To evaluate how key aspects of New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (NYSVAG)—Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score criteria and ventilator time trials —might perform with respect to the frequency of ventilator reallocation and survival to hospital discharge in a simulated cohort of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients.

Single center retrospective observational and simulation cohort study of 884 critically ill COVID-19 patients undergoing ventilator allocation per NYSVAG.

In total, 742 patients (83.9%) would have had their ventilator reallocated during the 11-day observation period, 280 (37.7%) of whom would have otherwise survived to hospital discharge if provided with a ventilator. Only 65 (18.1%) of the observed surviving patients would have survived by NYSVAG. Extending ventilator time trials from 2 to 5 days resulted in a 49.2% increase in simulated survival to discharge.

In the setting of a protracted respiratory pandemic, implementation of NYSVAG or similar protocols could lead to a high degree of ventilator reallocation, including withdrawal from patients who might otherwise survive. Longer ventilator time trials might lead to improved survival for COVID-19 patients given their protracted respiratory failure. Further studies are needed to understand the survival of patients receiving reallocated ventilators to determine whether implementation of NYSVAG would improve overall survival.

To model performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score-based ventilator allocation guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A retrospective cohort study design was used. Study sites included 3 New York City hospitals in a single academic medical center. We included a random sample (205) of adult patients who were intubated (1002) from March 25, 2020, till April 29, 2020. Protocol criteria adapted from the New York State’s 2015 guidelines were applied to determine which patients would have had mechanical ventilation withheld or withdrawn.

117 (57%) patients would have been identified for ventilator withdrawal or withholding based on the triage guidelines. Of those 117 patients, 28 (24%) survived hospitalization. Overall, 65 (32%) patients survived to discharge.

Triage protocols aim to maximize survival by redirecting ventilators to those most likely to survive. Over 50% of this sample would have been identified as candidates for ventilator exclusion. Clinical judgment would therefore still be needed in ventilator reallocation, thus re-introducing bias and moral distress. This data suggests limited utility for SOFA score-based ventilator rationing. It raises the question of whether there is sufficient ethical justification to impose a life-ending decision based on a SOFA scoring method on some patients in order to offer potential benefit to a modest number of others.

During an influenza or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that results in acute respiratory distress, the number of available ventilators will not meet demand. In 2007, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law and Department of Health released draft Guidelines for ethical allocation of ventilators for adults. In 2015, updated guidelines were released to ensure that: (1) revisions reflect the public’s values and (2) the triage protocol is substantiated by evidence-based clinical data. We summarize the development and content of the 2015 Guidelines compared with the 2007 version, emphasizing new/revised aspects of the ethical considerations and clinical protocol.

We compared the 2007 and 2015 guidelines, with particular emphasis on the ethical issues and clinical protocols.

The 2015 Guidelines retained much of the ethical and clinical framework of the 2007 draft. The triage protocol was revised using evidence-based clinical data. Patients with the highest likelihood of short-term survival with ventilator therapy have priority access. Protocol consists of exclusion criteria, the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and periodic clinical assessments. Guidance is provided on secondary triage criteria. Other forms of medical intervention/palliative care and review of triage decisions are discussed.

The 2015 Guidelines reflect advances in medicine and societal values and provide an evidenced-based framework to save the most lives. The framework could be adapted in other emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that require ventilators.

This study was conducted to determine whether point-of-care testing, using the iSTAT Portable Clinical Analyzer, would reduce time at the referring hospital required to stabilize ventilated pediatric patients prior to interfacility, air-medical transport.

The following data were collected prospectively: (1) When a blood gas analysis was ordered; (2) If it was necessary to call in a technician; (3) Waiting time for blood to be drawn; and (4) Waiting time for results. The cost-efficacy of point-of-care testing was calculated based on: (1) Three minutes for a transport team member to draw a sample and obtain a result using the iSTAT (unit cost $CDN8,000); (2) Lab technician call-back (minimum two hours at $90); (3) Paramedic overtime (by the minute at $49/hour); and (4) Cost of charter aircraft wait time ($200 per hour) for every hour beyond four hours.

Data were collected on 46 ventilated patients over a three month period. A blood gas analysis was ordered on 35 patients. Laboratory technicians were called in for 17 (49%). For 12 (34%) patients, there was a wait for the sample to be drawn, and for 23 (66%), there was a wait for results to become available. Total time waiting to obtain laboratory gases was 526 minutes compared with a calculated 105 minutes using point-of-care testing. An iSTAT cartridge cost of $420 would not have been different from laboratory costs. Cost-saving on technician callback ($1,530), paramedic overtime ($690) and aircraft time waiting charges ($2,000) would have totaled ($4,220). From this study, the cost of point-of-care equipment could be recouped in 101 patients if aircraft charges apply or 192 patients if no aircraft costs are involved. For 11 cases, ventilator adjustments were made subsequently during transport, and for six patients, point-of-care testing, if in place, would have been used to optimize transport care.

The data from the present study indicate significant cost-efficacy from use of this technology to reduce stabilization times, and support the potential to improve quality of care during air medical interfacility transport.