Polymyxin B hemoperfusion in COVID-19 Patients with endotoxic shock: Case Series from EUPHAS II registry

The Corona Virus Disease 19 (COVID-19) has been shown to involve the gastrointestinal tract, which implies bacterial translocation and endotoxemia.The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of extracorporeal endotoxin removal by Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion (PMX-HP), in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and secondary bacterial infection. We conducted a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, multinational, prospective, observational web-based database (EUPHAS2 registry). We included 12 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) from nasal/oral swab, admitted to the ICU between February and May 2020, who were affected by septic shock and received PMX-HP as per clinical indication of the attending physician. Septic shock was diagnosed in 9 patients (75%), with a median time between symptoms onset and PMX-HP treatment of 16 (14-22) days. We identified gram negative bacteria in most of the microbiological culture (N=17, 65%), followed by gram positive bacteria in (N=4, 15%), fungi (N=3, 12%) and no growth (N= 2, 8%). SOFA score progressively improved over the next 120 hours following PMX-HP and it was associated with median endotoxin activity assay (EAA) decrease from 0.78 [0.70-0.92] at T0 to 0.60 [0.44-0.72] at T120 (p = 0.245). A direct correlation was observed between SOFA score and EAA. Lung Injury Score (LIS) decreased associated to hemodynamic improvement over the same period. No statistically significant difference was observed for RIFLE score at each time point. Nine out of 12 patients (75%) required CRRT because of AKI. In a series of consecutive COVID-19 patients with endotoxic shock, PMX-HP was associated with organ function recovery, hemodynamic improvement and contemporary EAA level reduction. No PMX-HP related complication were observed

Pharmacokinetics of high-dose tigecycline in critically ill patients with severe infections

Background: In critically ill patients, the use of high tigecycline dosages (HD TGC) (200 mg/day) has been recently increasing but few pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data are available. We designed a prospective observational study to describe the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profile of HD TGC in a cohort of critically ill patients with severe infections. Results: This was a single centre, prospective, observational study that was conducted in the 20-bed mixed ICU of a 1500-bed teaching hospital in Rome, Italy. In all patients admitted to the ICU between 2015 and 2018, who received TGC (200 mg loading dose, then 100 mg q12) for the treatment of documented infections, serial blood samples were collected to measure steady-state TGC concentrations. Moreover, epithelial lining fluid (ELF) concentrations were determined in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Amongst the 32 non-obese patients included, 11 had a treatment failure, whilst the other 21 subjects successfully eradicated the infection. There were no between-group differences in terms of demographic aspects and main comorbidities. In nosocomial pneumonia, for a target AUC0-24/MIC of 4.5, 75% of the patients would be successfully treated in presence of 0.5 mcg/mL MIC value and all the patients obtained the PK target with MIC 64 0.12 mcg/mL. In intra-abdominal infections (IAI), for a target AUC0-24/MIC of 6.96, at least 50% of the patients would be adequately treated against bacteria with MIC 64 0.5 mcg/mL. Finally, in skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTI), for a target AUC0-24/MIC of 17.9 only 25% of the patients obtained the PK target at MIC values of 0.5 mcg/mL and less than 10% were adequately treated against germs with MIC value 65 1 mcg/mL. HD TGC showed a relevant pulmonary penetration with a median and IQR ELF/plasma ratio (%) of 152.9 [73.5-386.8]. Conclusions: The use of HD TGC is associated with satisfactory plasmatic and pulmonary concentrations for the treatment of severe infections due to fully susceptible bacteria (MIC < 0.5 mcg/mL). Even higher dosages and combination strategies may be suggested in presence of difficult to treat pathogens, especially in case of SSTI and IAI

Respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure compared to ARDS of other etiologies

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