Clinical implications of endotoxin activity and Polymyxin-B hemoperfusion in critically ill patients with septic cardiomyopathy: A single-center, retrospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: To explore the association between endotoxin activity (EA) and septic cardiomyopathy (SCM), the relationship between endotoxin removal by Polymyxin-B hemoperfusion (PMX-HP) and recovery from SCM (R-SCM), and the correlation between R-SCM and the 28-day mortality in septic patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Observational study that included patients admitted to two ICUs of a tertiary university hospital between April 2011 and December 2019, who received PMX-HP for sepsis/septic shock. The SCM and R-SCM were assessed by transthoracic echocardiography. RESULTS: Among 148 patients, SCM was diagnosed in 60 (46%) of them and had no relationship with median EA (SCM group: 0.73; no-SCM group: 0.66, p = 0.48). Recovery from SCM was observed in 24 patients (49%) and was independently associated with the PMX-HP (OR 4.19, 95%CI [1.22, 14.3]; p = 0.02) and the SAPS2 II score (OR 0.94, 95%CI [0.9, 0.98]; p = 0.006). In the SCM group, the 28-day mortality was 60% and was independently predicted by R-SCM (OR 0.02, 95%CI [0.001, 0.3] p = 0.005) and SAPS II score (OR 1.11, 95%CI [1.01, 1.23] p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: In septic patients, EA was not associated with SCM. However, endotoxin removal by Polymyxin-B hemoperfusion was associated with recovery from cardiomyopathy, which was a predictor of lower 28-day mortality.

Bloodstream infections in COVID-19 patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in ICU: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO are at highly increased risk of nosocomial infections. OBJECTIVES: To study incidence, clinical outcomes and microbiological features of bloodstream infections (BSI) occurring during ECMO in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Observational prospective cohort study enrolling consecutive COVID-19 patients undergoing veno-venous-ECMO in an Italian ICU from March 2020 to March 2022. RESULTS: In the study population of 68 patients (age 53 [49-60] years, 82% males), 30 (44%) developed bloodstream infections (BSI group) while 38 did not (N-BSI group) with an incidence of 32 events/1000 days of ECMO. In BSI group pre-ECMO respiratory support was shorter (6 [4-9] vs 9 [5-12] days, p = 0.02) and ECMO treatment was longer (18 [10-29] vs 11 [7-18] days, p = 0.03) than in N-BSI group. The overall ECMO and ICU mortality were 50% and 59%, respectively, without any inter-group difference (p = 1.00). A longer ECMO treatment was independently correlated with higher rate of BSI (p = 0.04, OR [95% CI] 1.06 [1.02-1.11]). Sixteen primary and 14 secondary infectious events were documented. Gram-positive pathogens were more common in primary than secondary BSI (88% vs 43%, p = 0.02) and Enterococcus faecalis (56%) was the most frequent one. Conversely, Gram-negative microorganisms were more often isolated in secondary rather than primary BSI (57% vs 13%, p = 0.02), with Acinetobacter baumannii (21%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (21%) as most represented species. The administration of Sars-CoV-2 antiviral drug showed independent correlation with a reduced rate of ICU mortality (p = 0.01, OR [95% CI] 0.22 [0.07-0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: Bloodstream infections represented a frequent complication without worsening clinical outcomes in our COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO. Primary and secondary BSI events showed peculiar microbiological profiles.

An Observational Study to Develop a Predictive Model for Bacterial Pneumonia Diagnosis in Severe COVID-19 Patients-C19-PNEUMOSCORE.

