Specific and Non-specific Aspects and Future Challenges of ICU Care Among COVID-19 Patients with Obesity: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since the end of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has infected nearly 800 million people and caused almost seven million deaths. Obesity was quickly identified as a risk factor for severe COVID-19, ICU admission, acute respiratory distress syndrome, organ support including mechanical ventilation and prolonged length of stay. The relationship among obesity; COVID-19; and respiratory, thrombotic, and renal complications upon admission to the ICU is unclear. RECENT FINDINGS: The predominant effect of a hyperinflammatory status or a cytokine storm has been suggested in patients with obesity, but more recent studies have challenged this hypothesis. Numerous studies have also shown increased mortality among critically ill patients with obesity and COVID-19, casting doubt on the obesity paradox, with survival advantages with overweight and mild obesity being reported in other ICU syndromes. Finally, it is now clear that the increase in the global prevalence of overweight and obesity is a major public health issue that must be accompanied by a transformation of our ICUs, both in terms of equipment and human resources. Research must also focus more on these patients to improve their care. In this review, we focused on the central role of obesity in critically ill patients during this pandemic, highlighting its specificities during their stay in the ICU, identifying the lessons we have learned, and identifying areas for future research as well as the future challenges for ICU activity.

Prediction of esophagogastroduodenoscopy therapeutic usefulness for in-ICU suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the SUGIBI score study.

BACKGROUND: Suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (SUGIB) is a common issue during ICU stay. In the absence of specific guidelines on the indication and timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), there is substantial variability in EGD indication depending on accessibility and clinical presentation. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with the need for per-EGD hemostatic therapy and to create a score predicting therapeutic benefit of emergency bedside EGD in ICU patients with SUGIB. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in our ICU to identify factors associated with the need for hemostatic procedure during EGD performed for SUGIB. From this observational cohort, we derived a score predicting the need for hemostasis during EGD, the SUGIBI score. This score was subsequently validated in a retrospective multicenter cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients not primarily admitted for GI bleeding who underwent a bedside EGD for SUGIB during their ICU stay were analyzed. The preeminent EGD indication were anemia (79%), melena (19%), shock (14%), and hematemesis (13%). EGD was normal in 24.7% of cases, while primary lesions reported were ulcers (23.1%), esophagitis (18.8%), and gastritis (12.5%). Only 12.9% of patients underwent hemostatic endotherapy during EGD. A SUGIBI score < 4 had a negative predictive value of 95% (91-99) for hemostatic endotherapy [AUC of 0.81; 0.75-0.91 (p < 0.0001)]. The SUGIBI score for predicting the need for an EGD-guided hemostatic procedure was next validated in a multicenter cohort with an AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.85) (p < 0.0001), a score < 4 having a negative predictive value of 95% (92-97). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the therapeutic usefulness of bedside emergency EGD for SUGIB in critically ill patients is limited to a minority of patients. The SUGIBI score should help clinicians stratify the probability of a therapeutic EGD.

Critically Ill Patients with Visceral Nocardia Infection, France and Belgium, 2004-2023.

We studied 50 patients with invasive nocardiosis treated during 2004-2023 in intensive care centers in France and Belgium. Most (65%) died in the intensive care unit or in the year after admission. Nocardia infections should be included in the differential diagnoses for patients in the intensive care setting.

Sensory interventions to relieve dyspnoea in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, dyspnoea is frequent, severe and associated with an increased risk of neuropsychological sequelae. We evaluated the efficacy of sensory interventions targeting the brain rather than the respiratory system to relieve dyspnoea in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: Patients receiving mechanical ventilation for ≥48 h and reporting dyspnoea (unidimensional dyspnoea visual analogue scale (Dyspnoea-VAS)) first underwent increased pressure support and then, in random order, auditory stimulation (relaxing music versus pink noise) and air flux stimulation (facial versus lower limb). Treatment responses were assessed using Dyspnoea-VAS, the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile and measures of the neural drive to breathe (airway occlusion pressure (P 0.1) and electromyography of inspiratory muscles). RESULTS: We included 46 patients (tracheotomy or intubation n=37; noninvasive ventilation n=9). Increasing pressure support decreased Dyspnoea-VAS by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to music decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with exposure to pink noise by median 40 mm (p<0.001). Exposure to facial air flux decreased Dyspnoea-VAS compared with limb air flux by median 30 mm (p<0.001). Increasing pressure support, but not music exposure and facial air flux, reduced P 0.1 by median 3.3 cmH2O (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients, sensory interventions can modulate the processing of respiratory signals by the brain irrespective of the intensity of the neural drive to breathe. It should therefore be possible to alleviate dyspnoea without resorting to pharmacological interventions or having to infringe the constraints of mechanical ventilation lung protection strategies by increasing ventilatory support.

