ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused huge number of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) in a critical need to mechanical ventilation. Ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) has been noticed as a common complication in these patients with unfavorable outcomes. The current study aimed to assess bacterial and fungal VAP in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs during the second wave and to identify the possible risk factors. METHODS: Respiratory samples were collected from 197 critically ill COVID-19 patients under mechanical ventilation. Bacterial and fungal superinfections were diagnosed by microbiological cultures with subsequent antimicrobial susceptibility testing of the isolates using available kits. RESULTS: All specimens 197/197 (100%) were positive for bacterial infections, while fungal elements were detected in 134/197 (68%) of specimens. The most frequently isolated bacteria were pan drug resistant (PDR) Klebsiella pneumoniae (41.1%), followed by multi drug resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter baumannii (27.4%). On the other hand, Candida species represented the most frequently isolated fungi (75.4%) followed by molds including Aspergillus (16.4%) and Mucor (8.2%) species. Possible risk factors for fungal VAP included underlying diabetes mellitus (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-3.31; p = 0.02), chest disease (95% CI 1.01-3.32; p = 0.05), hypothyroidism (95% CI 1.01-4.78; p = 0.05), and longer duration of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). Furthermore, all patients 134/134 (100%) who developed fungal VAP, were already under treatment with corticosteroids and Tocilizumab. CONCLUSION: Bacterial and fungal VAP in critically ill COVID-19 patients is a serious problem in the current pandemic. Urgent and strategic steps to keep it under control are compulsory.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Bacteria , Critical Illness , Fungi , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Egypt was among the first 10 countries in Africa that experienced COVID-19 cases. The sudden surge in the number of cases is overwhelming the capacity of the national healthcare system, particularly in developing countries. Central to the containment of the ongoing pandemic is the availability of rapid and accurate diagnostic tests that could pinpoint patients at early disease stages. In the current study, we aimed to (1) Evaluate the diagnostic performance of the rapid antigen test (RAT) "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" against reverse transcriptase quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR) in eighty-three swabs collected from COVID-19 suspected individuals showing various demographic features, clinical and radiological findings. (2) Test whether measuring laboratory parameters in participant's blood would enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT. (3) Identify the most important features that determine the results of both RAT and RT-qPCR. METHODS: Diagnostic measurements (e.g. sensitivity, specificity, etc.) and receiver operating characteristic curve were used to assess the clinical performance of "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag". We used the support vector machine (SVM) model to investigate whether measuring laboratory indices would enhance the accuracy of RAT. Moreover, a random forest classification model was used to determine the most important determinants of the results of RAT and RT-qPCR for COVID-19 diagnosis. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of RAT were 78.2, 64.2, and 75.9%, respectively. Samples with high viral load and those that were collected within one-week post-symptoms showed the highest sensitivity and accuracy. The SVM modeling showed that measuring laboratory indices did not enhance the predictive accuracy of RAT. CONCLUSION: "Standard™ Q COVID-19 Ag" should not be used alone for COVID-19 diagnosis due to its low diagnostic performance relative to the RT-qPCR. RAT is best used at the early disease stage and in patients with high viral load.