In COVID-19 patients, antibiotics overuse is still an issue. A predictive scoring model for the diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia at intensive care unit (ICU) admission would be a useful stewardship tool. We performed a multicenter observational study including 331 COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at ICU admission; 179 patients with bacterial pneumonia; and 152 displaying negative lower-respiratory samplings. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of pulmonary co-infections, and a composite risk score was developed using ß-coefficients. We identified seven variables as predictors of bacterial pneumonia: vaccination status (OR 7.01; 95% CI, 1.73-28.39); chronic kidney disease (OR 3.16; 95% CI, 1.15-8.71); pre-ICU hospital length of stay ≥ 5 days (OR 1.94; 95% CI, 1.11-3.4); neutrophils ≥ 9.41 × 109/L (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.16-3.30); procalcitonin ≥ 0.2 ng/mL (OR 5.09; 95% CI, 2.93-8.84); C-reactive protein ≥ 107.6 mg/L (OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.15-3.46); and Brixia chest X-ray score ≥ 9 (OR 2.03; 95% CI, 1.19-3.45). A predictive score (C19-PNEUMOSCORE), ranging from 0 to 9, was obtained by assigning one point to each variable, except from procalcitonin and vaccine status, which gained two points each. At a cut-off of ≥3, the model exhibited a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 84.9%, 55.9%, 69.4%, 75.9%, and 71.6%, respectively. C19-PNEUMOSCORE may be an easy-to-use bedside composite tool for the early identification of severe COVID-19 patients with pulmonary bacterial co-infection at ICU admission. Its implementation may help clinicians to optimize antibiotics administration in this setting.

Recruitment-to-inflation Ratio Assessed through Sequential End-expiratory Lung Volume Measurement in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) benefits in acute respiratory distress syndrome are driven by lung dynamic strain reduction. This depends on the variable extent of alveolar recruitment. The recruitment-to-inflation ratio estimates recruitability across a 10-cm H2O PEEP range through a simplified maneuver. Whether recruitability is uniform or not across this range is unknown. The hypotheses of this study are that the recruitment-to-inflation ratio represents an accurate estimate of PEEP-induced changes in dynamic strain, but may show nonuniform behavior across the conventionally tested PEEP range (15 to 5 cm H2O). METHODS: Twenty patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome underwent a decremental PEEP trial (PEEP 15 to 13 to 10 to 8 to 5 cm H2O). Respiratory mechanics and end-expiratory lung volume by nitrogen dilution were measured the end of each step. Gas exchange, recruited volume, recruitment-to-inflation ratio, and changes in dynamic, static, and total strain were computed between 15 and 5 cm H2O (global recruitment-to-inflation ratio) and within narrower PEEP ranges (granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio). RESULTS: Between 15 and 5 cm H2O, median [interquartile range] global recruitment-to-inflation ratio was 1.27 [0.40 to 1.69] and displayed a linear correlation with PEEP-induced dynamic strain reduction (r = -0.94; P < 0.001). Intraindividual recruitment-to-inflation ratio variability within the narrower ranges was high (85% [70 to 109]). The relationship between granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio and PEEP was mathematically described by a nonlinear, quadratic equation (R2 = 0.96). Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio across the narrower PEEP ranges itself had a linear correlation with PEEP-induced reduction in dynamic strain (r = -0.89; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both global and granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio accurately estimate PEEP-induced changes in lung dynamic strain. However, the effect of 10 cm H2O of PEEP on lung strain may be nonuniform. Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio assessment within narrower PEEP ranges guided by end-expiratory lung volume measurement may aid more precise PEEP selection, especially when the recruitment-to-inflation ratio obtained with the simplified maneuver between PEEP 15 and 5 cm H2O yields intermediate values that are difficult to interpret for a proper choice between a high and low PEEP strategy.

Personalized Respiratory Support in ARDS: A Physiology-to-Bedside Review.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide, and while no specific etiologic interventions have been shown to improve outcomes, noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies are life-saving interventions that allow time for lung recovery. However, the inappropriate management of these strategies, which neglects the unique features of respiratory, lung, and chest wall mechanics may result in disease progression, such as patient self-inflicted lung injury during spontaneous breathing or by ventilator-induced lung injury during invasive mechanical ventilation. ARDS characteristics are highly heterogeneous; therefore, a physiology-based approach is strongly advocated to titrate the delivery and management of respiratory support strategies to match patient characteristics and needs to limit ARDS progression. Several tools have been implemented in clinical practice to aid the clinician in identifying the ARDS sub-phenotypes based on physiological peculiarities (inspiratory effort, respiratory mechanics, and recruitability), thus allowing for the appropriate application of personalized supportive care. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of noninvasive and invasive respiratory support strategies, as well as discuss how identifying ARDS sub-phenotypes in daily practice can help clinicians to deliver personalized respiratory support and potentially improve patient outcomes.

Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment. RESULTS: Among 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47-77] of predicted vs. 80% [71-88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53-70] vs. 80 [70-83], p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 2020.

