Prolonged Active Prone Positioning in Spontaneously Breathing Non-intubated Patients With COVID-19-Associated Hypoxemic Acute Respiratory Failure With PaO2/FiO2 >150.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to new approaches to manage patients outside the ICU, including prone positioning in non-intubated patients. Objectives: To report the use of prolonged active prone positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure. Spontaneously breathing vs non-invasive respiratory support for COVID19 associated acute respiratory failure. Methods: Patients with PaO2/FiO2 > 150, with lung posterior consolidations as assessed by means of lung ultrasound, and chest x-ray were studied. Under continuous pulse oximetry (SpO2) monitoring, patients maintained active prone position. A PaO2/FiO2 < 150 was considered as treatment failure and patients had to be switched to non-invasive respiratory support. Retrospectively, data of 16 patients undergoing who refused proning and underwent non-invasive respiratory support were used as controls. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients maintaining prolonged prone position and discharged home. Secondary outcomes included improvement in oxygenation, hospital length of stay, and 6-month survival. Results: Three out of 16 (18.7%) patients did not tolerate the procedure. Three more patients showed a worsening in PaO2/FiO2 to <150 and required non-invasive support, two of whom finally needing endotracheal intubation. After 72 h, 10 out of 16 (62.5%) patients improved oxygenation [PaO2/FiO2: from 194.6 (42.1) to 304.7 (79.3.2) (p < 0.001)] and were discharged home. In the control group, three out of 16 failed, required invasive ventilatory support, and died within 1 month in ICU. Thirteen were successful and discharged home. Conclusion: In non-intubated spontaneously breathing COVID-19 patients with PaO2/FiO2 >150, active prolonged prone positioning was feasible and tolerated with significant improvement in oxygenation.

Galectin-3 as prognostic biomarker in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVES: Galectin-3 is ß-galactoside-binding lectin with several roles in immune-inflammatory response. To date, there is no evidence of Galectin-3 role as a prognostic biomarker in COVID-19 disease. The aim of this study is to clarify the prognostic role of Galectin-3 in patients with COVID 19 acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We enrolled 156 consecutive patients with COVID-19 disease. Routine laboratory test, arterial blood gas, chest X-ray or Computed Tomography and Galectin-3 dosage were performed. The primary outcome was to assess Galectin-3 predictive power for 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day Intensive Care Unit admission and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome stratification according to Galectin-3 dosage. We performed Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous variables comparison. Fisher's exact test or Chi-square test were used for categorical variables analysis. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves estimated Galectin-3 predictive power for the endpoints. With a fixed cut-off of 35.3 ng/ml, Kaplan-Meier with Log-Rank test and Cox Regression were performed to assess mortality and Intensive Care Unit admission risk. RESULTS: Galectin-3 correlated with many other prognostic predictors tested in our analysis. Moreover, patients with serum levels of Galectin-3 above 35.3 ng/ml had increased risk for mortality, Intensive Care Unit admission and severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the role of Galectin-3 as a predictor of mortality, Intensive Care Unit access and ARDS stratification in patients with COVID 19 acute respiratory failure.

Risk factors for transfer from Respiratory Intermediate Care Unit to Intensive Care Unit in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for COVID-19-related pneumonia often need several degrees of ventilatory support, which are performed between Respiratory Intermediate Care Units (RICUs) and Intensive Care Units (ICUs), and which depend on the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is no firm consensus on transfer predictors from the RICU to the ICU. METHODS: In this retrospective observational single center study, we evaluated 96 COVID-19 patients referred to the RICU for acute respiratory failure (ARF) according to their transferal to the ICU or their stay at the RICU. We compared demographic data, baseline laboratory profile, and final clinical outcomes to identify early risk factors for transfer. RESULTS: The best predictors for transfer to the ICU were elevated C-reactive protein and lymphopenia. The mortality rate was lower in the RICU than in the ICU, where transferred patients who died were mostly younger men and with less comorbidities than those in the RICU. CONCLUSIONS: Few inflammatory markers can predict the need for transfer from the RICU to the ICU. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we urge better clinical stratification by early and meaningful profiles in patients admitted to the RICU who are at risk of transferal to the ICU.