Complications of invasive mechanical ventilation in critically Ill Covid-19 patients - A narrative review.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients have to undergo positive pressure ventilation, a non-physiological and invasive intervention that can be lifesaving in severe ARDS. Similar to any other intervention, it has its pros and cons. Despite following Lung Protective Ventilation (LPV), some of the complications are frequently reported in these critically ill patients and significantly impact overall mortality. The complications related to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in critically ill COVID-19 patients can be broadly divided into pulmonary and non-pulmonary. Among pulmonary complications, the most frequent is ventilator-associated pneumonia. Others are barotrauma, including subcutaneous emphysema, pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, bullous lesions, cardiopulmonary effects of right ventricular dysfunction, and pulmonary complications mimicking cardiac failure, including pulmonary edema. Tracheal complications, including full-thickness tracheal lesions (FTTLs) and tracheoesophageal fistulas (TEFs) are serious but rare complications. Non-Pulmonary complications include neurological, nephrological, ocular, and oral complications.

In which cases of pneumonia should we consider treatments for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia?

BACKGROUND: Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is a pathogen commonly associated with respiratory infection. However, the characteristics of pneumonia caused by S. maltophilia remain unknown. AIM: To evaluate the characteristics of and risk factors for S. maltophilia pneumonia. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was undertaken of 2002 patients with sputum cultures positive for S. maltophilia between January 2010 and December 2019. Cases were excluded based on clinical information and laboratory results. Included cases were divided into two groups: the S. maltophilia pneumonia group (patients with pneumonia caused by S. maltophilia) and the non-S. maltophilia pneumonia group (patients with pneumonia caused by pathogens other than S. maltophilia). Patient characteristics, clinical data and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were compared between the groups. FINDINGS: Eight and 91 patients were assigned to the S. maltophilia pneumonia and non-S. maltophilia pneumonia groups, respectively. The median age was significantly lower in the S. maltophilia pneumonia group than in the non-S. maltophilia pneumonia group (63.4 vs 73.1 years; P<0.01), and the SOFA score was significantly higher in the S. maltophilia pneumonia group (7.5 vs 3.0; P<0.01). Underlying malignancy and pre-administration of antipseudomonal ß-lactams and steroids were confirmed in seven of the eight cases in the S. maltophilia pneumonia group, suggesting an association with immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumonia due to S. maltophilia is a rare occurrence. Treatment for this pathogen should be considered in cases of pneumonia with: (1) predominance of S. maltophilia in sputum cultures; (2) pre-administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics; (3) immunodeficiency; and (4) a high SOFA score.

Role of Transient Elastography (Fibroscan) in Differentiating Severe Acute Hepatitis and Acute on Chronic Liver Failure.

INTRODUCTION: It is difficult to differentiate acute severe hepatitis (AH) with acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). Aim was to study the role of transient elastography (Fibroscan) in identifying the patients with AH and ACLF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients of severe AH or ACLF presented within two weeks of jaundice were enrolled. LSM and liver function tests were done at admission, week 1, 4 and at 6 months. Diagnosis of ACLF was based on documenting cirrhotic morphology on imaging and/or liver biopsy and follow-up of these patients for six months. Similarly, AH patients were diagnosed based on serology, no features of cirrhosis on imaging and follow-up of these patients for 6 months documenting reversal of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) to normal. RESULTS: 104 patients were included in the final analysis (AH, n = 59, ACLF, n = 45). Out of 59 patients in severe AH group, etiology of acute hepatitis included hepatitis A (HAV, n = 22), hepatitis E (HEV, n = 21), hepatitis B (HBV, n = 4), indeterminate (n = 8) and drug induced liver injury (n = 4). Similarly for ACLF, the causes of chronic liver disease were alcohol (n = 26), hepatitis B (n = 7), hepatitis C (n = 2) and cryptogenic (n = 10). Patients with ACLF were significantly older, had low hemoglobin, low albumin, high bilirubin and lower transaminases level compared to severe AH at admission. LSM was higher in patients with ACLF compared to severe AH (61 ± 18 kPa vs 15 ± 6.4 kPa, P = 0.001) at admission. On multivariate analysis of noninvasive tests only LSM was found to differentiate AH with ACLF significantly. When we took a cutoff of 26 kPa the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of ACLF were 96% and 93%, respectively, with area under the curve was 0.98 (0.95-1.005), P = 0.001. CONCLUSION: LSM could differentiate patients with severe AH and ACLF at admission.