From EHR to EDC - The Experience at the Policlinico Hospital in Milan.

n/

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)

Biomolecular Phenotyping Primary Graft Dysfunction after Lung Transplantation: a scoping review

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is the most common complication and leading cause of early mortality and long-term disability after lung transplantation (LUTX). PGD is an acute form of acute lung injury resulting from ischemia-reperfusion injury, with an incidence around 30%, defined and graded upon alteration of oxygenation and radiographic criteria occurring within 72 hours after graft reperfusion. Predictive enrichment by measurement of plasma biomarkers may allow for the detection of different treatable traits in patients who have undergone lung transplant (e.g., hypoinflammatory vs. hyperinflammatory) and thus apply further targeted treatments to these sub-cohorts. With this scoping review, we want to collate the literature regarding early plasmatic biomarkers of PGD in adult patients who have undergone double-lung transplantation

Use of high flow nasal cannula in patients with acute respiratory failure in general wards under intensivists supervision: a single center observational study

Background: Few data exist on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) use in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) admitted to general wards. Rationale and objectives: To retrospectively evaluate feasibility and safety of HFNC in general wards under the intensivist-supervision and after specific training. Methods: Patients with ARF (dyspnea, respiratory rate-RR > 25/min, 150 < PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg during oxygen therapy) admitted to nine wards of an academic hospital were included. Gas-exchange, RR, and comfort were assessed before HFNC and after 2 and 24 h of application. Results: 150 patients (81 male, age 74 [60-80] years, SOFA 4 [2-4]), 123 with de-novo ARF underwent HFNC with flow 60 L/min [50-60], FiO2 50% [36-50] and temperature 34 °C [31-37]. HFNC was applied a total of 1399 days, with a median duration of 7 [3-11] days. No major adverse events or deaths were reported. HFNC did not affect gas exchange but reduced RR (25-22/min at 2-24 h, p < 0.001), and improved Dyspnea Borg Scale (3-1, p < 0.001) and comfort (3-4, p < 0.001) after 24 h. HFNC failed in 20 patients (19.2%): 3 (2.9%) for intolerance, 14 (13.4%) escalated to NIV/CPAP in the ward, 3 (2.9%) transferred to ICU. Among these, one continued HFNC, while the other 2 were intubated and they both died. Predictors of HFNC failure were higher Charlson's Comorbidity Index (OR 1.29 [1.07-1.55]; p = 0.004), higher APACHE II Score (OR 1.59 [1.09-4.17]; p = 0.003), and cardiac failure as cause of ARF (OR 5.26 [1.36-20.46]; p = 0.02). Conclusion: In patients with mild-moderate ARF admitted to general wards, the use of HFNC after an initial training and daily supervision by intensivists was feasible and seemed safe. HFNC was effective in improving comfort, dyspnea, and respiratory rate without effects on gas exchanges. Trial registration This is a single-centre, noninterventional, retrospective analysis of clinical data

Incidence, microbiological and immunological characteristics of ventilator-associated pneumonia assessed by bronchoalveolar lavage and endotracheal aspirate in a prospective cohort of COVID-19 patients: CoV-AP study