Identification of natural killer markers associated with fatal outcome in COVID-19 patients.

Introduction: Increasing evidence has shown that coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) severity is driven by a dysregulated immunological response. Previous studies have demonstrated that natural killer (NK) cell dysfunction underpins severe illness in COVID-19 patients, but have lacked an in-depth analysis of NK cell markers as a driver of death in the most critically ill patients. Methods: We enrolled 50 non-vaccinated hospitalized patients infected with the initial virus or the alpha variant of SARS-CoV-2 with moderate or severe illness, to evaluate phenotypic and functional features of NK cells. Results: Here, we show that, consistent with previous studies, evolution NK cells from COVID-19 patients are more activated, with the decreased activation of natural cytotoxicity receptors and impaired cytotoxicity and IFN-γ production, in association with disease regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 strain. Fatality was observed in 6 of 17 patients with severe disease; NK cells from all of these patients displayed a peculiar phenotype of an activated memory-like phenotype associated with massive TNF-α production. Discussion: These data suggest that fatal COVID-19 infection is driven by an uncoordinated inflammatory response in part mediated by a specific subset of activated NK cells.

The positive impact of COVID-19 on critical care: from unprecedented challenges to transformative changes, from the perspective of young intensivists.

Over the past 2 years, SARS-CoV-2 infection has resulted in numerous hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. As young intensivists, we have been at the forefront of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and it has been an intense learning experience affecting all aspects of our specialty. Critical care was put forward as a priority and managed to adapt to the influx of patients and the growing demand for beds, financial and material resources, thereby highlighting its flexibility and central role in the healthcare system. Intensivists assumed an essential and unprecedented role in public life, which was important when claiming for indispensable material and human investments. Physicians and researchers around the world worked hand-in-hand to advance research and better manage this disease by integrating a rapidly growing body of evidence into guidelines. Our daily ethical practices and communication with families were challenged by the massive influx of patients and restricted visitation policies, forcing us to improve our collaboration with other specialties and innovate with new communication channels. However, the picture was not all bright, and some of these achievements are already fading over time despite the ongoing pandemic and hospital crisis. In addition, the pandemic has demonstrated the need to improve the working conditions and well-being of critical care workers to cope with the current shortage of human resources. Despite the gloomy atmosphere, we remain optimistic. In this ten-key points review, we outline our vision on how to capitalize on the lasting impact of the pandemic to face future challenges and foster transformative changes of critical care for the better.

The increase in cardiac output induced by a decrease in positive end-expiratory pressure reliably detects volume responsiveness: the PEEP-test study.

BACKGROUND: In patients on mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can decrease cardiac output through a decrease in cardiac preload and/or an increase in right ventricular afterload. Increase in central blood volume by fluid administration or passive leg raising (PLR) may reverse these phenomena through an increase in cardiac preload and/or a reopening of closed lung microvessels. We hypothesized that a transient decrease in PEEP (PEEP-test) may be used as a test to detect volume responsiveness. METHODS: Mechanically ventilated patients with PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O ("high level") and without spontaneous breathing were prospectively included. Volume responsiveness was assessed by a positive PLR-test, defined as an increase in pulse-contour-derived cardiac index (CI) during PLR ≥ 10%. The PEEP-test consisted in reducing PEEP from the high level to 5 cmH2O for one minute. Pulse-contour-derived CI (PiCCO2) was monitored during PLR and the PEEP-test. RESULTS: We enrolled 64 patients among whom 31 were volume responsive. The median increase in CI during PLR was 14% (11-16%). The median PEEP at baseline was 12 (10-15) cmH2O and the PEEP-test resulted in a median decrease in PEEP of 7 (5-10) cmH2O, without difference between volume responsive and unresponsive patients. Among volume responsive patients, the PEEP-test induced a significant increase in CI of 16% (12-20%) (from 2.4 ± 0.7 to 2.9 ± 0.9 L/min/m2, p < 0.0001) in comparison with volume unresponsive patients. In volume unresponsive patients, PLR and the PEEP-test increased CI by 2% (1-5%) and 6% (3-8%), respectively. Volume responsiveness was predicted by an increase in CI > 8.6% during the PEEP-test with a sensitivity of 96.8% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 83.3-99.9%) and a specificity of 84.9% (95%CI 68.1-94.9%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PEEP-test for detecting volume responsiveness was 0.94 (95%CI 0.85-0.98) (p < 0.0001 vs. 0.5). Spearman's correlation coefficient between the changes in CI induced by PLR and the PEEP-test was 0.76 (95%CI 0.63-0.85, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A CI increase > 8.6% during a PEEP-test, which consists in reducing PEEP to 5 cmH2O, reliably detects volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with a PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT 04,023,786). Registered July 18, 2019. Ethics Committee approval CPP Est III (N° 2018-A01599-46).

Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among frontline health care workers in Paris: the SEROCOV cohort study.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Among 1062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); current smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial registration The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

Rationale: Whether patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-day mortality versus IMV only. Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO versus no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 < 80 or PaCO2 ⩾ 60 mm Hg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model on the basis of predefined variables. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability on Day 7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs. 83%; risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0-9%), which decreased during follow-up (survival on Day 90: 63% vs. 65%; risk difference, -2%; 95% confidence interval, -10 to 5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand and when initiated within the first 4 days of IMV and in patients who are profoundly hypoxemic. Conclusions: In an emulated trial on the basis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand.

Memory CD4+ T-Cell Lymphocytic Angiopathy in Fatal Forms of COVID-19 Pulmonary Infection.

The immunopathological pulmonary mechanisms leading to Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)-related death in adults remain poorly understood. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and peripheral blood sampling were performed in 74 steroid and non-steroid-treated intensive care unit (ICU) patients (23-75 years; 44 survivors). Peripheral effector SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detected in 34/58 cases, mainly directed against the S1 portion of the spike protein. The BAL lymphocytosis consisted of T cells, while the mean CD4/CD8 ratio was 1.80 in non-steroid- treated patients and 1.14 in steroid-treated patients. Moreover, strong BAL SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell responses were detected in 4/4 surviving and 3/3 non-surviving patients. Serum IFN-γ and IL-6 levels were decreased in steroid-treated patients when compared to non-steroid treated patients. In the lung samples from 3 (1 non-ICU and 2 ICU) additional deceased cases, a lymphocytic memory CD4 T-cell angiopathy colocalizing with SARS-CoV-2 was also observed. Taken together, these data show that disease severity occurs despite strong antiviral CD4 T cell-specific responses migrating to the lung, which could suggest a pathogenic role for perivascular memory CD4 T cells upon fatal COVID-19 pneumonia.

Pre-COVID-19 Immunity to Common Cold Human Coronaviruses Induces a Recall-Type IgG Response to SARS-CoV-2 Antigens Without Cross-Neutralisation.

The capacity of pre-existing immunity to human common coronaviruses (HCoV) to cross-protect against de novo COVID-19is yet unknown. In this work, we studied the sera of 175 COVID-19 patients, 76 healthy donors and 3 intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) batches. We found that most COVID-19 patients developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies before IgM. Moreover, the capacity of their IgGs to react to beta-HCoV, was present in the early sera of most patients before the appearance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. This implied that a recall-type antibody response was generated. In comparison, the patients that mounted an anti-SARS-COV2 IgM response, prior to IgG responses had lower titres of anti-beta-HCoV IgG antibodies. This indicated that pre-existing immunity to beta-HCoV was conducive to the generation of memory type responses to SARS-COV-2. Finally, we also found that pre-COVID-19-era sera and IVIG cross-reacted with SARS-CoV-2 antigens without neutralising SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in vitro. Put together, these results indicate that whilst pre-existing immunity to HCoV is responsible for recall-type IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2, it does not lead to cross-protection against COVID-19.

Bioreactance reliably detects preload responsiveness by the end-expiratory occlusion test when averaging and refresh times are shortened.

