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.

Advantages and drawbacks of helmet noninvasive support in acute respiratory failure.

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) represents an effective strategy for managing acute respiratory failure. Facemask NIV is strongly recommended in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) with hypercapnia and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE). Its role in managing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) remains a debated issue. NIV and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) delivered through the helmet are recently receiving growing interest for AHRF management. AREAS COVERED: In this narrative review, we discuss the clinical applications of helmet support compared to the other available noninvasive strategies in the different phenotypes of acute respiratory failure. EXPERT OPINION: Helmets enable the use of high positive end-expiratory pressure, which may protect from self-inflicted lung injury: in AHRF, the possible superiority of helmet support over other noninvasive strategies in terms of clinical outcome has been hypothesized in a network metanalysis and a randomized trial, but has not been confirmed by other investigations and warrants confirmation. In AECOPD patients, helmet efficacy may be inferior to that of face masks, and its use prompts caution due to the risk of CO2 rebreathing. Helmet support can be safely applied in hypoxemic patients with ACPE, with no advantages over facemasks.

Temperature control after cardiac arrest.

Most of the patients who die after cardiac arrest do so because of hypoxic-ischemic brain injury (HIBI). Experimental evidence shows that temperature control targeted at hypothermia mitigates HIBI. In 2002, one randomized trial and one quasi-randomized trial showed that temperature control targeted at 32-34 °C improved neurological outcome and mortality in patients who are comatose after cardiac arrest. However, following the publication of these trials, other studies have questioned the neuroprotective effects of hypothermia. In 2021, the largest study conducted so far on temperature control (the TTM-2 trial) including 1900 adults comatose after resuscitation showed no effect of temperature control targeted at 33 °C compared with normothermia or fever control. A systematic review of 32 trials published between 2001 and 2021 concluded that temperature control with a target of 32-34 °C compared with fever prevention did not result in an improvement in survival (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.89-1.30) or favorable functional outcome (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.91-1.61) at 90-180 days after resuscitation. There was substantial heterogeneity across the trials, and the certainty of the evidence was low. Based on these results, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation currently recommends monitoring core temperature and actively preventing fever (37.7 °C) for at least 72 h in patients who are comatose after resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Future studies are needed to identify potential patient subgroups who may benefit from temperature control aimed at hypothermia. There are no trials comparing normothermia or fever control with no temperature control after cardiac arrest.

SARS-CoV-2-The Role of Natural Immunity: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Both natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity to COVID-19 may be useful to reduce the mortality/morbidity of this disease, but still a lot of controversy exists. AIMS: This narrative review analyzes the literature regarding these two immunitary processes and more specifically: (a) the duration of natural immunity; (b) cellular immunity; (c) cross-reactivity; (d) the duration of post-vaccination immune protection; (e) the probability of reinfection and its clinical manifestations in the recovered patients; (f) the comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated as to the possible reinfections; (g) the role of hybrid immunity; (h) the effectiveness of natural and vaccine-induced immunity against Omicron variant; (i) the comparative incidence of adverse effects after vaccination in recovered individuals vs. COVID-19-naïve subjects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: through multiple search engines we investigated COVID-19 literature related to the aims of the review, published since April 2020 through July 2022, including also the previous articles pertinent to the investigated topics. RESULTS: nearly 900 studies were collected, and 246 pertinent articles were included. It was highlighted that the vast majority of the individuals after suffering from COVID-19 develop a natural immunity both of cell-mediated and humoral type, which is effective over time and provides protection against both reinfection and serious illness. Vaccine-induced immunity was shown to decay faster than natural immunity. In general, the severity of the symptoms of reinfection is significantly lower than in the primary infection, with a lower degree of hospitalizations (0.06%) and an extremely low mortality. CONCLUSIONS: this extensive narrative review regarding a vast number of articles highlighted the valuable protection induced by the natural immunity after COVID-19, which seems comparable or superior to the one induced by anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Consequently, vaccination of the unvaccinated COVID-19-recovered subjects may not be indicated. Further research is needed in order to: (a) measure the durability of immunity over time; (b) evaluate both the impacts of Omicron BA.5 on vaccinated and healed subjects and the role of hybrid immunity.

