The Fenice project to evaluate and improve the quality of healthcare in high-dependency care units: results after the first year.

High-Dependency care Units (HDUs) have been introduced worldwide as intermediate wards between Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and general wards. Performing a comparative assessment of the quality of care in HDU is challenging because there are no uniform standards and heterogeneity among centers is wide. The Fenice network promoted a prospective cohort study to assess the quality of care provided by HDUs in Italy. This work aims at describing the structural characteristics and admitted patients of Italian HDUs. All Italian HDUs affiliated to emergency departments were eligible to participate in the study. Participating centers reported detailed structural information and prospectively collected data on all admitted adult patients. Patients' data are presented overall and analyzed to evaluate the heterogeneity across the participating centers. A total of 12 HDUs participated in the study and enrolled 3670 patients. Patients were aged 68 years on average, had multiple comorbidities and were on major chronic therapies. Several admitted patients had at least one organ failure (39%). Mortality in HDU was 8.4%, raising to 16.6% in hospital. While most patients were transferred to general wards, a small proportion required ICU transfer (3.9%) and a large group was discharged directly home from the HDU (31%). The expertise of HDUs in managing complex and fragile patients is supported by both the available equipment and the characteristics of admitted patients. The limited proportion of patients transferred to ICUs supports the hypothesis of preventing of ICU admissions. The heterogeneity of HDU admissions requires further research to define meaningful patients' outcomes to be used by quality-of-care assessment programs.

Convalescent or standard plasma versus standard of care in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with respiratory impairment: short and long-term effects. A three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of early treatment with convalescent plasma in patients with COVID-19 is debated. Nothing is known about the potential effect of other plasma components other than anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. METHODS: To determine whether convalescent or standard plasma would improve outcomes for adults in early phase of Covid19 respiratory impairment we designed this randomized, three-arms, clinical trial (PLACO COVID) blinded on interventional arms that was conducted from June 2020 to August 2021. It was a multicentric trial at 19 Italian hospitals. We enrolled 180 hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia within 5 days from the onset of respiratory distress. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard of care (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of standard plasma (n = 60) or standard of care + three units of high-titre convalescent plasma (n = 60) administered on days 1, 3, 5 after randomization. Primary outcome was 30-days mortality. Secondary outcomes were: incidence of mechanical ventilation or death at day 30, 6-month mortality, proportion of days with mechanical ventilation on total length of hospital stay, IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, viral clearance from plasma and respiratory tract samples, and variations in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. The trial was analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: 180 patients (133/180 [73.9%] males, mean age 66.6 years [IQR 57-73]) were enrolled a median of 8 days from onset of symptoms. At enrollment, 88.9% of patients showed moderate/severe respiratory failure. 30-days mortality was 20% in Control arm, 23% in Convalescent (risk ratio [RR] 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-2.13, P = 0.694) and 25% in Standard plasma (RR 1.23; 95%CI, 0.63-2.37, P = 0.544). Time to viral clearance from respiratory tract was 21 days for Convalescent, 28 for Standard plasma and 23 in Control arm but differences were not statistically significant. No differences for other secondary endpoints were seen in the three arms. Serious adverse events were reported in 1.7%, 3.3% and 5% of patients in Control, Standard and Convalescent plasma arms respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither high-titer Convalescent nor Standard plasma improve outcomes of COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04428021. First posted: 11/06/2020.

The COVID-19 Worsening Score (COWS)-a predictive bedside tool for critical illness.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of a new COVID-19 prognostic score based on lung ultrasound (LUS) and previously validated variables in predicting critical illness. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort development and internal validation study of the COVID-19 Worsening Score (COWS), based on a combination of the previously validated COVID-GRAM score (GRAM) variables and LUS. Adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) were enrolled. Ten variables previously identified by GRAM, days from symptom onset, LUS findings, and peripheral oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F) ratio were analyzed. LUS score as a single predictor was assessed. We evaluated GRAM model's performance, the impact of adding LUS, and then developed a new model based on the most predictive variables. RESULTS: Among 274 COVID-19 patients enrolled, 174 developed critical illness. The GRAM score identified 51 patients at high risk of developing critical illness and 132 at low risk. LUS score over 15 (range 0 to 36) was associated with a higher risk ratio of critical illness (RR, 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-2.77; area under the curve [AUC], 0.63; 95% CI 0.676-0.634). The newly developed COVID-19 Worsening Score relies on five variables to classify high- and low-risk patients with an overall accuracy of 80% and negative predictive value of 93% (95% CI, 87%-98%). Patients scoring more than 0.183 on COWS showed a RR of developing critical illness of 8.07 (95% CI, 4.97-11.1). CONCLUSIONS: COWS accurately identify patients who are unlikely to need intensive care unit (ICU) admission, preserving resources for the remaining high-risk patients.