Abstract Background No univocal recommendation exists for microbiological diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Sampling of either proximal or distal respiratory tract likely impacts on the broad range of VAP incidence between cohorts. Immune biomarkers to rule-in/rule-out VAP diagnosis, although promising, have not yet been validated. COVID-19-induced ARDS made VAP recognition even more challenging, often leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We evaluated the impact of different respiratory samples and laboratory techniques on VAP incidence and microbiological findings in COVID-19 patients. Methods Prospective single-centre cohort study conducted among COVID-19 mechanically ventilated patients in Policlinico Hospital (Milan, Italy) from January 2021 to May 2022. Microbiological confirmation of suspected VAP (sVAP) was based on concomitant endotracheal aspirates (ETA) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Conventional and fast microbiology (FILMARRAY® Pneumonia Panel plus, BALFAPPP) as well as immunological markers (immune cells and inflammatory cytokines) was analysed. Results Seventy-nine patients were included. Exposure to antibiotics and steroid therapy before ICU admission occurred in 51/79 (64.6%) and 60/79 (65.9%) patients, respectively. Median duration of MV at VAP suspicion was 6 (5–9) days. Incidence rate of microbiologically confirmed VAP was 33.1 (95% CI 22.1–44.0) and 20.1 (95% CI 12.5–27.7) according to ETA and BAL, respectively. Concordance between ETA and BAL was observed in 35/49 (71.4%) cases, concordance between BALFAPPP and BAL in 39/49 (79.6%) cases. With BAL as reference standard, ETA showed 88.9% (95% CI 70.8–97.7) sensitivity and 50.0% (95% CI 28.2–71.8) specificity (Cohen’s Kappa 0.40, 95% CI 0.16–0.65). BALFAPPP showed 95.0% (95% CI 75.1–99.9) sensitivity and 69% (95% CI 49.2–84.7) specificity (Cohen’s Kappa 0.60, 95% CI 0.39–0.81). BAL IL-1β differed significantly between VAP (135 (IQR 11–450) pg/ml) and no-VAP (10 (IQR 2.9–105) pg/ml) patients (P = 0.03). Conclusions In COVID-19 ICU patients, differences in microbial sampling at VAP suspicion could lead to high variability in VAP incidence and microbiological findings. Concordance between ETA and BAL was mainly limited by over 20% of ETA positive and BAL negative samples, while BALFAPPP showed high sensitivity but limited specificity when evaluating in-panel targets only. These factors should be considered when comparing results of cohorts with different sampling. BAL IL-1β showed potential in discriminating microbiologically confirmed VAP. Clinical Trial registration: NCT04766983, registered on February 23, 2021

Additional file 1 of Incidence, microbiological and immunological characteristics of ventilator-associated pneumonia assessed by bronchoalveolar lavage and endotracheal aspirate in a prospective cohort of COVID-19 patients: CoV-AP study

Additional file 1. Supplementary material

Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients

Background: Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. Methods: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased 65 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position. Results: Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching

Hospital-Acquired Infections in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

Background: Few small studies have described hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) occurring in patients with COVID-19. Research question: What characteristics in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are associated with HAIs and how are HAIs associated with outcomes in these patients? Study design and methods: Multicenter retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data including adult patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to eight Italian hub hospitals from February 20, 2020, through May 20, 2020. Descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariate Weibull regression models were used to assess incidence, microbial cause, resistance patterns, risk factors (ie, demographics, comorbidities, exposure to medication), and impact on outcomes (ie, ICU discharge, length of ICU and hospital stays, and duration of mechanical ventilation) of microbiologically confirmed HAIs. Results: Of the 774 included patients, 359 patients (46%) demonstrated 759 HAIs (44.7 infections/1,000 ICU patient-days; 35% multidrug-resistant [MDR] bacteria). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; n = 389 [50%]), bloodstream infections (BSIs; n = 183 [34%]), and catheter-related BSIs (n = 74 [10%]) were the most frequent HAIs, with 26.0 (95% CI, 23.6-28.8) VAPs per 1,000 patient intubation-days, 11.7 (95% CI, 10.1-13.5) BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days, and 4.7 (95% CI, 3.8-5.9) catheter-related BSIs per 1,000 ICU patient-days. Gram-negative bacteria (especially Enterobacterales) and Staphylococcus aureus caused 64% and 28% of cases of VAP, respectively. Variables independently associated with infection were age, positive end expiratory pressure, and treatment with broad-spectrum antibiotics at admission. Two hundred thirty-four patients (30%) died in the ICU (15.3 deaths/1,000 ICU patient-days). Patients with HAIs complicated by septic shock showed an almost doubled mortality rate (52% vs 29%), whereas noncomplicated infections did not affect mortality. HAIs prolonged mechanical ventilation (median, 24 days [interquartile range (IQR), 14-39 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 5-13 days]; P < .001), ICU stay (24 days [IQR, 16-41 days] vs 9 days [IQR, 6-14 days]; P = .003), and hospital stay (42 days [IQR, 25-59 days] vs 23 days [IQR, 13-34 days]; P < .001). Interpretation: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for HAIs, especially VAPs and BSIs resulting from MDR organisms. HAIs prolong mechanical ventilation and hospitalization, and HAIs complicated by septic shock almost doubled mortality