Helmet noninvasive support for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: rationale, mechanism of action and bedside application.

INTRODUCTION: Helmet noninvasive support may provide advantages over other noninvasive oxygenation strategies in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this narrative review based on a systematic search of the literature, we summarize the rationale, mechanism of action and technicalities for helmet support in hypoxemic patients. MAIN RESULTS: In hypoxemic patients, helmet can facilitate noninvasive application of continuous positive-airway pressure or pressure-support ventilation via a hood interface that seals at the neck and is secured by straps under the arms. Helmet use requires specific settings. Continuous positive-airway pressure is delivered through a high-flow generator or a Venturi system connected to the inspiratory port of the interface, and a positive end-expiratory pressure valve place at the expiratory port of the helmet;  alternatively, pressure-support ventilation is delivered by connecting the helmet to a mechanical ventilator through a bi-tube circuit. The helmet interface allows continuous treatments with high positive end-expiratory pressure with good patient comfort. Preliminary data suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may provide physiological benefits compared to other noninvasive oxygenation strategies (conventional oxygen, facemask NIV, high-flow nasal oxygen) in non-hypercapnic patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg), possibly because higher positive end-expiratory pressure (10-15 cmH2O) can be applied for prolonged periods with good tolerability. This improves oxygenation, limits ventilator inhomogeneities, and may attenuate the potential harm of lung and diaphragm injury caused by vigorous inspiratory effort. The potential superiority of helmet support for reducing the risk of intubation has been hypothesized in small, pilot randomized trials and in a network metanalysis. CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive support represents a promising tool for the initial management of patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Currently, the lack of confidence with this and technique and the absence of conclusive data regarding its efficacy render helmet use limited to specific settings, with expert and trained personnel. As per other noninvasive oxygenation strategies, careful clinical and physiological monitoring during the treatment is essential to early identify treatment failure and avoid delays in intubation.

High-Flow Versus VenturiMask Oxygen Therapy to Prevent Reintubation in Hypoxemic Patients after Extubation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rationale: When compared with VenturiMask after extubation, high-flow nasal oxygen provides physiological advantages. Objectives: To establish whether high-flow oxygen prevents endotracheal reintubation in hypoxemic patients after extubation, compared with VenturiMask. Methods: In this multicenter randomized trial, 494 patients exhibiting PaO2:FiO2 ratio ⩽ 300 mm Hg after extubation were randomly assigned to receive high-flow or VenturiMask oxygen, with the possibility to apply rescue noninvasive ventilation before reintubation. High-flow use in the VenturiMask group was not permitted. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was the rate of reintubation within 72 hours according to predefined criteria, which were validated a posteriori by an independent adjudication committee. Main secondary outcomes included reintubation rate at 28 days and the need for rescue noninvasive ventilation according to predefined criteria. After intubation criteria validation (n = 492 patients), 32 patients (13%) in the high-flow group and 27 patients (11%) in the VenturiMask group required reintubation at 72 hours (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-2.26]; P = 0.49). At 28 days, the rate of reintubation was 21% in the high-flow group and 23% in the VenturiMask group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.60-1.31]; P = 0.55). The need for rescue noninvasive ventilation was significantly lower in the high-flow group than in the VenturiMask group: at 72 hours, 8% versus 17% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.71]; P = 0.002) and at 28 days, 12% versus 21% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32-0.83]; P = 0.007). Conclusions: Reintubation rate did not significantly differ between patients treated with VenturiMask or high-flow oxygen after extubation. High-flow oxygen yielded less frequent use of rescue noninvasive ventilation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02107183).

