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.

Background: (1,3)-β-d-Glucan has been widely used in clinical practice for the diagnosis of invasive Candida infections. However, such serum biomarker showed potential to guide antimicrobial therapy in order to reduce the duration of empirical antifungal treatment in critically ill septic patients with suspected invasive candidiasis. Methods: This was a single-centre, randomized, open-label clinical trial in which critically ill patients were enrolled during the admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). All septic patients who presented invasive Candida infection risk factors and for whom an empirical antifungal therapy was commenced were randomly assigned (1:1) in those stopping antifungal therapy if (1,3)-β-d-glucan was negative ((1,3)-β-d-glucan group) or those continuing the antifungal therapy based on clinical rules (control group). Serum 1,3-β-d-glucan was measured at the enrolment and every 48/72 h over 14 days afterwards. The primary endpoint was the duration of antifungal treatment in the first 30 days after enrolment. Results: We randomized 108 patients into the (1,3)-β-d-glucan (n = 53) and control (n = 55) groups. Median [IQR] duration of antifungal treatment was 2 days [1–3] in the (1,3)-β-d-glucan group vs. 10 days [6–13] in the control group (between-group absolute difference in means, 6.29 days [95% CI 3.94–8.65], p < 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was similar (28.3% [(1,3)-β-d-glucan group] vs. 27.3% [control group], p = 0.92) as well as the overall rate of documented candidiasis (11.3% [(1,3)-β-d-glucan group] vs. 12.7% [control group], p = 0.94), the length of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.97) and ICU stay (p = 0.23). Conclusions: In critically ill septic patients admitted to the ICU at risk of invasive candidiasis, a (1,3)-β-d-glucan-guided strategy could reduce the duration of empirical antifungal therapy. However, the safety of this algorithm needs to be confirmed in future, multicentre clinical trial with a larger population. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03117439, retrospectively registered on 18 April 2017

Recent reports have suggested the efficacy of a double carbapenem (DC) combination, including ertapenem, for the treatment of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CR-Kp) infections. We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of such a regimen in critically ill patients. This case–control (1:2), observational, two-center study involved critically ill adults with a microbiologically documented CR-Kp invasive infection treated with the DC regimen matched with those receiving a standard treatment (ST) (i.e., colistin, tigecycline, or gentamicin). The primary end point was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical cure, microbiological eradication, duration of mechanical ventilation and of vasopressors, and 90-day mortality. Forty-eight patients treated with DC were matched with 96 controls. Occurrence of septic shock at infection and high procalcitonin levels were significantly more frequent in patients receiving DC treatment (p < 0.01). The 28-day mortality was significantly higher in patients receiving ST compared with the DC group (47.9% vs 29.2%, p = 0.04). Similarly, clinical cure and microbiological eradication were significantly higher when DC was used in patients infected with CR-Kp strains resistant to colistin (13/20 (65%) vs 10/32 (31.3%), p = 0.03 and 11/19 (57.9%) vs 7/27 (25.9%), p = 0.04, respectively). In the logistic regression and multivariate Cox-regression models, the DC regimen was associated with a reduction in 28-day mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13–0.87 and OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23–0.79, respectively). Improved 28-day mortality was associated with the DC regimen compared with ST for severe CR-Kp infections. A randomized trial is needed to confirm these observational results. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03094494 . Registered 28 March 2017.

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.

