Increased 30-Day Mortality in Very Old ICU Patients with COVID-19 Compared to Patients with Respiratory Failure without COVID-19

Purpose: The number of patients ≥ 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST. Methods: Patients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (± 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (± 2 points), clinical frailty scale (± 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death. Results: 693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients. Conclusion: Very old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Current clinical use of intravenous fosfomycin in ICU patients in two European countries

Purpose In Europe, intravenous fosfomycin (IV) is used particularly in difficult-to- treat or complex infections, caused by both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens including multidrug-resistant strains. Here, we investigated the efficacy and safety of intravenous fosfomycin under real-life conditions. Methods Prospective, multi-center, and non-interventional study in patients with bacterial infections from 20 intensive care units (ICU) in Germany and Austria (NCT01173575). Results Overall, 209 patients were included (77 females, 132 males, mean age: 59 +/- 16 years), 194 of which were treated in intensive care (APACHE II score at the beginning of fosfomycin therapy: 23 +/- 8). Main indications (+/- bacteremia or sepsis) were infections of the CNS (21.5%), community- (CAP) and hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP, 15.3%), bone and joint infections (BJI, 11%), abdominal infections (11%), and bacteremia (10.5%). Most frequently identified pathogens were S. aureus (22.3%), S. epidermidis (14.2%), Enterococcus spp. (10.8%), E. coli (12.3%) and Klebsiella spp. (7.7%). At least one multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogen was isolated from 51 patients (24.4%). Fosfomycin was administered with an average daily dose of 13.7 +/- 3.5 g over 12.4 +/- 8.6 days, almost exclusively (99%) in combination with other antibiotics. The overall clinical success was favorable in 81.3% (148/182) of cases, and in 84.8% (39/46) of patients with >= 1 MDR pathogen. Noteworthy, 16.3% (34/209) of patients developed at least one, in the majority of cases non-serious, adverse drug reaction during fosfomycin therapy. Conclusion Our data suggest that IV fosfomycin is an effective and safe combination partner for the treatment of a broad spectrum of severe bacterial infections in critically ill patients

Erratum to: The Intensive Care Global Study on Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (ICâGLOSSARI): a multicenter, multinational, 14-day inception cohort study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2016), 42, 5, (953), 10.1007/s00134-016-4317-4)

In both the original publication (DOI 10.1007/s00134-015-4206-2) and the first erratum (DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4317-4), the members of the IC-GLOSSARI Investigators and the ESICM Trials Group were provided in such a way that they could not be indexed as collaborators on PubMed. The publisher apologizes for these errors and is pleased to list the members of the groups here: (Table presented.)