Hemodynamic response to positive end-expiratory pressure and prone position in COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Use of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning is common in patients with COVID-19-induced acute respiratory failure. Few data clarify the hemodynamic effects of these interventions in this specific condition. We performed a physiologic study to assess the hemodynamic effects of PEEP and prone position during COVID-19 respiratory failure. METHODS: Nine adult patients mechanically ventilated due to COVID-19 infection and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were studied. Respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, cardiac output, oxygen consumption, systemic and pulmonary pressures were recorded through pulmonary arterial catheterization at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O, and after prone positioning. Recruitability was assessed through the recruitment-to-inflation ratio. RESULTS: High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio in all patients (p = 0.004), and significantly decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (p = 0.012), regardless of lung recruitability. PEEP-induced increases in PaO2/FiO2 changes were strictly correlated with shunt fraction reduction (rho=-0.82, p = 0.01). From low to high PEEP, cardiac output decreased by 18 % (p = 0.05) and central venous pressure increased by 17 % (p = 0.015). As compared to supine position with low PEEP, prone positioning significantly decreased pulmonary shunt fraction (p = 0.03), increased PaO2/FiO2 (p = 0.03) and mixed venous oxygen saturation (p = 0.016), without affecting cardiac output. PaO2/FiO2 was improved by prone position also when compared to high PEEP (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS due to COVID-19, PEEP and prone position improve arterial oxygenation. Changes in cardiac output contribute to the effects of PEEP but not of prone position, which appears the most effective intervention to improve oxygenation with no hemodynamic side effects.

Comparison of the Asleep-Awake-Asleep Technique and Monitored Anesthesia Care During Awake Craniotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Awake craniotomy (AC) is the preferred surgical option for intractable epilepsy and resection of tumors adjacent to or within eloquent cortical areas. Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or an asleep-awake-asleep (SAS) technique is most widely used during AC. We used a random-effects modeled meta-analysis to synthesize the most recent evidence to determine whether MAC or SAS is safer and more effective for AC. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that explored the incidence of AC failure, duration of surgery, and hospital length of stay in adult patients undergoing AC. Eighteen studies were included in the final analysis. MAC was associated with a lower risk of AC failure when compared with SAS (global pooled proportion MAC vs. SAS 1% vs. 4%; odds ratio [ORs]: 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11-0.71; P=0.007) and shorter surgical procedure time (global pooled mean MAC vs. SAS 224.44 vs. 327.94 min; mean difference, -48.76 min; 95% CI: -61.55 to -35.97; P<0.00001). SAS was associated with fewer intraoperative seizures (global pooled proportion MAC vs. SAS 10% vs. 4%; OR: 2.38; 95% CI: 1.05-5.39; P=0.04). There were no differences in intraoperative nausea and vomiting between the techniques (global pooled proportion MAC vs. SAS: 4% vs. 8%; OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.30-2.45; P=0.78). Length of stay was shorter in the MAC group (MAC vs. SAS 3.96 vs. 6.75 days; mean difference, -1.30; 95% CI: -2.69 to 0.10; P=0.07). In summary, MAC was associated with lower AC failure rates and shorter procedure time compared with SAS, whereas SAS was associated with a lower incidence of intraoperative seizures. However, there was a high risk of bias and other limitations in the studies included in this review, so the superiority of 1 technique over the other needs to be confirmed in larger randomized studies.

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.

Tidal Volume Lowering by Instrumental Dead Space Reduction in Brain-Injured ARDS Patients: Effects on Respiratory Mechanics, Gas Exchange, and Cerebral Hemodynamics.