Antimicrobial Exposure in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis-Associated Multi-Organ Dysfunction Requiring Extracorporeal Organ Support: A Narrative Review.

Sepsis is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide. The pathophysiology of sepsis relies on the maladaptive host response to pathogens that fosters unbalanced organ crosstalk and induces multi-organ dysfunction, whose severity was directly associated with mortality. In septic patients, etiologic interventions aiming to reduce the pathogen load via appropriate antimicrobial therapy and the effective control of the source infection were demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes. Nonetheless, extracorporeal organ support represents a complementary intervention that may play a role in mitigating life-threatening complications caused by sepsis-associated multi-organ dysfunction. In this setting, an increasing amount of research raised concerns about the risk of suboptimal antimicrobial exposure in critically ill patients with sepsis, which may be worsened by the concomitant delivery of extracorporeal organ support. Accordingly, several strategies have been implemented to overcome this issue. In this narrative review, we discussed the pharmacokinetic features of antimicrobials and mechanisms that may favor drug removal during renal replacement therapy, coupled plasma filtration and absorption, therapeutic plasma exchange, hemoperfusion, extracorporeal CO2 removal and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. We also provided an overview of evidence-based strategies that may help the physician to safely prescribe effective antimicrobial doses in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated multi-organ dysfunction who receive extracorporeal organ support.

Use of High-Dose Nebulized Colistimethate in Patients with Colistin-Only Susceptible Acinetobacter baumannii VAP: Clinical, Pharmacokinetic and Microbiome Features.

(1) Background: Colistin-only susceptible (COS) Acinetobacter baumannii (AB) ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) represents a clinical challenge in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) due to the negligible lung diffusion of this molecule and the low-grade evidence on efficacy of its nebulization. (2) Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study on 134 ICU patients with COS-AB VAP to describe the 'real life' clinical use of high-dose (5 MIU q8) aerosolized colistin, using a vibrating mesh nebulizer. Lung pharmacokinetics and microbiome features were investigated. (3) Results: Patients were enrolled during the COVID-19 pandemic with the ICU presenting a SAPS II of 42 [32-57]. At VAP diagnosis, the median PaO2/FiO2 was 120 [100-164], 40.3% were in septic shock, and 24.6% had secondary bacteremia. The twenty-eight day mortality was 50.7% with 60.4% and 40.3% rates of clinical cure and microbiological eradication, respectively. We did not observe any drug-related adverse events. Epithelial lining fluid colistin concentrations were far above the CRAB minimal-inhibitory concentration and the duration of nebulized therapy was an independent predictor of microbiological eradication (12 [9.75-14] vs. 7 [4-13] days, OR (95% CI): 1.069 (1.003-1.138), p = 0.039). (4) Conclusions: High-dose and prolonged colistin nebulization, using a vibrating mesh, was a safe adjunctive therapeutic strategy for COS-AB VAP. Its right place and efficacy in this setting warrant investigation in interventional studies.

Respective Effects of Helmet Pressure Support, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Nasal High-Flow in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial.

Rationale: The respective effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pressure support delivered through the helmet interface in patients with hypoxemia need to be better understood. Objectives: To assess the respective effects of helmet pressure support (noninvasive ventilation [NIV]) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) on effort to breathe, lung inflation, and gas exchange in patients with hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ⩽ 200). Methods: Fifteen patients underwent 1-hour phases (constant FiO2) of HFNO (60 L/min), helmet NIV (PEEP = 14 cm H2O, pressure support = 12 cm H2O), and CPAP (PEEP = 14 cm H2O) in randomized sequence. Measurements and Main Results: Inspiratory esophageal (ΔPES) and transpulmonary pressure (ΔPL) swings were used as surrogates for inspiratory effort and lung distension, respectively. Tidal Volume (Vt) and end-expiratory lung volume were assessed with electrical impedance tomography. ΔPES was lower during NIV versus CPAP and HFNO (median [interquartile range], 5 [3-9] cm H2O vs. 13 [10-19] cm H2O vs. 10 [8-13] cm H2O; P = 0.001 and P = 0.01). ΔPL was not statistically different between treatments. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly higher during NIV and CPAP versus HFNO (166 [136-215] and 175 [158-281] vs. 120 [107-149]; P = 0.002 and P = 0.001). NIV and CPAP similarly increased Vt versus HFNO (mean change, 70% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17-122%], P = 0.02; 93% [95% CI, 30-155%], P = 0.002) and end-expiratory lung volume (mean change, 198% [95% CI, 67-330%], P = 0.001; 263% [95% CI, 121-407%], P = 0.001), mostly due to increased aeration/ventilation in dorsal lung regions. During HFNO, 14 of 15 patients had pendelluft involving >10% of Vt; pendelluft was mitigated by CPAP and further by NIV. Conclusions: Compared with HFNO, helmet NIV, but not CPAP, reduced ΔPES. CPAP and NIV similarly increased oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume, and Vt, without affecting ΔPL. NIV, and to a lesser extent CPAP, mitigated pendelluft. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04241861).

