Background: Little is known about risk and prognostic factors in very old patients developing sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of data prospectively collected at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona over a 13-year period. Consecutive patients hospitalized with CAP were included if they were very old (≥80 years) and divided into those with and without sepsis for comparison. Sepsis was diagnosed based on the Sepsis-3 criteria. The main clinical outcome was 30-day mortality. Results: Among the 4219 patients hospitalized with CAP during the study period, 1238 (29%) were very old. The prevalence of sepsis in this age group was 71%. Male sex, chronic renal disease, and diabetes mellitus were independent risk factors for sepsis, while antibiotic therapy before admission was independently associated with a lower risk of sepsis. Thirty-day and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality did not differ between patients with and without sepsis. In CAP-sepsis group, chronic renal disease and neurological disease were independent risk factors for 30-day mortality. Conclusion: In very old patients hospitalized with CAP, in-hospital and 1-year mortality rates were increased if they developed sepsis. Antibiotic therapy before hospital admission was associated with a lower risk of sepsis.

BACKGROUND: In patients on mechanical ventilation, lung hyperinflation is often performed to reverse atelectasis and clear retained mucus. We evaluated the effects of manual hyperinflation and ventilator hyperinflation on mucus clearance, gas exchange, pulmonary mechanics, and hemodynamics. METHODS: Six mechanically ventilated pigs with severe Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia randomly received either 12 manual hyperinflation breaths over a period of 2 min (through a gradual manual compression of a resuscitation bag within 4 s to achieve 40 cm H ₂ O of airway pressure), or 12 ventilator hyperinflation over 2 min to achieve the same ventilatory end points as in manual hyperinflation. Mucus clearance rate was measured through fluoroscopic tracking of tracheal markers. Prior to each maneuver and 15 min thereafter, we assessed arterial and mixed gas exchange, pulmonary mechanics, and hemodynamics. RESULTS: Both manual hyperinflation and ventilator hyperinflation significantly decreased inspiratory flow by approximately 16 L/min ( P < .001) and increased peak expiratory flow by roughly 44 L/min ( P < .001). The median (interquartile range) mucus clearance rate was 1.31 (0.84–2.30) prior to the interventions, and 0.70 (0.00–2.58) and 0.65 (0.45–1.47) during manual hyperinflation and ventilator hyperinflation, respectively ( P = .09). Hyperinflations, whether delivered manually or through the ventilator, did not significantly modify pulmonary or hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSIONS: In an animal model of severe P. aeruginosa pneumonia, neither manual hyperinflation nor ventilator hyperinflation improved mucus clearance. If confirmed in comprehensive clinical experimentations, these findings should promote reappraisal of indications for both manual hyperinflation and ventilator hyperinflation as a therapeutic technique for mucus clearance and atelectasis reversal.

Patients with mono-lateral pneumonia and severe respiratory failure can be positioned in lateral decubitus, with the healthy lung dependent, to improve ventilation-perfusion coupling. Oxygenation response to this manoeuvre is heterogeneous and derecruitment of dependent lung has not been elucidated. Nine pigs (32.2 ± 1.2 kg) were sedated and mechanically ventilated. Mono-lateral right-sided pneumonia was induced with intrabronchial challenge of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. After 24 h, lungs were recruited and the animals were randomly positioned on right or left side. After 3 h of lateral positioning, the animals were placed supine; another recruitment manoeuvre was performed, and the effects of contralateral decubitus were assessed. Primary outcome was lung ultrasound score (LUS) of the dependent lung after 3-h lateral positioning. LUS of the left non-infected lung worsened while positioned in left-lateral position (from 1.33 ± 1.73 at baseline to 6.78 ± 4.49; p = 0.005). LUS of the right-infected lung improved when placed upward (9.22 ± 2.73 to 6.67 ± 3.24; p = 0.09), but worsened in right-lateral position (7.78 ± 2.86 to 13.33 ± 3.08; p < 0.001). PaO₂/FiO₂ improved in the left-lateral position (p = 0.005). In an animal model of right-lung pneumonia, left-lateral decubitus improved oxygenation, but collapsed the healthy lung. Right-lateral orientation further collapsed the diseased lung. Our data raise potential clinical concerns for the use of lateral position in mono-lateral pneumonia.

Viscoelastic coagulation monitor (VCM) is a portable device developed to evaluate the viscoelastic properties of whole blood activated by contact with glass. In this study, VCM was employed to analyze the viscoelastic profiles of 36 COVID-19 intensive care patients. Full anticoagulant dose heparin (unfractionated [UFH]; low molecular weight [LMWH]) was administrated to all patients. The association between VCM and laboratory parameters was retrospectively analyzed. The administration of UFH-influenced VCM parameters prolonging clotting time (CT) and clot formation time (CFT) and reducing angle (alpha) and amplitudes of the VCM tracings (A10, A20, and maximum clot firmness [MCF]) compared with LMWH therapy. A tendency toward hypercoagulation was observed by short CT and CFT in patients receiving LMWH. Clotting time was correlated with UFH dose (Spearman’s rho = 0.48, p ≤ 0.001), and no correlation was found between CT and LMWH. All VCM tracings failed to show lysis at 30 and 45 minutes, indicating the absence of fibrinolysis. A10, A20, and MCF exhibited very-good to good diagnostic accuracy for detecting platelet count and fibrinogen above the upper reference limit of the laboratory. In conclusion, VCM provided reliable results in COVID-19 patients and was easy to perform with minimal training at the bedside.

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is frequently needed in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. While NIV can be delivered in hospital wards and nonintensive care environments, intubated patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and support. Thus, the lack of ICU beds generated by the pandemic has often forced the use of NIV in severely hypoxemic patients treated outside the ICU. In this context, awake prone positioning has been widely adopted to ameliorate oxygenation during noninvasive respiratory support. Still, the incidence of NIV failure and the role of patient self-induced lung injury on hospital outcomes of COVID-19 subjects need to be elucidated. On the other hand, endotracheal intubation is indicated when gas exchange deterioration, muscular exhaustion, and/or neurological impairment ensue. Yet, the best timing for intubation in COVID-19 is still widely debated, as it is the safest use of neuromuscular blocking agents. Not differently from other types of acute respiratory distress syndrome, the aim of MV during COVID-19 is to provide adequate gas exchange while avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury. At the same time, the use of rescue therapies is advocated when standard care is unable to guarantee sufficient organ support. Nevertheless, the general shortage of health care resources experienced during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic might affect the utilization of high-cost, highly specialized, and long-term supports. In this article, we describe the state-of-the-art of NIV and MV setting and their usage for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients.