Secondary infections in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: An overlooked matter?

Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Ventilació mecànica; Pneumònia associada a ventilacióCoronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Ventilación mecánica; Neumonía asociada a ventilaciónCoronavirus SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; 2019-nCoV; Mechanical ventilation; Ventilator-associated pneumoniaIntroduction. The susceptibility to infection probably increases in COVID-19 patients due to a combination of virus and drug-induced immunosuppression. The reported rate of secondary infections was quite low in previous studies. The objectives of our study were to investigate the rate of secondary infections, risk factors for secondary infections and risk factors for mortality in COVID-19 critically ill patients. Material and methods. We performed a single-center retrospective study in mechanically ventilated critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to our Critical Care Unit (CCU). We recorded the patients’ demographic data; clinical data; microbiology data and incidence of secondary infection during CCU stay, including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and nosocomial bacteremia (primary and secondary). Results. A total of 107 patients with a mean age 62.2 ± 10.6 years were included. Incidence of secondary infection during CCU stay was 43.0% (46 patients), including nosocomial bacteremia (34 patients) and VAP (35 patients). Age was related to development of secondary infection (65.2 ± 7.3 vs. 59.9 ± 12.2 years, p=0.007). Age ≥ 65 years and secondary infection were independent predictors of mortality (OR=2.692, 95% CI 1.068-6.782, p<0.036; and OR=3.658, 95% CI 1.385- 9.660, p=0.009, respectively). The hazard ratio for death within 90 days in the ≥ 65 years group and in patients infected by antimicrobial resistant pathogens was 1.901 (95% CI 1.198- 3.018; p= 0.005 by log-rank test) and 1.787 (95% CI 1.023-3.122; p= 0.036 by log-rank test), respectively. Conclusions. Our data suggest that the incidence of secondary infection and infection by antimicrobial resistant pathogens is very high in critically ill patients with COVID-19 with a significant impact on prognosis.Introducción. En pacientes con COVID-19 la susceptibilidad a la infección se encuentra probablemente incrementada debido a una combinación de inmunosupresión farmacológica y provocada por el virus. La incidencia de infecciones secundarias descrita en estudios previos es bastante baja. Los objetivos de nuestro estudio consistieron en investigar la incidencia de infecciones secundarias, los factores de riesgo de infecciones secundarias y los factores de riesgo de mortalidad en pacientes críticos con COVID-19. Material y métodos. Realizamos un estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico en pacientes críticos COVID-19 que precisaron ventilación mecánica ingresados en nuestra Unidad de Cuidados Críticos (UCC). Recopilamos datos demográficos; clínicos; microbiológicos y la incidencia de infección secundaria durante la estancia en la UCC, incluyendo neumonía asociada a ventilación mecánica (NAVM) y bacteriemia nosocomial (primaria y secundaria). Resultados. Se incluyeron un total de 107 pacientes con una edad media de 62,2 ± 10,6 años. La incidencia de infección secundaria durante el ingreso en la UCC fue 43,0% (46 pacientes), incluyendo bacteriemia nosocomial (34 pacientes) y NAVM (35 pacientes). La edad se asoció con el desarrollo de infección secundaria (65,2 ± 7,3 vs. 59,9 ± 12,2 años; p=0,007). La edad ≥ 65 años y la infección secundaria fueron predictores independientes de mortalidad (OR=2,692; IC 95% 1,068-6,782; p<0,036; y OR=3,658; IC 95% 1,385-9,660; p=0,009, respectivamente). Hazard ratio para mortalidad a los 90 días en el grupo ≥ 65 años y en pacientes infectados por patógenos resistentes a antimicrobianos fue 1,901 (IC 95% 1,198-3,018; p= 0,005 por test log-rank) y 1,787 (IC 95% 1,023-3,122; p= 0,036 por test log-rank), respectivamente. Conclusiones. Nuestros datos sugieren que la incidencia de infección secundaria y la infección por patógenos resistentes a antimicrobianos es muy alta en pacientes críticos con COVID-19 con un impacto significativo en el pronóstico.None to declar

Association between use of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and postoperative complications in colorectal surgery: the postoperative outcomes within enhanced recovery after surgery protocol (power) study

Importance: enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care has been reported to be associated with improvements in outcomes after colorectal surgery compared with traditional care. Objective: to determine the association between ERAS protocols and outcomes in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Design, setting, and participants: the Postoperative Outcomes Within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol (POWER) Study is a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2084 consecutive adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery who received or did not receive care in a self-declared ERAS center. Patients were recruited from 80 Spanish centers between September 15 and December 15, 2017. All patients included in this analysis had 1 month of follow-up. Exposures: colorectal surgery and perioperative management were the exposures. Twenty-two individual ERAS items were assessed in all patients, regardless of whether they were included in an established ERAS protocol. Main outcomes and measures: the primary study outcome was moderate to severe postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included ERAS adherence, mortality, readmissions, reoperation rates, and hospital length of stay. Results: between September 15 and December 15, 2017, 2084 patients were included in the study. Of these, 1286 individuals (61.7%) were men; mean age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-77). A total of 879 patients (42.2%) presented with postoperative complications and 566 patients (27.2%) developed moderate to severe complications. The number of patients with moderate or severe complications was lower in the ERAS group (25.2% vs 30.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P¿=¿.01). The overall rate of adherence to the ERAS protocol was 63.6% (IQR, 54.5%-77.3%), and the rate for patients from hospitals self-declared as ERAS was 72.7% (IQR, 59.1%-81.8%) vs non-ERAS institutions, which was 59.1% (IQR, 50.0%-63.6%; P¿<¿.001). Adherence quartiles among patients receiving the highest and lowest ERAS components showed that the patients with the highest adherence rates had fewer moderate to severe complications (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25-0.46; P¿<¿.001), overall complications (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.26-0.43; P¿<¿.001), and mortality (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.07-0.97; P¿=¿.06) compared with those who had the lowest adherence rates. Conclusions and relevance: an increase in ERAS adherence appears to be associated with a decrease in postoperative complications

Protective intraoperative ventilation with higher versus lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure in obese patients (PROBESE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase the morbidity and mortality of surgery in obese patients. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with lung recruitment maneuvers may improve intraoperative respiratory function, but they can also compromise hemodynamics, and the effects on PPCs are uncertain. We hypothesized that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using high PEEP with periodic recruitment maneuvers, as compared with low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers, prevents PPCs in obese patients. Methods/design The PRotective Ventilation with Higher versus Lower PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery in OBESE Patients (PROBESE) study is a multicenter, two-arm, international randomized controlled trial. In total, 2013 obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 scheduled for at least 2 h of surgery under general anesthesia and at intermediate to high risk for PPCs will be included. Patients are ventilated intraoperatively with a low tidal volume of 7 ml/kg (predicted body weight) and randomly assigned to PEEP of 12 cmH2O with lung recruitment maneuvers (high PEEP) or PEEP of 4 cmH2O without recruitment maneuvers (low PEEP). The occurrence of PPCs will be recorded as collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. Discussion To our knowledge, the PROBESE trial is the first multicenter, international randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of two different levels of intraoperative PEEP during protective low tidal volume ventilation on PPCs in obese patients. The results of the PROBESE trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to choose a certain PEEP level during general anesthesia for surgery in obese patients in an attempt to prevent PPCs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02148692. Registered on 23 May 2014; last updated 7 June 2016. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1929-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Precision Medicine in Sepsis and Septic Shock

Sepsis is defined as a potentially fatal organ dysfunction induced by a dysregulated host response to infection [...

Different epidemiology of bloodstream infections in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 critically ill patients: a descriptive analysis of the Eurobact II study

Funder: European society of Intensive Care MedicineFunder: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID)Funder: Norva Dahlia foundation and the Redcliffe Hospital Private Practice Trust FundAbstract Background The study aimed to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. Methods We used data from the Eurobact II study, a prospective observational multicontinental cohort study on HABSI treated in ICU. For the current analysis, we selected centers that included both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. We performed descriptive statistics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 in terms of patients’ characteristics, source of infection and microorganism distribution. We studied the association between COVID-19 status and mortality using multivariable fragility Cox models. Results A total of 53 centers from 19 countries over the 5 continents were eligible. Overall, 829 patients (median age 65 years [IQR 55; 74]; male, n = 538 [64.9%]) were treated for a HABSI. Included patients comprised 252 (30.4%) COVID-19 and 577 (69.6%) non-COVID-19 patients. The time interval between hospital admission and HABSI was similar between both groups. Respiratory sources (40.1 vs. 26.0%, p &lt; 0.0001) and primary HABSI (25.4% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.006) were more frequent in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients had more often enterococcal (20.5% vs. 9%) and Acinetobacter spp. (18.8% vs. 13.6%) HABSIs. Bacteremic COVID-19 patients had an increased mortality hazard ratio (HR) versus non-COVID-19 patients (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.49–2.45). Conclusions We showed that the epidemiology of HABSI differed between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Enterococcal HABSI predominated in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients with HABSI had elevated risk of mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.org number NCT03937245. Registered 3 May 2019. </jats:sec