Use of an innovative cuff pressure control and subglottic secretions drainage system in COVID-19 ARDS patients undergoing pronation.

We conducted a proof of concept study where Anapnoguard endotracheal tubes and its control unit were used in 15 patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anapnoguard system provides suction, venting, rinsing of subglottic space and controls cuff pressure detecting air leakage through the cuff. Alpha-amylase and pepsin levels, as oropharyngeal and gastric microaspiration markers, were assessed from 85 tracheal aspirates in the first 72 h after connection to the system. Oropharyngeal microaspiration occurred in 47 cases (55%). Episodes of gastric microaspiration were not detected. Patient positioning, either prone or supine, did not affect alpha-amylase and pepsin concentration in tracheal secretions. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) rate was 40%. The use of the AG system provided effective cuff pressure control and subglottic secretions drainage. Despite this, no reduction in the incidence of VAP has been demonstrated, compared to data reported in the current COVID-19 literature. The value of this new technology is worth of being evaluated for the prevention of ventilator-associated respiratory tract infections.

Vitamin D Status and Potential Therapeutic Options in Critically Ill Patients: A Narrative Review of the Clinical Evidence.

Vitamin D covers roles of paramount importance in the regulation of multiple physiological pathways of the organism. The metabolism of vitamin D involves kidney-liver crosstalk and requires an adequate function of these organs, where vitamin D is progressively turned into active forms. Vitamin D deficiency has been widely reported in patients living in the community, being prevalent among the most vulnerable subjects. It has been also documented in many critically ill patients upon admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, vitamin D deficiency may represent a risk factor for the development of life-threatening clinical conditions (e.g., infection and sepsis) and worse clinical outcomes. Several researchers have investigated the impact of vitamin D supplementation showing its feasibility, safety, and effectiveness, although conflicting results have put into question its real benefit in critically ill patients. The existing studies included heterogeneous critically ill populations and used slightly different protocols of vitamin D supplementation. For these reasons, pooling up the results is difficult and not conclusive. In this narrative review, we described vitamin D physiology and the pathophysiology of vitamin D depletion with a specific focus on critically ill patients with liver dysfunction, acute kidney injury, acute respiratory failure, and sepsis.

Remdesivir plus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A cohort study of severe patients requiring high flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation.

INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir and Dexamethasone represent the cornerstone of therapy for critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical efficacy and safety of concomitant administration of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone (Rem-Dexa) in severe COVID-19 patients on high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study that was performed in two medical Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of a tertiary university hospital. The clinical impact of Rem-Dexa administration in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, who required NIV or HFOT and selected on the simplified acute physiology score II, the sequential organ failure assessment score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score, was investigated. The primary outcome was 28-day intubation rate; secondary outcomes were end-of-treatment clinical improvement and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications, ICU and hospital length of stay, 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: We included 132 patients and found that 28-day intubation rate was significantly lower among Rem-Dexa group (19.7% vs 48.5%, p<0.01). Although the end-of-treatment clinical improvement was larger among Rem-Dexa group (69.7% vs 51.5%, p = 0.05), the 28-day and 90-day mortalities were similar (4.5% and 10.6% vs. 15.2% and 16.7%; p = 0.08 and p = 0.45, respectively). The logistic regression and Cox-regression models showed that concomitant Rem-Dexa therapy was associated with a reduction of 28-day intubation rate (OR 0.22, CI95% 0.05-0.94, p = 0.04), in absence of laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications (p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 critically ill patients receiving HFO or NIV, 28-day intubation rate was lower in patients who received Rem-Dexa and this finding corresponded to lower end-of-treatment clinical improvement. The individual contribution of either Remdesevir or Dexamethasone to the observed clinical effect should be further investigated.

Dyspnoea and clinical outcome in critically ill patients receiving noninvasive support for COVID-19 respiratory failure: post hoc analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

In #COVID19 patients, presence of moderate-to-severe dyspnoea is a marker of disease severity correlated to clinical outcomes https://bit.ly/3Bp2G1b.

Respiratory Drive in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: Modulation by High-flow Nasal Cannula.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and pilot clinical data suggest that spontaneously breathing patients with sepsis and septic shock may present increased respiratory drive and effort, even in the absence of pulmonary infection. The study hypothesis was that respiratory drive and effort may be increased in septic patients and correlated with extrapulmonary determinant and that high-flow nasal cannula may modulate drive and effort. METHODS: Twenty-five nonintubated patients with extrapulmonary sepsis or septic shock were enrolled. Each patient underwent three consecutive steps: low-flow oxygen at baseline, high-flow nasal cannula, and then low-flow oxygen again. Arterial blood gases, esophageal pressure, and electrical impedance tomography data were recorded toward the end of each step. Respiratory effort was measured as the negative swing of esophageal pressure (ΔPes); drive was quantified as the change in esophageal pressure during the first 500 ms from start of inspiration (P0.5). Dynamic lung compliance was calculated as the tidal volume measured by electrical impedance tomography, divided by ΔPes. The results are presented as medians [25th to 75th percentile]. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (52%) were in septic shock. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 5 [4 to 9]. During low-flow oxygen at baseline, respiratory drive and effort were elevated and significantly correlated with arterial lactate (r = 0.46, P = 0.034) and inversely with dynamic lung compliance (r = -0.735, P < 0.001). Noninvasive support by high-flow nasal cannula induced a significant decrease of respiratory drive (P0.5: 6.0 [4.4 to 9.0] vs. 4.3 [3.5 to 6.6] vs. 6.6 [4.9 to 10.7] cm H2O, P < 0.001) and effort (ΔPes: 8.0 [6.0 to 11.5] vs. 5.5 [4.5 to 8.0] vs. 7.5 [6.0 to 12.6] cm H2O, P < 0.001). Oxygenation and arterial carbon dioxide levels remained stable during all study phases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with sepsis and septic shock of extrapulmonary origin present elevated respiratory drive and effort, which can be effectively reduced by high-flow nasal cannula.

Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with COVID-19: clinical features and potential inference with lung dysbiosis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and requiring mechanical ventilation are at risk of ventilator-associated bacterial infections secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study aimed to investigate clinical features of Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia (SA-VAP) and, if bronchoalveolar lavage samples were available, lung bacterial community features in ICU patients with or without COVID-19. METHODS: We prospectively included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across two medical ICUs of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS (Rome, Italy), who developed SA-VAP between 20 March 2020 and 30 October 2020 (thereafter referred to as cases). After 1:2 matching based on the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) and the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, cases were compared with SA-VAP patients without COVID-19 (controls). Clinical, microbiological, and lung microbiota data were analyzed. RESULTS: We studied two groups of patients (40 COVID-19 and 80 non-COVID-19). COVID-19 patients had a higher rate of late-onset (87.5% versus 63.8%; p = 0.01), methicillin-resistant (65.0% vs 27.5%; p < 0.01) or bacteremic (47.5% vs 6.3%; p < 0.01) infections compared with non-COVID-19 patients. No statistically significant differences between the patient groups were observed in ICU mortality (p = 0.12), clinical cure (p = 0.20) and microbiological eradication (p = 0.31). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, SAPS II and initial inappropriate antimicrobial therapy were independently associated with ICU mortality. Then, lung microbiota characterization in 10 COVID-19 and 16 non-COVID-19 patients revealed that the overall microbial community composition was significantly different between the patient groups (unweighted UniFrac distance, R2 0.15349; p < 0.01). Species diversity was lower in COVID-19 than in non COVID-19 patients (94.4 ± 44.9 vs 152.5 ± 41.8; p < 0.01). Interestingly, we found that S. aureus (log2 fold change, 29.5), Streptococcus anginosus subspecies anginosus (log2 fold change, 24.9), and Olsenella (log2 fold change, 25.7) were significantly enriched in the COVID-19 group compared to the non-COVID-19 group of SA-VAP patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, COVID-19 seemed to significantly affect microbiological and clinical features of SA-VAP as well as to be associated with a peculiar lung microbiota composition.

