Relationship between corticosteroid use and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The aim of this ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter observational retrospective study is to assess the relationship between adjuvant corticosteroid use and the incidence of VAP. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort in 36 ICUs. Adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were consecutively included between February and May 2020. VAP diagnosis required strict definition with clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological confirmation. We assessed the association of VAP with corticosteroid treatment using univariate and multivariate cause-specific Cox's proportional hazard models with adjustment on pre-specified confounders. RESULTS: Among the 545 included patients, 191 (35%) received corticosteroids. The proportional hazard assumption for the effect of corticosteroids on the incidence of VAP could not be accepted, indicating that this effect varied during ICU stay. We found a non-significant lower risk of VAP for corticosteroid-treated patients during the first days in the ICU and an increased risk for longer ICU stay. By modeling the effect of corticosteroids with time-dependent coefficients, the association between corticosteroids and the incidence of VAP was not significant (overall effect p = 0.082), with time-dependent hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 0.47 (0.17-1.31) at day 2, 0.95 (0.63-1.42) at day 7, 1.48 (1.01-2.16) at day 14 and 1.94 (1.09-3.46) at day 21. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association was found between adjuvant corticosteroid treatment and the incidence of VAP, although a time-varying effect of corticosteroids was identified along the 28-day follow-up.

Neuromuscular Blockade in the Pre- and COVID-19 ARDS Patients.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) accounts for a quarter of mechanically ventilated patients, while during the pandemic, it overwhelmed the capacity of intensive care units (ICUs). Lung protective ventilation (low tidal volume, positive-end expiratory pressure titrated to lung mechanics and oxygenation, permissive hypercapnia) is a non-pharmacological approach that is the gold standard of management. Among the pharmacological treatments, the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), although extensively studied, has not yet been well clarified. The rationale is to minimize the risk for lung damage progression, in the already-injured pulmonary parenchyma. By abolishing rigorous spontaneous efforts, NMBAs may decrease the generation of high transpulmonary pressures that could aggravate patients' self-inflicted lung injury. Moreover, NMBAs can harmonize the patient-ventilator interaction. Recent randomized controlled trials reported contradictory results and changed the clinical practice in a bidirectional way. NMBAs have not been documented to improve long-term survival; thus, the current guidance suggests their use only in patients in whom a lung protective ventilation protocol cannot be applied, due to asynchrony or increased respiratory efforts. In the present review, we discuss the published data and additionally the clinical practice in the "war" conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerning NMBA use in the management of patients with ARDS.

Ultrasonographic Confirmation of Nasogastric Tube Placement in the COVID-19 Era.

BACKGROUND: Nasogastric tube (NGT) placement is a daily routine in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and misplacement of the NGT can cause serious complications. In COVID-19 ARDS patients, proning has emerged the need for frequent NGT re-evaluations. The gold standard technique, chest X-ray, is not always feasible. In the present study we report our experience with the use of ultrasonographic confirmation of NGT position. METHODS: A prospective study in 276 COVID-19 ARDS patients admitted after intubation in the ICU. Ultrasonographic evaluation was performed using longitudinal or sagittal epigastric views. Examinations were performed during the initial NGT placement and every time the patients returned to the supine position after they had been proned or whenever critical care physicians or nurses considered that reconfirmation was necessary. RESULTS: Ultrasonographic confirmation of correct NGT placement was feasible in 246/276 (89.13%) patients upon ICU admission. In 189/246 (76.8%) the tube could be visualized in the stomach (two parallel lines), in 172/246 (69.9%) the ultrasonographic whoosh test ("flash" due to air instillation through the tube, seen with ultrasonography) was evident, while in 164/246 (66.7%) both tests confirmed correct NGT placement. During ICU stay 590 ultrasonographic NGT evaluations were performed, and in 462 (78.14%) cases correct NGT placement were confirmed. In 392 cases, a chest X-ray was also ordered. The sensitivity of ultrasonographic NGT confirmation in these cases was 98.9%, specificity 57.9%, PPV 96.2%, and NPV 3.8%. The time for the full evaluation was 3.8 ± 3.4 min. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonographic confirmation of correct NGT placement is feasible in the initial placement, but also whenever needed thereafter, especially in the COVID-19 era, when changes in posture have become a daily practice in ARDS patients.

Supervised Versus Unsupervised Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: A Valuable Alternative in COVID Era.

The aim of our study was to assess the effect of 8 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) during unsupervised PR (unSPRgroup) versus supervised PR (SPRgroup) on cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) parameters, sleep quality, quality of life and cardiac biomarkers (NT-pro-BNP). Fourteen patients with PE (unSPRgroup, n = 7, vs. SPRgroup, n = 7) were included in our study (age, 50.7 ± 15.1 years; BMI, 30.0 ± 3.3 kg/m2). We recorded anthropometric characteristics and questionnaires (Quality of life (SF-36) and Pittsburg sleep quality index (PSQI)), we performed blood sampling for NT-pro-BNP measurement and underwent CPET until exhausting before and after the PR program. All patients were subjected to transthoracic echocardiography prior to PR. The SPRgroup differed in mean arterial pressure at rest before and after the PR program (87.6 ± 3.3 vs. 95.0 ± 5.5, respectively, p = 0.010). Patients showed increased levels of leg fatigue (rated after CPET) before and after PR (p = 0.043 for SPRgroup, p = 0.047 for unSPRgroup) while the two groups differed between each other (p = 0.006 for post PR score). Both groups showed increased levels in SF-36 scores (general health; p = 0.032 for SPRgroup, p = 0.010 for unSPRgroup; physical health; p = 0.009 for SPRgroup, p = 0.022 for unSPRgroup) and reduced levels in PSQI (cannot get to sleep within 30-min; p = 0.046 for SPRgroup, p = 0.007 for unSPRgroup; keep up enough enthusiasm to get things done; p = 0.005 for SPRgroup, p = 0.010 for unSPRgroup) following the PR program. The ΝT-pro-BNP was not significantly different before and after PR or between groups. PR may present a safe intervention in patients with PE. The PR results are similar in SPRgroup and unSPRgroup.