Prone positioning in patients treated with non-invasive ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia in an Italian emergency department.

We report the experience of prone ventilation in selected patients treated with helmet non-invasive ventilation (NIV) continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for acute respiratory failure in COVID-19 pneumonia. Preliminary results showed an improvement in the PaO2 value and PaO2/FiO2 ratio after 1 hour of prone ventilation. No variation of the lung ultrasound pattern before and after prone ventilation has been detected. At the time of writing, we attempted proning with helmet NIV CPAP in 10 patients. In 4 out of 10 patients, the attempt failed due to lack of compliance of the patient, scarce pain control even with ongoing treatment and refusal by the patient to prone positioning.

What is the impact of the fluid challenge technique on diagnosis of fluid responsiveness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The fluid challenge is considered the gold standard for diagnosis of fluid responsiveness. The objective of this study was to describe the fluid challenge techniques reported in fluid responsiveness studies and to assess the difference in the proportion of 'responders,' (PR) depending on the type of fluid, volume, duration of infusion and timing of assessment. METHODS: Searches of MEDLINE and Embase were performed for studies using the fluid challenge as a test of cardiac preload with a description of the technique, a reported definition of fluid responsiveness and PR. The primary outcome was the mean PR, depending on volume of fluid, type of fluids, rate of infusion and time of assessment. RESULTS: A total of 85 studies (3601 patients) were included in the analysis. The PR were 54.4% (95% CI 46.9-62.7) where <500 ml was administered, 57.2% (95% CI 52.9-61.0) where 500 ml was administered and 60.5% (95% CI 35.9-79.2) where >500 ml was administered (p = 0.71). The PR was not affected by type of fluid. The PR was similar among patients administered a fluid challenge for <15 minutes (59.2%, 95% CI 54.2-64.1) and for 15-30 minutes (57.7%, 95% CI 52.4-62.4, p = 1). Where the infusion time was ≥30 minutes, there was a lower PR of 49.9% (95% CI 45.6-54, p = 0.04). Response was assessed at the end of fluid challenge, between 1 and 10 minutes, and >10 minutes after the fluid challenge. The proportions of responders were 53.9%, 57.7% and 52.3%, respectively (p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The PR decreases with a long infusion time. A standard technique for fluid challenge is desirable.

From the Triage to the Intermediate Area: A Simple and Fast Model for COVID-19 in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: The early identification of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is still a real challenge for emergency departments (ED). First, we aimed to develop a score, based on the use of the lung ultrasonography (LUS), in addition to the pre-triage interview, to correctly address patients; second, we aimed to prove the usefulness of a three-path organization (COVID-19, not-COVID-19 and intermediate) compared to a two-path organization (COVID-19, non-COVID-19). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 292 patients admitted to our ED from 10 April to 15 April 2020, with a definite diagnosis of positivity (93 COVID-19 patients) or negativity (179 not-COVID-19 patients) for SARS-COV-2 infection. Using a logistic regression, we found a set of predictors for infection selected from the pre-triage interview items and the LUS findings, which contribute with a different weight to the final score. Then, we compared the organization of two different pathways. RESULTS: The most informative factors for classifying the patient are known nasopharyngeal swab positivity, close contact with a COVID-19 patient, fever associated with respiratory symptoms, respiratory failure, anosmia or dysgeusia, and the ultrasound criteria of diffuse alveolar interstitial syndrome, absence of B-lines and presence of pleural effusion. Their sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC-ROC are, respectively, 0.83, 0.81, 0.82 and 0.81. The most significant difference between the two pathways is the percentage of not-COVID-19 patients assigned to the COVID-19 area, that is, 10.6% (19/179) in the three-path organization, and 18.9% (34/179) in the two-path organization (p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests the possibility to use a score based on the pre-triage interview and the LUS findings to correctly manage the patients admitted to the ED, and the importance of an intermediate area to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the ED and, as a consequence, in the hospital.

A simple lung ultrasound protocol for the screening of COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency department.

The most relevant manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is interstitial pneumonia. Several lung ultrasound (US) protocols for pneumonia diagnosis are used in clinical practice, but none has been proposed for COVID-19 patients' screening in the emergency department. We adopted a simplified 6-scan lung US protocol for COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis (LUSCOP) and compared its sensitivity with high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) in patients suspected for COVID-19, presenting to one Emergency Department from February 21st to March 15th, 2020, during the outbreak burst in northern Italy. Patients were retrospectively enrolled if both LUSCOP protocol and HRCT were performed in the Emergency Department. The sensitivity of LUSCOP protocol and HRCT were compared. COVID-19 pneumonia's final diagnosis was based on real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction from nasal-pharyngeal swab and on clinical data. Out of 150 suspected COVID-19 patients, 131 were included in the study, and 130 had a final diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. The most frequent lung ultrasonographic features were: bilateral B-pattern in 101 patients (77%), B-pattern with subpleural consolidations in 26 (19.8%) and lung consolidations in 2 (1.5%). LUSCOP Protocol was consistent with HRCT in correctly screening 130 out of the 131 COVID-19 pneumonia cases (99.2%). In one case COVID-19 pneumonia was excluded by both HRCT and lung US. LUSCOP protocol showed optimal sensitivity and can be proposed as a simple screening tool for COVID-19 pneumonia diagnosis in the context of outbreak burst areas where prompt isolation of suspected patients is crucial for patients' and operators' safety.

Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism: Two Complications of COVID-19 Pneumonia?

