Background: High incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) has been reported in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Among these patients, we aimed to assess the incidence, outcomes and risk factors of VAP recurrences. Methods: We conducted an observational retrospective study in three French intensive care units (ICUs). Patients admitted for a documented COVID-19 from March 2020 to May 2021 and requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) for ≥48 h were included. The study main outcome was the incidence of VAP recurrences. Secondary outcomes were the duration of MV, ICU and hospital length of stay and mortality according to VAP and recurrences. We also assessed the factors associated with VAP recurrences. Results: During the study period, 398 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 236 (59%) of them had at least one VAP episode during their ICU stay and 109 (46%) of these patients developed at least one recurrence. The incidence of VAP recurrence considering death and extubation as competing events was 29.6% (IC = [0.250–0.343]). Seventy-eight percent of recurrences were due to the same bacteria (relapses). Patients with a VAP recurrence had a longer duration of MV as compared with one VAP and no VAP patients (41 (25–56) vs. 16 (8–30) and 10 (5–18) days; p < 0.001) and a longer ICU length of stay (46 (29–66) vs. 22 (12–36) and 14 (9–25) days; p < 0.001). The 90-day mortality was higher in the recurrence group as compared with the no VAP group only (31.2 vs. 21.0% (p = 0.021)). In a multivariate analysis including bacterial co-infection at admission, the use of immunosuppressive therapies and the bacteria responsible for the first VAP episode, the duration of MV was the only factor independently associated with VAP recurrence. Conclusion: In COVID-19 associated respiratory failure, recurrences affected 46% of patients with a first episode of VAP. VAP recurrences were mainly relapses and were associated with a prolonged duration of MV and ICU length of stay but not with a higher mortality. MV duration was the only factor associated with recurrences.

The demographics and outcomes of ICU patients admitted for a COVID-19 infection have been characterized in extensive reports, but little is known about antimicrobial stewardship for these patients. We designed this retrospective, observational study to investigate our hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted antimicrobial stewardship practices and likely affected the rate of antibiotic de-escalation (ADE), patient outcomes, infection recurrence, and multidrug-resistant bacteria acquisition. We reviewed the prescription of antibiotics in three ICUs during the pandemic from March 2020 to December 2021. All COVID-19 patients with suspected or proven bacterial superinfections who received antibiotic treatment were included. The primary outcome was the rate of ADE, and secondary outcomes included the rate of appropriate empirical treatment, mortality rates and a comparison with a control group of infected patients before the COVID-19 pandemic. We included 170 COVID-19 patients who received antibiotic treatment for a suspected or proven superinfection, of whom 141 received an empirical treatment. For the latter, antibiotic treatment was de-escalated in 47 (33.3%) patients, escalated in 5 (3.5%) patients, and continued in 89 (63.1%) patients. The empirical antibiotic treatment was appropriate for 87.2% of cases. ICU, hospital, and day 28 and day 90 mortality rates were not associated with the antibiotic treatment strategy. The ADE rate was 52.2% in the control group and 27.6% in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.001). Our data suggest that empirical antibiotic treatment was appropriate in most cases. The ADE rates were lower in the COVID-19 group than in the control group, suggesting that the stress associated with COVID-19 affected our practices.

Background: Veno venous Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (vvECMO) is associated with frequent hematological ECMO-related complications needing ECMO circuit change. Microvesicles (MVs) interplay during the thrombosis-fibrinolysis process. The main objective of the study was to identify subpopulations of MVs associated with indications of early vvECMO circuit change. Methods: This is a prospective observational monocenter cohort study. Blood gas was sampled on the ECMO circuit after the membrane oxygenator to measure the PO_{2 post oxy} at inclusion, day 3, day 7 and the day of ECMO circuit removal. Blood samples for MV analysis were collected at inclusion, day 3, day 7 and the day of ECMO circuit removal. MV subpopulations were identified by flow cytometry. Results: Nineteen patients were investigated. Seven patients (37%) needed an ECMO circuit change for hemolysis (n = 4), a pump thrombosis with fibrinolysis (n = 1), persistent thrombocytopenia with bleeding (n = 1) and a decrease of O₂ transfer (n = 1). Levels of leukocyte and endothelial MVs were significantly higher at inclusion for patients who thereafter had an ECMO circuit change (p = 0.01 and p = 0.001). The areas under the received operating characteristics curves for LeuMVs and EndoMVs sampled the day of cannulation and the need for ECMO circuit change were 0.84 and 0.92, respectively. PO_{2 post oxy} did not significantly change except for in one patient during the ECMO run. Conclusions: Our pilot study supports the potential interest of subpopulations of microvesicles early associated with hematological ECMO-related complications. Our results warrant further studies.

Background: For moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung-protective ventilation combined with prolonged and repeated prone position (PP) is recommended. For the most severe patients for whom this strategy failed, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) allows a reduction in ventilation-induced lung injury and improves survival. Some aggregated data have suggested a benefit regarding survival in pursuing PP during vv-ECMO. The combination of PP and vv-ECMO has been also documented in COVID-19 studies, although there is scarce evidence concerning respiratory mechanics and gas exchange response. The main objective was to compare the physiological response of the first PP during vv-ECMO in two cohorts of patients (COVID-19-related ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS) regarding respiratory system compliance (C_RS) and oxygenation changes. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, and ambispective cohort study in the ECMO center of Marseille, France. ECMO was indicated according to the EOLIA trial criteria. Results: A total of 85 patients were included, 60 in the non-COVID-19 ARDS group and 25 in the COVID-19-related ARDS group. Lung injuries of the COVID-19 cohort exhibited significantly higher severity with a lower C_RS at baseline. Concerning the main objective, the first PP during vv-ECMO was not associated with a change in C_RS or other variation in respiratory mechanic variables in both cohorts. By contrast, oxygenation was improved only in the non-COVID-19 ARDS group after a return to the supine position. Mean arterial pressure was higher during PP as compared with a return to the supine position in the COVID-19 group. Conclusion: We found distinct physiological responses to the first PP in vv-ECMO-supported ARDS patients according to the COVID-19 etiology. This could be due to higher severity at baseline or specificity of the disease. Further investigations are warranted.

Background: Few data are available concerning the outcome of patients denied venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) relative to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Methods: We compared the 90-day survival rate of consecutive adult patients for whom our center was contacted to discuss VV-ECMO indication. Three groups of patients were created: patients for whom VV-ECMO was immediately indicated (ECMO-indicated group), patients for whom VV-ECMO was not indicated at the time of the call (ECMO-not-indicated group), and patients for whom ECMO was definitely contraindicated (ECMO-contraindicated group). Results: In total, 104 patients were referred for VV-ECMO support due to severe COVID-19 ARDS. Among them, 32 patients had immediate VV-ECMO implantation, 28 patients had no VV-ECMO indication, but 1 was assisted thereafter, and 44 patients were denied VV-ECMO for contraindication. Among the 44 patients denied, 30 were denied for advanced age, 24 for excessive prior duration of mechanical ventilation, and 16 for SOFA score >8. The 90-day survival rate was similar for the ECMO-indicated group and the ECMO-not-indicated group at 62.1 and 61.9%, respectively, whereas it was significantly lower (20.5%) for the ECMO-contraindicated group. Conclusions: Despite a low survival rate, 50% of patients were at home 3 months after being denied for VV-ECMO for severe ARDS due to COVID-19.