In 2010, the EUPHAS 2 collaborative group created a registry with the purpose of recording data from critically ill patients suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock treated with polymyxin-B hemoperfusion (PMX-HP) for endotoxin removal. The aim of the registry was to verify the application of PMX-HP in the daily clinical practice. The EUPHAS 2 registry involved 57 centers between January 2010 and December 2014, collecting retrospective data of 357 patients (297 in Europe and 60 in Asia) suffering from severe sepsis and septic shock caused by proved or suspected infection related to Gram negative bacteria. All patients received atleast one cycle of extracorporeal endotoxin removal by PMX-HP. Septic shock was diagnosed in 305 (85.4 %) patients. The most common source of infection was abdominal (44.0 %) followed by pulmonary (17.6 %). Gram negative bacteria represented 60.6 % of the pathogens responsible of infection. After 72 h from the first cycle of PMX-HP, some of the SOFA score components significantly improved with respect to baseline: cardiovascular (2.16 ± 1.77 from 3.32 ± 1.29, p < 0.0001), respiratory (1.95 ± 0.95 from 2.40 ± 1.06, p < 0.001) and renal (1.84 ± 1.77 from 2.23 ± 1.62, p = 0.013). Overall 28-day survival rate was 54.5 % (60.4 % in abdominal and 47.5 % in pulmonary infection). Patients with abdominal infection treated with PMX-HP within 24 h from the diagnosis of septic shock had a 28-day survival rate of 64.5 %. Patients showing a significantly cardiovascular improvement after PMX-HP had a 28-survival rate of 75 % in comparison to the 39 % of patients who did not (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis found the variation of cardiovascular, respiratory and coagulation SOFA to be independent covariates for 28-day survival. In European patients were observed a higher 28-day (58.8 vs. 34.5 %, p = 0.003), ICU (59 vs. 36.7 %, p = 0.006) and hospital survival rate (53.2 vs. 35 %, p = 0.02) than in Asian patients. However, the two populations were highly heterogeneous in terms of source of infection and severity scores at admission. The EUPHAS 2 is the largest registry conducted outside Japan on the clinical use of PMX-HP in septic patients. Data analysis confirmed the feasibility of PMX-HP to treat septic patients in daily clinical practice, showing clinical benefits associated with endotoxin removal without significant adverse events related to the extracorporeal technique.

Background: The effects of awake prone position on the breathing pattern of hypoxemic patients need to be better understood. We conducted a crossover trial to assess the physiological effects of awake prone position in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods: Fifteen patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and PaO₂/FiO₂ < 200 mmHg underwent high-flow nasal oxygen for 1 h in supine position and 2 h in prone position, followed by a final 1-h supine phase. At the end of each study phase, the following parameters were measured: arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort (ΔP_ES), transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔP_L), respiratory rate and esophageal pressure simplified pressure–time product per minute (sPTP_ES) by esophageal manometry, tidal volume (V_T), end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), lung compliance, airway resistance, time constant, dynamic strain (V_T/EELI) and pendelluft extent through electrical impedance tomography. Results: Compared to supine position, prone position increased PaO₂/FiO₂ (median [Interquartile range] 104 mmHg [76–129] vs. 74 [69–93], p < 0.001), reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [22–26] vs. 27 [26–30], p = 0.05) and increased ΔP_ES (12 cmH₂O [11–13] vs. 9 [8–12], p = 0.04) with similar sPTP_ES (131 [75–154] cmH₂O s min⁻¹ vs. 105 [81–129], p > 0.99) and ΔP_L (9 [7–11] cmH₂O vs. 8 [5–9], p = 0.17). Airway resistance and time constant were higher in prone vs. supine position (9 cmH₂O s arbitrary units⁻³ [4–11] vs. 6 [4–9], p = 0.05; 0.53 s [0.32–61] vs. 0.40 [0.37–0.44], p = 0.03). Prone position increased EELI (3887 arbitrary units [3414–8547] vs. 1456 [959–2420], p = 0.002) and promoted V_T distribution towards dorsal lung regions without affecting V_T size and lung compliance: this generated lower dynamic strain (0.21 [0.16–0.24] vs. 0.38 [0.30–0.49], p = 0.004). The magnitude of pendelluft phenomenon was not different between study phases (55% [7–57] of V_T in prone vs. 31% [14–55] in supine position, p > 0.99). Conclusions: Prone position improves oxygenation, increases EELI and promotes V_T distribution towards dependent lung regions without affecting V_T size, ΔP_L, lung compliance and pendelluft magnitude. Prone position reduces respiratory rate and increases ΔP_ES because of positional increases in airway resistance and prolonged expiratory time. Because high ΔP_ES is the main mechanistic determinant of self-inflicted lung injury, caution may be needed in using awake prone position in patients exhibiting intense ΔP_ES. Clinical trail registeration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03095300) on March 29, 2017.