COVID-19 influences lung microbiota dynamics and favors the emergence of rare infectious diseases: A case report of Hafnia Alvei pneumonia.

The coronavirus disease 2019 causes a wide degree of organ dysfunction and is associated with bacterial secondary infections. We reported lung microbiota dynamics in a critically ill patient with coronavirus disease 2019, who developed severe Hafnia alvei ventilator-associated pneumonia and required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.

High Failure Rate of Noninvasive Oxygenation Strategies in Critically Ill Subjects With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of noninvasive oxygenation strategies (NIOS) in treating COVID-19 disease is unknown. We conducted a prospective observational study to assess the rate of NIOS failure in subjects treated in the ICU for hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. METHODS: Patients receiving first-line treatment NIOS for hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 in the ICU of a university hospital were included in this study; laboratory data were collected upon arrival, and 28-d outcome was recorded. After propensity score matching based on Simplified Acute Physiology (SAPS) II score, age, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] at arrival, the NIOS failure rate in subjects with COVID-19 was compared to a previously published cohort who received NIOS during hypoxemic respiratory failure due to other causes. RESULTS: A total of 85 subjects received first-line treatment with NIOS. The most frequently used methods were helmet noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula; of these, 52 subjects (61%) required endotracheal intubation. Independent factors associated with NIOS failure were SAPS II score (P = .009) and serum lactate dehydrogenase at enrollment (P = .02); the combination of SAPS II score ≥ 33 with serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 405 units/L at ICU admission had 91% specificity in predicting the need for endotracheal intubation. In the propensity-matched cohorts (54 pairs), subjects with COVID-19 showed higher risk of NIOS failure than those with other causes of hypoxemic respiratory failure (59% vs 35%, P = .02), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2 (95% CI 1.1-3.6, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to hypoxemic respiratory failure due to other etiologies, subjects with COVID-19 who were treated with NIOS in the ICU were burdened by a 2-fold higher risk of failure. Subjects with a SAPS II score ≥ 33 and serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 405 units/L represent the population with the greatest risk.

Respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure compared to ARDS of other etiologies.

BACKGROUND: Whether respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure is different from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is unclear. We conducted a single-center study to describe respiratory mechanics and response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in COVID-19 ARDS and to compare COVID-19 patients to matched-control subjects with ARDS from other causes. METHODS: Thirty consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Rome, Italy, and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were enrolled within 24 h from endotracheal intubation. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and ventilatory ratio were measured at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O. A single-breath derecruitment maneuver was performed to assess recruitability. After 1:1 matching based on PaO2/FiO2, FiO2, PEEP, and tidal volume, COVID-19 patients were compared to subjects affected by ARDS of other etiologies who underwent the same procedures in a previous study. RESULTS: Thirty COVID-19 patients were successfully matched with 30 ARDS from other etiologies. At low PEEP, median [25th-75th percentiles] PaO2/FiO2 in the two groups was 119 mmHg [101-142] and 116 mmHg [87-154]. Average compliance (41 ml/cmH2O [32-52] vs. 36 ml/cmH2O [27-42], p = 0.045) and ventilatory ratio (2.1 [1.7-2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.4-2.1], p = 0.032) were slightly higher in COVID-19 patients. Inter-individual variability (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of compliance was 36% in COVID-19 patients and 31% in other ARDS. In COVID-19 patients, PaO2/FiO2 was linearly correlated with respiratory system compliance (r = 0.52 p = 0.003). High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 in both cohorts, but more remarkably in COVID-19 patients (p = 0.005). Recruitability was not different between cohorts (p = 0.39) and was highly inter-individually variable (72% in COVID-19 patients and 64% in ARDS from other causes). In COVID-19 patients, recruitability was independent from oxygenation and respiratory mechanics changes due to PEEP. CONCLUSIONS: Early after establishment of mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 patients follow ARDS physiology, with compliance reduction related to the degree of hypoxemia, and inter-individually variable respiratory mechanics and recruitability. Physiological differences between ARDS from COVID-19 and other causes appear small.