Palliative care is patient and family-centered care that optimizes quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering when “curative” therapies are futile. In the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), critically ill patients receive life-sustaining therapies with the goal of restoring or maintaining organ function. Palliative Care in the ICU is a widely discussed topic and it is increasingly applied in clinics. It encompasses symptoms control and end-of-life management, communication with relatives and setting goals of care ensuring dignity in death and decision-making power. However, effective application of Palliative Care in ICU presupposes specific knowledge and training which anesthesiologists and critical care physicians may lack. Moreover, logistic issues such protocols for patients’ selection, application models and triggers for consultation of external experts are still matter of debate. The aim of this review is to provide the anesthesiologists and intensivists an overview of the aims, current evidence and practical advices about the application of palliative care in ICU.

The use of medical masks and respirators as personal protective equipment is pivotal to reducing the level of biological hazard to which healthcare workers are exposed during the outbreak of highly diffusible pathogens, such as the recent novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Unfortunately, during this pandemic, supplies are rapidly running out worldwide, with potential consequences for the rate of occupational infections. Also, knowledge about specific characteristics of respirators is of utmost importance to select the proper type according to the clinical setting. A wide variety of literature is available on the topic, but mostly based on Influenza viruses infection models. Clinical evidence on the use of respirators is poor and interest in the topic has not been constant over time. A better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is needed, together with high-quality clinical data on the use of respirators or alternative devices. Moreover, healthcare workers, regardless of their level of experience, should receive specific training. This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the use of medical masks and respirators in the context of viral infections, especially the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Tocilizumab is an IL-6 receptor-blocking agent proposed for the treatment of severe COVID-19. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the rationale for the use of tocilizumab for the treatment of COVID-19 and to summarize the available evidence regarding its efficacy and safety. MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, pre-print repositories (bioRxiv and medRxiv) and two trial Registries were searched for studies on the use of tocilizumab in COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral pneumonia, and/or sepsis until 20th June 2020. We identified 3 indirect pre-clinical studies and 28 clinical studies including 5776 patients with COVID-19 (13 with a comparison group, 15 single-arm). To date, no randomized trials have been published. We retrieved no studies at low risk of bias. Forty-five ongoing studies were retrieved from trial registries. There is insufficient evidence regarding the clinical efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with COVID-19. Its use should be considered experimental, requiring ethical approval and clinical trial oversight.

Background: The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO₂ clearance after 2 h of treatment. Methods: We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25–7.35, PaCO₂ ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO₂ from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO₂ at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes. Results: Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO₂ reduction from baseline to 2 h were − 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and − 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO₂ reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO₂ reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions: HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO₂ after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p < 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p < 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073 . Registered on 12 December 2013.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the pooled occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) among patients admitted to an intensive care unit with COVID-19 and mortality of those who developed VAP. We performed a systematic search on PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science from inception to 2^nd March 2021 for nonrandomized studies specifically addressing VAP in adult patients with COVID-19 and reporting data on at least one primary outcome of interest. Random effect single-arm meta-analysis was performed for the occurrence of VAP and mortality (at the longest follow up) and ICU length of stay. Twenty studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, for a total of 2611 patients with at least one episode of VAP. The pooled estimated occurrence of VAP was of 45.4% (95% C.I. 37.8–53.2%; 2611/5593 patients; I² = 96%). The pooled estimated occurrence of mortality was 42.7% (95% C.I. 34–51.7%; 371/946 patients; I² = 82%). The estimated summary estimated metric mean ICU LOS was 28.58 days (95% C.I. 21.4–35.8; I² = 98%). Sensitivity analysis showed that patients with COVID-19 may have a higher risk of developing VAP than patients without COVID-19 (OR 3.24; 95% C.I. 2.2–4.7; P = 0.015; I² = 67.7%; five studies with a comparison group).