include lack of a comparator group, potential for confounders and selection bias, and varying pain and sedation practices that may have changed since completion of the study. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There is variability in the use of CI ketamine. Hemodynamic instability was the most common adverse effect. In the 48 hours after ketamine initiation compared with the 24 hours prior, proportion of time spent in goal pain/sedation score range increased and exposure to other analgesics/sedatives decreased