The excess insulin requirement in severe COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis is related to the severity of respiratory failure and pre-existing diabetes.

Introduction: Severe COVID-19 has been anecdotally associated with high insulin requirements. It has been proposed that this may be driven by a direct diabetogenic effect of the virus that is unique to SARS-CoV-2, but evidence to support this is limited. To explore this, we compared insulin requirements in patients with severe COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to our intensive care unit between March and June 2020. A historical control cohort of non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis patients was identified from routinely collected audit data. Results: Insulin requirements were similar in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 viral pneumonitis after adjustment for pre-existing diabetes and severity of respiratory failure. Conclusions: In this single-centre study, we could not find evidence of a unique diabetogenic effect of COVID-19. We suggest that high insulin requirements in this disease relate to its propensity to cause severe respiratory failure in patients with pre-existing metabolic disease.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic COVID-19 caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has a high incidence of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Many of these patients require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for invasive ventilation and are at significant risk of developing a secondary, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). OBJECTIVES: To study the incidence of VAP and bacterial lung microbiome composition of ventilated COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we compared the incidence of VAP and secondary infections using a combination of microbial culture and a TaqMan multi-pathogen array. In addition, we determined the lung microbiome composition using 16S RNA analysis in a subset of samples. The study involved 81 COVID-19 and 144 non-COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation in a single University teaching hospital between March 15th 2020 and August 30th 2020. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients were significantly more likely to develop VAP than patients without COVID (Cox proportional hazard ratio 2.01 95% CI 1.14-3.54, p = 0.0015) with an incidence density of 28/1000 ventilator days versus 13/1000 for patients without COVID (p = 0.009). Although the distribution of organisms causing VAP was similar between the two groups, and the pulmonary microbiome was similar, we identified 3 cases of invasive aspergillosis amongst the patients with COVID-19 but none in the non-COVID-19 cohort. Herpesvirade activation was also numerically more frequent amongst patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of VAP, which is not fully explained by the prolonged duration of ventilation. The pulmonary dysbiosis caused by COVID-19, and the causative organisms of secondary pneumonia observed are similar to that seen in critically ill patients ventilated for other reasons.

COVID-19 and pneumothorax: a multicentre retrospective case series.

INTRODUCTION: Pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum have both been noted to complicate cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring hospital admission. We report the largest case series yet described of patients with both these pathologies (including nonventilated patients). METHODS: Cases were collected retrospectively from UK hospitals with inclusion criteria limited to a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the presence of either pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum. Patients included in the study presented between March and June 2020. Details obtained from the medical record included demographics, radiology, laboratory investigations, clinical management and survival. RESULTS: 71 patients from 16 centres were included in the study, of whom 60 had pneumothoraces (six with pneumomediastinum in addition) and 11 had pneumomediastinum alone. Two of these patients had two distinct episodes of pneumothorax, occurring bilaterally in sequential fashion, bringing the total number of pneumothoraces included to 62. Clinical scenarios included patients who had presented to hospital with pneumothorax, patients who had developed pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum during their inpatient admission with COVID-19 and patients who developed their complication while intubated and ventilated, either with or without concurrent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Survival at 28 days was not significantly different following pneumothorax (63.1±6.5%) or isolated pneumomediastinum (53.0±18.7%; p=0.854). The incidence of pneumothorax was higher in males. 28-day survival was not different between the sexes (males 62.5±7.7% versus females 68.4±10.7%; p=0.619). Patients aged ≥70 years had a significantly lower 28-day survival than younger individuals (≥70 years 41.7±13.5% survival versus <70 years 70.9±6.8% survival; p=0.018 log-rank). CONCLUSION: These cases suggest that pneumothorax is a complication of COVID-19. Pneumothorax does not seem to be an independent marker of poor prognosis and we encourage continuation of active treatment where clinically possible.

"Identifying the hospitalised patient in crisis"--a consensus conference on the afferent limb of rapid response systems.

BACKGROUND: Most reports of Rapid Response Systems (RRS) focus on the efferent, response component of the system, although evidence suggests that improved vital sign monitoring and recognition of a clinical crisis may have outcome benefits. There is no consensus regarding how best to detect patient deterioration or a clear description of what constitutes patient monitoring. METHODS: A consensus conference of international experts in safety, RRS, healthcare technology, education, and risk prediction was convened to review current knowledge and opinion on clinical monitoring. Using established consensus procedures, four topic areas were addressed: (1) To what extent do physiologic abnormalities predict risk for patient deterioration? (2) Do workload changes and their potential stresses on the healthcare environment increase patient risk in a predictable manner? (3) What are the characteristics of an "ideal" monitoring system, and to what extent does currently available technology meet this need? and (4) How can monitoring be categorized to facilitate comparing systems? RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The major findings include: (1) vital sign aberrations predict risk, (2) monitoring patients more effectively may improve outcome, although some risk is random, (3) the workload implications of monitoring on the clinical workforce have not been explored, but are amenable to study and should be investigated, (4) the characteristics of an ideal monitoring system are identifiable, and it is possible to categorize monitoring modalities. It may also be possible to describe monitoring levels, and a system is proposed.