BACKGROUND: The end-expiratory occlusion (EEXPO) test detects preload responsiveness, but it is 15 s long and induces small changes in cardiac index (CI). It is doubtful whether the Starling bioreactance device, which averages CI over 24 s and refreshes the displayed value every 4 s (Starling-24.4), can detect the EEXPO-induced changes in CI (ΔCI). Our primary goal was to test whether this Starling device version detects preload responsiveness through EEXPO. We also tested whether shortening the averaging and refresh times to 8 s and one second, respectively, (Starling-8.1) improves the accuracy of the device in detecting preload responsiveness using EEXPO. METHODS: In 42 mechanically ventilated patients, during a 15-s EEXPO, we measured ∆CI through calibrated pulse contour analysis (CIpulse, PiCCO2 device) and using the Starling device. For the latter, we considered both CIStarling-24.4 from the commercial version and CIStarling-8.1 derived from the raw data. For relative ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIStarling-8.1 during EEXPO, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to detect preload responsiveness, defined as an increase in CIpulse ≥ 10% during passive leg raising (PLR). For both methods, the correlation coefficient vs. ∆CIpulse was calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were preload responders and sixteen non preload-responders. The AUROC for ∆CIStarling-24.4 was significantly lower compared to ∆CIStarling-8.1 (0.680 ± 0.086 vs. 0.899 ± 0.049, respectively; p = 0.027). A significant correlation was observed between ∆CIStarling-8.1 and ∆CIpulse (r = 0.42; p = 0.009), but not between ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIpulse. During PLR, both ∆CIStarling-24.4 and ∆CIStarling-8.1 reliably detected preload responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Shortening the averaging and refresh times of the bioreactance signal to 8 s and one second, respectively, increases the reliability of the Starling device in detection of EEXPO-induced ∆CI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No. IDRCB: 2018-A02825-50. Registered 13 December 2018.

COVID-19 ARDS is characterized by higher extravascular lung water than non-COVID-19 ARDS: the PiCCOVID study.

BACKGROUND: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extravascular lung water index (EVLWi) and pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution reflect the degree of lung injury. Whether EVLWi and PVPI are different between non-COVID-19 ARDS and the ARDS due to COVID-19 has never been reported. We aimed at comparing EVLWi, PVPI, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19 ARDS vs. ARDS of other origin. METHODS: Between March and October 2020, in an observational study conducted in intensive care units from three university hospitals, 60 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS monitored by transpulmonary thermodilution were compared to the 60 consecutive non-COVID-19 ARDS admitted immediately before the COVID-19 outbreak between December 2018 and February 2020. RESULTS: Driving pressure was similar between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, at baseline as well as during the study period. Compared to patients without COVID-19, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher EVLWi, both at the baseline (17 (14-21) vs. 15 (11-19) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.03) and at the time of its maximal value (24 (18-27) vs. 21 (15-24) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.01). Similar results were observed for PVPI. In COVID-19 patients, the worst ratio between arterial oxygen partial pressure over oxygen inspired fraction was lower (81 (70-109) vs. 100 (80-124) mmHg, respectively, p = 0.02) and prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were more frequently used than in patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 patients had lower maximal lactate level and maximal norepinephrine dose than patients without COVID-19. Day-60 mortality was similar between groups (57% vs. 65%, respectively, p = 0.45). The maximal value of EVLWi and PVPI remained independently associated with outcome in the whole cohort. CONCLUSION: Compared to ARDS patients without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 had similar lung mechanics, but higher EVLWi and PVPI values from the beginning of the disease. This was associated with worse oxygenation and with more requirement of prone positioning and ECMO. This is compatible with the specific lung inflammation and severe diffuse alveolar damage related to COVID-19. By contrast, patients with COVID-19 had fewer hemodynamic derangement. Eventually, mortality was similar between groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04337983). Registered 30 March 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337983 .

Impact of prone position in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients admitted to the ICU for severe acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Studies performed in spontaneously breathing patients with mild to moderate respiratory failure suggested that prone position (PP) in COVID-19 could be beneficial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in four ICUs. PP sessions lasted at least 3 h each and were performed twice daily. A Cox proportional hazard model identified factors associated with the need of intubation. A propensity score overlap weighting analysis was performed to assess the association between spontaneous breathing PP (SBPP) and intubation. RESULTS: Among 379 patients, 40 underwent SBPP. Oxygenation was achieved by high flow nasal canula in all but three patients. Duration of proning was 2.5 [1.6;3.4] days. SBPP was well tolerated hemodynamically, increased PaO2/FiO2 (78 [68;96] versus 63 [53;77] mm Hg, p = 0.004) and PaCO2 (38 [34;43] versus 35 [32;38] mm Hg, p = 0.005). Neither day-28 survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16-1.16] nor risk of invasive ventilation [sHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.49;1.88] differed between patients who underwent PP and others. CONCLUSIONS: SBPP in COVID-19 is feasible and well tolerated in severely hypoxemic patients. It did not induce any effect on risk of intubation and day-28 mortality.