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is a worldwide infection which was recently declared a global health emergency by the WHO Emergency Committee. The most common symptoms are fever and cough, which can progress to pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and/or end-organ failure. Risk factors associated with ARDS and death are older age, comorbidities (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia), neutrophilia, and organ and coagulation dysfunction. Disseminated intravascular coagulation and coagulopathy can contribute to death. Anticoagulant treatment is associated with decreased mortality in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. In this report we describe two patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who developed venous thromboembolism. LEARNING POINTS: Deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism can occur in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.Low-molecular-weight heparin prophylaxis does not decrease the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 pneumonia.In the presence of clinical signs and/or suspicion of VTE, compression ultrasound and echocardiography should be always performed, irrespective of disease stage.

Abdominal Pain: A Real Challenge in Novel COVID-19 Infection.

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 19) is an infectious disease caused by coronavirus 2019-nCoV. Since its detection in China at the end of 2019, the novel coronavirus has rapidly spread throughout the world and has caused an international public health emergency. The most common manifestation is flu-like symptoms. Mild infections usually improve within a few days, but COVID-19 can cause severe pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. Gastrointestinal symptoms are less common but possible and more difficult to recognize as part of a COVID-19 syndrome. In line with the current opinion of the WHO, we strongly believe that preventive measures and early diagnosis of COVID-19 are crucial to interrupt virus spread and avoid local outbreaks. We report the cases of COVID-19 patients admitted to our Emergency Department who complained of gastrointestinal symptoms at admission. LEARNING POINTS: The novel COVID-19 infection is a severe public health problem which is causing an increasing number of deaths worldwide.Although uncommon, there may be a relationship between gastrointestinal symptoms and COVID-19, as reported in recent studies.Early detection and isolation of patients with COVID-19 infection is the only way to control and limit the global spread of this virus.

COVID-19 pandemic, Piacenza calling. The survival strategy of an Italian Emergency Department.

CoVID-19 is a global health emergency, which has paralyzed most of the worldwide health systems. Italy is struggling hard with CoVID-19 pandemic since the end of February 2020, to avoid the collapse of its health  system. The number of CoVID-19 patients and deaths are increasing day by day. At time of writing, in Italy there are 102253 infected patients and 19899 deaths. Despite being a relatively small city, Piacenza is one of the epicentres of the Italian epidemic, and our own hospital - Guglielmo da Saliceto - has quickly become a "CoVID-19 hospital". Fully 80% of beds in our hospital are reserved for ill CoVID-19 patients and ICU has tripled the number of beds. All these changes have required a great effort for all the medical staff to avoid the collpase of the local health system. We struggled to maintain our normal standard of care for each patient, but the severity of the disease and the high number of critically ill patients frustrated our efforts. Here we report our experience and challenge with managing such a disaster. We hope it could be useful for other Emergency Departments trapped in this global pandemic.

Application of The Sepsis-3 Consensus Criteria in a Geriatric Acute Care Unit: A Prospective Study.

The prognostic value of quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in geriatric patients is uncertain. We aimed to compare qSOFA vs. Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria for mortality prediction in older multimorbid subjects, admitted for suspected sepsis in a geriatric ward. We prospectively enrolled 272 patients (aged 83.7 ± 7.4). At admission, qSOFA and SIRS scores were calculated. Mortality was assessed during hospital stay and three months after discharge. The predictive capacity of qSOFA and SIRS was assessed by calculating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC), through pairwise AUROC comparison, and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Both qSOFA and SIRS exhibited a poor prognostic performance (AUROCs 0.676, 95% CI 0.609⁻0.738, and 0.626, 95% CI 0.558⁻0.691 for in-hospital mortality; 0.684, 95% CI 0.614⁻0.748, and 0.596, 95% CI 0.558⁻0.691 for pooled three-month mortality, respectively). The predictive capacity of qSOFA showed no difference to that of SIRS for in-hospital mortality (difference between AUROCs 0.05, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.14, p = 0.31), but was superior for pooled three-month mortality (difference between AUROCs 0.09, 95% CI 0.01⁻0.17, p = 0.029). Multivariable logistic regression analysis, accounting for possible confounders, including frailty, showed that both scores were not associated with in-hospital mortality, although qSOFA, unlike SIRS, was associated with pooled three-month mortality. In conclusion, neither qSOFA nor SIRS at admission were strong predictors of mortality in a geriatric acute-care setting. Traditional geriatric measures of frailty may be more useful for predicting adverse outcomes in this setting.

From cardiac output to blood flow auto-regulation in shock.

Shock is defined as a state in which the circulation is unable to deliver sufficient oxygen to meet the demands of the tissues, resulting in cellular dysoxia and organ failure. In this process, the factors that govern the circulation at a haemodynamic level and oxygen delivery at a microcirculatory level play a major role. This manuscript aims to review the blood flow regulation from macro- and micro-haemodynamic point of view and to discuss new potential therapeutic approaches for cardiovascular instability in patients in cardiovascular shock. Despite the recent advances in haemodynamics, the mechanisms that control the vascular resistance and the venous return are not fully understood in critically ill patients. The physical properties of the vascular wall, as well as the role of the mean systemic filling pressure are topics that require further research. However, the haemodynamics do not totally explain the physiopathology of cellular dysoxia, and several factors such as inflammatory changes at the microcirculatory level can modify vascular resistance and tissue perfusion. Cellular vasoactive mediators and endothelial and glucocalix damage are also involved in microcirculatory impairment. All the levels of the circulatory system must be taken into account. Evaluation of microcirculation may help one to detect under-diagnosed shock, and together with classic haemodynamics, guide one towards the appropriate therapy. Restoration of classic haemodynamic parameters is essential but not sufficient to detect and treat patients in cardiovascular shock.