High Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation as Initial Respiratory Support in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Covid-19: Exploratory Analysis in Two Intensive Care Units.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the type of the non-invasive ventilatory treatment for patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with respiratory status deteriorated by COVID-19 pneumonia, and in need of treatment in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted over a one-year period in the medical intensive care units of two hospitals. As the patients' clinical condition deteriorated and the parameters of the arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis worsened, oxygen support was applied via a high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) or by non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). According to the control values of the arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) and the parameters of ABG, the patients were enabled to be transferred between the two types of non-invasive ventilatory support. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay, while secondary outcomes were the rate of intubation, the mortality rate, and respiratory supportfree days. RESULTS: Out of 21 critical patients with COPD and COVID-19, 11 (52.4%) were initially treated with NPPV and 10 (47.6%) with HFNC. The ages (67±9.79 in NPPV group vs. 70.10±10.25 in HFNC group) and severity of illness (SOFA score 5 (3.5) in NPPV group vs. 5 (2.8) in HFNC group) were similar between the two groups. Switching the mode of respiratory support was more common in NPPV (58.3% in survivor group vs. 41.7% in non-survivor group). Patients treated with NPPV compared to HFNC had a nominally longer length of stay (15 (11) vs. 11.5 (4.25)), and higher risk of intubation (66.7% vs. 33.3%) and mortality (66.7% vs. 33.3%), but the comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Survivors had significantly longer Medical Intensive Care Unit and hospital stays, but significantly lower FiO2 (0.60 vs.1) and higher values of PaO2/FiO2 (78(32.4) vs. 56.3(17.8)) than non-survivors. All patients were treated with corticosteroids, and the duration of treatment was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients with COPD and COVID-19, both HFNC and NPPV were commonly used as the initial mode of ventilation. Switching to a different mode and adverse patient outcomes were more frequent in patients initially treated with NPPV. Survivors had higher values of PaO2/FiO2 than non-survivors.

Impact of Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness on Treatment of Critically Ill Septic Patients in a Low-Resource Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Introduction: Treatment of sepsis and septic shock can be a challenge even for intensive care units (ICUs) in high income countries, but it is especially difficult for ICUs with limited resources. Aim: To evaluate the impact of CERTAIN on treatment of critically ill septic patients in low-resource medical ICU. Materials and Methods: In a before-and-after study design, we compared clinical outcomes, processes, and complications (hospital acquired infections) 1 year before and 2 years after (2016 and 2017) introduction of CERTAIN. Results: A total of 125 patients with sepsis were prospectively identified for a 3-year period. Mean patient age, gender distribution, number of patients on mechanical ventilation (33 [76.7%] vs. 42 [84%] vs. 24 [75%]) and vasopressor use (23 [53.5%] vs. 34 [68%] vs. 24 [75%]) were similar before (2015) and 2 years after (2016 and 2017) the implementation of CERTAIN. Severity of illness (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II [SAPS II score]) was higher after the implementation. The checklist was incorporated in the daily practice with 100% adherence to its use. The duration of mechanical ventilation (5.3 ± 5.3 vs. 4.2 ± 3.6 vs. 3.7 ± 5.5), antibiotic treatment (8.2 ± 5.4 vs. 6.9 ± 4.1 vs. 5.8 ± 5.6), central venous catheter use (6.2 ± 5.7 vs. 5.7 ± 4.6 vs. 4.2 ± 6.1), ICU stay (8.4 ± 5.4 vs. 7.1 ± 4.1 vs. 5.8 ± 5.6), and the incidence of nosocomial infection (33.3% vs. 30% vs. 12.5%) decreased in the period after the onset of the intervention, but the results did not reach statistical significance. When adjusted for baseline characteristics, CERTAIN was not associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 0.88, 0.38-2.04). Conclusion: CERTAIN was readily adopted in the ICU workflow and was associated with improvement in treatment of critically ill patients with sepsis.

Microorganisms Profile and Antibiotics Sensitivity Patterns in the Only Medical Intensive Care Unit in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Treatment of critically ill patients entails a great risk for intrahospital infections. Systematic monitoring of intrahospital infection data is a widely used practice in developed countries, while in developing and underdeveloped countries these data are scarce. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, a developing country, precise data cannot be found; hence, this study was created with the aim to monitor the profile and resistance patterns of microorganisms isolated from patients being treated in the only medical intensive care unit (MICU) in the country. This is a retrospective observational study of microorganisms isolated from all patients treated at MICU in the University Clinical Center of Republic of Srpska from January 1 through December 31, 2017. Analysis of all samples was performed using standardized microbiological procedures, while sensitivity to antimicrobials was performed using the disk diffusion method. One thousand six hundred twenty-five samples were taken from 633 critically ill patients and sent off for analysis; 572 were positive for bacteria (35.2%). Gram-negative bacteria were isolated more frequently (65.2%), specifically Acinetobacter baumannii (25.5%), followed by Klebsiella spp. (10.8%). A. baumannii was resistant to all antibiotics except for colistin, to which it was highly sensitive (99.7%). It was moderately sensitive (76%) to rifampicin. Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Enterococci were the most prevalent Gram-positive bacteria (15%, 7.3%, and 9.2%, respectively) isolated in this study. It is clear from this study that Gram-negative bacteria are predominant in the newly established MICU. A. baumannii was found to be the most prevalent Gram-negative bacteria, and S. epidermidis was the most prevalent Gram-positive bacteria.