Relationship between ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). No study has evaluated the relationship between VAP and mortality in this population, or compared this relationship between SARS-CoV-2 patients and other populations. The main objective of our study was to determine the relationship between VAP and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort. VAP was diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. Univariable and multivariable marginal Cox's regression models, with cause-specific hazard for duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Extubation, and ICU discharge alive were considered as events of interest, and mortality as competing event. FINDINGS: Of 1576 included patients, 568 were SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 482 influenza pneumonia, and 526 no evidence of viral infection at ICU admission. VAP was associated with significantly higher risk for 28-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16-2.47), p = 0.006), and influenza groups (1.75 (1.03-3.02), p = 0.045), but not in the no viral infection group (1.07 (0.64-1.78), p = 0.79). VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation in the SARS-CoV-2 group, but not in the influenza or no viral infection groups. VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of ICU stay in the 3 study groups. No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to VAP between the 3 groups, suggesting that the impact of VAP on mortality was not different between study groups. INTERPRETATION: VAP was associated with significantly increased 28-day mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients. However, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, did not significantly modify the relationship between VAP and 28-day mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693.

Early Bacterial Identification among Intubated Patients with COVID-19 or Influenza Pneumonia: A European Multicenter Comparative Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, as compared with influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes.Methods: A multicenter retrospective European cohort was performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48 hours were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture within 48 hours after intubation in endotracheal aspirates, BAL, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,050 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2 and 482 in influenza groups). The prevalence of bacterial identification was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia compared with patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs. 33.6%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.30; adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16-0.33; P < 0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of coinfection in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia, respectively. Bacterial identification was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.44; P = 0.043). However, no significant difference was found in the heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of coinfection on mortality was not different between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza.Conclusions: Bacterial identification within 48 hours after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than patients with influenza pneumonia.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359693).

Distinct cytokine profiles associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Markedly elevated levels of proinflammatory cytokines and defective type-I interferon responses were reported in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether particular cytokine profiles are associated with COVID-19 severity and mortality. METHODS: Cytokine concentrations and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen were measured at hospital admission in serum of symptomatic patients with COVID-19 (N = 115), classified at hospitalization into 3 respiratory severity groups: no need for mechanical ventilatory support (No-MVS), intermediate severity requiring mechanical ventilatory support (MVS), and critical severity requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Principal-component analysis was used to characterize cytokine profiles associated with severity and mortality. The results were thereafter confirmed in an independent validation cohort (N = 86). RESULTS: At time of hospitalization, ECMO patients presented a dominant proinflammatory response with elevated levels of TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10. In contrast, an elevated type-I interferon response involving IFN-α and IFN-ß was characteristic of No-MVS patients, whereas MVS patients exhibited both profiles. Mortality at 1 month was associated with higher levels of proinflammatory cytokines in ECMO patients, higher levels of type-I interferons in No-MVS patients, and their combination in MVS patients, resulting in a combined mortality prediction accuracy of 88.5% (risk ratio, 24.3; P < .0001). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antigen levels correlated with type-I interferon levels and were associated with mortality, but not with proinflammatory response or severity. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct cytokine profiles are observed in association with COVID-19 severity and are differentially predictive of mortality according to oxygen support modalities. These results warrant personalized treatment of COVID-19 patients based on cytokine profiling.

Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: a European multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: Although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection have several risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI), the reported incidence of hospital-acquired infections is low. We aimed to determine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, and the incidence of VA-LRTI. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation > 48 h were eligible if they had: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection at ICU admission. VA-LRTI, including ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), were diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. All VA-LRTI were prospectively identified, and chest-X rays were analyzed by at least two physicians. Cumulative incidence of first episodes of VA-LRTI was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, and compared using Fine-and Gray models. RESULTS: 1576 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2, 482 in influenza, and 526 in no viral infection groups). VA-LRTI incidence was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 patients (287, 50.5%), as compared to influenza patients (146, 30.3%, adjusted sub hazard ratio (sHR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.04)) or patients with no viral infection (133, 25.3%, adjusted sHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.39)). Gram-negative bacilli were responsible for a large proportion (82% to 89.7%) of VA-LRTI, mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of VA-LRTI is significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection after statistical adjustment, but residual confounding may still play a role in the effect estimates.