Pilot prospective open, single-arm multicentre study on off-label use of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: No agent has yet been proven to be effective for the treatment of patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a pilot prospective open, single-arm multicentre study on off-label use of tocilizumab (TCZ) involving 63 hospitalised adult patients (56 males, age 62.6±12.5) with severe COVID-19. Clinical and laboratory parameters were prospectively collected at baseline, day 1, 2, 7 and 14. No moderate-to-severe adverse events attributable to TCZ were recorded. RESULTS: We observed a significant improvement in the levels of ferritin, C-reactive protein, D-dimer. The ratio of the partial pressure of oxygen (Pa02) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fi02) improved (mean±SD Pa02/Fi02 at admission: 152±53; at day 7: 283.73±115.9, at day 14: 302.2±126, p<0.05). The overall mortality was 11%; D-dimer level at baseline, but not IL-6 levels were predictors of mortality. TCZ administration within 6 days from admission in the hospital was associated with an increased likelihood of survival (HR 2.2 95%CI 1.3-6.7, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalised adult patients with severe COVID-19, TCZ could be a safe option. An improvement in respiratory and laboratory parameters was observed. Future controlled trials in patients with severe illness are urgently needed to confirm the definite benefit with IL-6 target therapy.

Standard-length catheters vs long catheters in ultrasound-guided peripheral vein cannulation.

PURPOSE: Ultrasound (US) is a useful tool for peripheral vein cannulation in patients with difficult venous access. However, few data about the survival of US-guided peripheral catheters in acute care setting exist. Some studies showed that the survival rate of standard-length catheters (SC) is poor especially in obese patients. The use of longer than normal catheters could provide a solution to low survival rate. The aim of the present study was to compare US-guided peripheral SCs vs US-guided peripheral long catheters inserted with Seldinger technique (LC) in acute hospitalized patients with difficult venous access. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial. A total of 100 consecutively admitted subjects in an urban High Dependency Unit were randomized to obtain US-guided intravenous access using either SC or LC after 3 failed blind attempts. Primary outcome was catheter failure rate. RESULTS: Success rate was 86% in the SC groups and 84% in the LC group (P=.77). Time requested to positioning venous access resulted to be shorter for SC as opposed to LC (9.5 vs 16.8 minutes, respectively; P=.001). Catheter failure was observed in 45% of patients in the SC group and in 14% of patients in the LC group (relative risk, 3.2; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both SC and LC US-guided cannulations have a high success rate in patients with difficult venous access. Notwithstanding a higher time to cannulation, LC US-guided procedure is associated with a lower risk of catheter failure compared with SC US-guided procedure.

Noninvasive positive airway pressure and risk of myocardial infarction in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: continuous positive airway pressure vs noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.

BACKGROUND: The addition of both noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure (n-CPAP) or noninvasive intermittent positive pressure ventilation (n-IPPV) to medical treatment has been shown to improve the outcome of patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). Previous studies indicated a potential risk of new-onset acute myocardial infarction (AMI) associated with the use of n-IPPV. Although further studies did not confirm this observation, a few recent metaanalyses could not eliminate all the doubts at this regards because of the paucity of data available and the presence of confounding factors. This study aims to assess whether the application of n-IPPV, as opposed to n-CPAP, increases the rate of AMI in ACPE patients. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with severe hypoxemia consequent to ACPE were randomized to receive n-CPAP (n = 27) or n-IPPV (n = 25) in addition to medical therapy. Patients with signs of acute coronary syndrome on hospital admission were excluded from the study. Cardiac markers, ECG, and clinical/physiologic parameters were assessed at study entry, after 30 and 60 min, and every 6 h for the first 2 days. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the rate of AMI (26.9% and 16% with n-CPAP and n-IPPV, respectively, p = 0.244). Rate of intubation (p = 0.481), death (p = 0.662), and hospital stay (p = 0.529) were not different between the two groups. Both techniques were effective in improving gas exchange and vital signs in patients with ACPE. CONCLUSIONS: The AMI rate was not different with n-CPAP and n-IPPV, which resulted to be equally effective in the treatment of ACPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00453947.