BACKGROUND: Limiting tidal volume (VT), plateau pressure, and driving pressure is essential during the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but may be challenging when brain injury coexists due to the risk of hypercapnia. Because lowering dead space enhances CO2 clearance, we conducted a study to determine whether and to what extent replacing heat and moisture exchangers (HME) with heated humidifiers (HH) facilitate safe VT lowering in brain-injured patients with ARDS. METHODS: Brain-injured patients (head trauma or spontaneous cerebral hemorrhage with Glasgow Coma Scale at admission < 9) with mild and moderate ARDS received three ventilatory strategies in a sequential order during continuous paralysis: (1) HME with VT to obtain a PaCO2 within 30-35 mmHg (HME1); (2) HH with VT titrated to obtain the same PaCO2 (HH); and (3) HME1 settings resumed (HME2). Arterial blood gases, static and quasi-static respiratory mechanics, alveolar recruitment by multiple pressure-volume curves, intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, mean arterial pressure, and mean flow velocity in the middle cerebral artery by transcranial Doppler were recorded. Dead space was measured and partitioned by volumetric capnography. RESULTS: Eighteen brain-injured patients were studied: 7 (39%) had mild and 11 (61%) had moderate ARDS. At inclusion, median [interquartile range] PaO2/FiO2 was 173 [146-213] and median PEEP was 8 cmH2O [5-9]. HH allowed to reduce VT by 120 ml [95% CI: 98-144], VT/kg predicted body weight by 1.8 ml/kg [95% CI: 1.5-2.1], plateau pressure and driving pressure by 3.7 cmH2O [2.9-4.3], without affecting PaCO2, alveolar recruitment, and oxygenation. This was permitted by lower airway (- 84 ml [95% CI: - 79 to - 89]) and total dead space (- 86 ml [95% CI: - 73 to - 98]). Sixteen patients (89%) showed driving pressure equal or lower than 14 cmH2O while on HH, as compared to 7 (39%) and 8 (44%) during HME1 and HME2 (p < 0.001). No changes in mean arterial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, intracranial pressure, and middle cerebral artery mean flow velocity were documented during HH. CONCLUSION: The dead space reduction provided by HH allows to safely reduce VT without modifying PaCO2 nor cerebral perfusion. This permits to provide a wider proportion of brain-injured ARDS patients with less injurious ventilation.

Physiological effects of high-flow oxygen in tracheostomized patients.

BACKGROUND: High-flow oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (HFOTNASAL) increases airway pressure, ameliorates oxygenation and reduces work of breathing. High-flow oxygen can be delivered through tracheostomy (HFOTTRACHEAL), but its physiological effects have not been systematically described. We conducted a cross-over study to elucidate the effects of increasing flow rates of HFOTTRACHEAL on gas exchange, respiratory rate and endotracheal pressure and to compare lower airway pressure produced by HFOTNASAL and HFOTTRACHEAL. METHODS: Twenty-six tracheostomized patients underwent standard oxygen therapy through a conventional heat and moisture exchanger, and then HFOTTRACHEAL through a heated humidifier, with gas flow set at 10, 30 and 50 L/min. Each step lasted 30 min; gas flow sequence during HFOTTRACHEAL was randomized. In five patients, measurements were repeated during HFOTTRACHEAL before tracheostomy decannulation and immediately after during HFOTNASAL. In each step, arterial blood gases, respiratory rate, and tracheal pressure were measured. RESULTS: During HFOTTRACHEAL, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and tracheal expiratory pressure slightly increased proportionally to gas flow. The mean [95% confidence interval] expiratory pressure raise induced by 10-L/min increase in flow was 0.2 [0.1-0.2] cmH2O (ρ = 0.77, p < 0.001). Compared to standard oxygen, HFOTTRACHEAL limited the negative inspiratory swing in tracheal pressure; at 50 L/min, but not with other settings, HFOTTRACHEAL increased mean tracheal expiratory pressure by (mean difference [95% CI]) 0.4 [0.3-0.6] cmH2O, peak tracheal expiratory pressure by 0.4 [0.2-0.6] cmH2O, improved PaO2/FiO2 ratio by 40 [8-71] mmHg, and reduced respiratory rate by 1.9 [0.3-3.6] breaths/min without PaCO2 changes. As compared to HFOTTRACHEAL, HFOTNASAL produced higher tracheal mean and peak expiratory pressure (at 50 L/min, mean difference [95% CI]: 3 [1-5] cmH2O and 4 [1-7] cmH2O, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to standard oxygen, 50 L/min of HFOTTRACHEAL are needed to improve oxygenation, reduce respiratory rate and provide small degree of positive airway expiratory pressure, which, however, is significantly lower than the one produced by HFOTNASAL.