Effect of viral storm in patients admitted to intensive care units with severe COVID-19 in Spain: a multicentre, prospective, cohort study

Background: The contribution of the virus to the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 is still unclear. We aimed to evaluate associations between viral RNA load in plasma and host response, complications, and deaths in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods: We did a prospective cohort study across 23 hospitals in Spain. We included patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted to an intensive care unit between March 16, 2020, and Feb 27, 2021. RNA of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid region 1 (N1) was quantified in plasma samples collected from patients in the first 48 h following admission, using digital PCR. Patients were grouped on the basis of N1 quantity: VIR-N1-Zero ([removed]2747 N1 copies per mL). The primary outcome was all-cause death within 90 days after admission. We evaluated odds ratios (ORs) for the primary outcome between groups using a logistic regression analysis. Findings: 1068 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 117 had insufficient plasma samples and 115 had key information missing. 836 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 403 (48%) were in the VIR-N1-Low group, 283 (34%) were in the VIR-N1-Storm group, and 150 (18%) were in the VIR-N1-Zero group. Overall, patients in the VIR-N1-Storm group had the most severe disease: 266 (94%) of 283 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), 116 (41%) developed acute kidney injury, 180 (65%) had secondary infections, and 148 (52%) died within 90 days. Patients in the VIR-N1-Zero group had the least severe disease: 81 (54%) of 150 received IMV, 34 (23%) developed acute kidney injury, 47 (32%) had secondary infections, and 26 (17%) died within 90 days (OR for death 0·30, 95% CI 0·16–0·55; p<0·0001, compared with the VIR-N1-Storm group). 106 (26%) of 403 patients in the VIR-N1-Low group died within 90 days (OR for death 0·39, 95% CI 0·26–0·57; p[removed]11 página

Immunomodulatory therapy for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19: A narrative review

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the physiological and immunological processes underlying the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 is vital for the identification and rational design of effective therapies. Aim: To describe the interaction of SARS-CoV-2 with the immune system and the subsequent contribution of hyperinflammation and abnormal immune responses to disease progression together with a complete narrative review of the different immunoadjuvant treatments used so far in COVID-19 and their indication in severe and life-threatening subsets. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was developed. Authors reviewed the selected manuscripts following the PRISMA recommendations for systematic review and meta-analysis documents and selected the most appropriate. Finally, a recommendation of the use of each treatment was established based on the level of evidence of the articles and documents reviewed. This recommendation was made based on the consensus of all the authors. Results: A brief rationale on the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune response, and inflammation was developed. The usefulness of 10 different families of treatments related to inflammation and immunopathogenesis of COVID-19 was reviewed and discussed. Finally, based on the level of scientific evidence, a recommendation was established for each of them. Conclusion: Although several promising therapies exist, only the use of corticosteroids and tocilizumab (or sarilumab in absence of this) have demonstrated evidence enough to recommend its use in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Endotypes including both, clinical and biological characteristics can constitute specific targets for better select certain therapies based on an individualized approach to treatment

Antimicrobial Lessons From a Large Observational Cohort on Intra-abdominal Infections in Intensive Care Units

evere intra-abdominal infection commonly requires intensive care. Mortality is high and is mainly determined by disease-specific characteristics, i.e. setting of infection onset, anatomical barrier disruption, and severity of disease expression. Recent observations revealed that antimicrobial resistance appears equally common in community-acquired and late-onset hospital-acquired infection. This challenges basic principles in anti-infective therapy guidelines, including the paradigm that pathogens involved in community-acquired infection are covered by standard empiric antimicrobial regimens, and second, the concept of nosocomial acquisition as the main driver for resistance involvement. In this study, we report on resistance profiles of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in distinct European geographic regions based on an observational cohort study on intra-abdominal infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Resistance against aminopenicillins, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa is problematic, as is carbapenem-resistance in the latter pathogen. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, resistance is mainly an issue in Central Europe, Eastern and South-East Europe, and Southern Europe, while resistance in P. aeruginosa is additionally problematic in Western Europe. Vancomycin-resistance in E. faecalis is of lesser concern but requires vigilance in E. faecium in Central and Eastern and South-East Europe. In the subcohort of patients with secondary peritonitis presenting with either sepsis or septic shock, the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy was not associated with mortality. In contrast, failure of source control was strongly associated with mortality. The relevance of these new insights for future recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy in intra-abdominal infections is discussed.Severe intra-abdominal infection commonly requires intensive care. Mortality is high and is mainly determined by diseasespecific characteristics, i.e. setting of infection onset, anatomical barrier disruption, and severity of disease expression. Recent observations revealed that antimicrobial resistance appears equally common in community-acquired and late-onset hospital-acquired infection. This challenges basic principles in anti-infective therapy guidelines, including the paradigm that pathogens involved in community-acquired infection are covered by standard empiric antimicrobial regimens, and second, the concept of nosocomial acquisition as the main driver for resistance involvement. In this study, we report on resistance profiles of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium in distinct European geographic regions based on an observational cohort study on intra-abdominal infections in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Resistance against aminopenicillins, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins in E. coli, K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa is problematic, as is carbapenem-resistance in the latter pathogen. For E. coli and K. pneumoniae, resistance is mainly an issue in Central Europe, Eastern and South-East Europe, and Southern Europe, while resistance in P. aeruginosa is additionally problematic in Western Europe. Vancomycin-resistance in E. faecalis is of lesser concern but requires vigilance in E. faecium in Central and Eastern and South-East Europe. In the subcohort of patients with secondary peritonitis presenting with either sepsis or septic shock, the appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy was not associated with mortality. In contrast, failure of source control was strongly associated with mortality. The relevance of these new insights for future recommendations regarding empiric antimicrobial therapy in intra-abdominal infections is discussed

Poor timing and failure of source control are risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with secondary peritonitis

Purpose: To describe data on epidemiology, microbiology, clinical characteristics and outcome of adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU) with secondary peritonitis, with special emphasis on antimicrobial therapy and source control. Methods: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter observational study (Abdominal Sepsis Study, AbSeS) including 2621 adult ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection in 306 ICUs from 42 countries. Time-till-source control intervention was calculated as from time of diagnosis and classified into 'emergency' (&lt; 2 h), 'urgent' (2-6 h), and 'delayed' (&gt; 6 h). Relationships were assessed by logistic regression analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The cohort included 1077 cases of microbiologically confirmed secondary peritonitis. Mortality was 29.7%. The rate of appropriate empiric therapy showed no difference between survivors and non-survivors (66.4% vs. 61.3%, p = 0.1). A stepwise increase in mortality was observed with increasing Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (19.6% for a value ≤ 4-55.4% for a value &gt; 12, p &lt; 0.001). The highest odds of death were associated with septic shock (OR 3.08 [1.42-7.00]), late-onset hospital-acquired peritonitis (OR 1.71 [1.16-2.52]) and failed source control evidenced by persistent inflammation at day 7 (OR 5.71 [3.99-8.18]). Compared with 'emergency' source control intervention (&lt; 2 h of diagnosis), 'urgent' source control was the only modifiable covariate associated with lower odds of mortality (OR 0.50 [0.34-0.73]). Conclusion: 'Urgent' and successful source control was associated with improved odds of survival. Appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial treatment did not significantly affect survival suggesting that source control is more determinative for outcome