Mechanical Ventilation for COVID-19 Patients.

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is frequently needed in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. While NIV can be delivered in hospital wards and nonintensive care environments, intubated patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and support. Thus, the lack of ICU beds generated by the pandemic has often forced the use of NIV in severely hypoxemic patients treated outside the ICU. In this context, awake prone positioning has been widely adopted to ameliorate oxygenation during noninvasive respiratory support. Still, the incidence of NIV failure and the role of patient self-induced lung injury on hospital outcomes of COVID-19 subjects need to be elucidated. On the other hand, endotracheal intubation is indicated when gas exchange deterioration, muscular exhaustion, and/or neurological impairment ensue. Yet, the best timing for intubation in COVID-19 is still widely debated, as it is the safest use of neuromuscular blocking agents. Not differently from other types of acute respiratory distress syndrome, the aim of MV during COVID-19 is to provide adequate gas exchange while avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury. At the same time, the use of rescue therapies is advocated when standard care is unable to guarantee sufficient organ support. Nevertheless, the general shortage of health care resources experienced during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic might affect the utilization of high-cost, highly specialized, and long-term supports. In this article, we describe the state-of-the-art of NIV and MV setting and their usage for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients.

Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position. RESULTS: Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670.

Viscoelastic Coagulation Monitor as a Novel Device to Assess Coagulation at the Bedside. A Single-Center Experience During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Viscoelastic coagulation monitor (VCM) is a portable device developed to evaluate the viscoelastic properties of whole blood activated by contact with glass. In this study, VCM was employed to analyze the viscoelastic profiles of 36 COVID-19 intensive care patients. Full anticoagulant dose heparin (unfractionated [UFH]; low molecular weight [LMWH]) was administrated to all patients. The association between VCM and laboratory parameters was retrospectively analyzed. The administration of UFH-influenced VCM parameters prolonging clotting time (CT) and clot formation time (CFT) and reducing angle (alpha) and amplitudes of the VCM tracings (A10, A20, and maximum clot firmness [MCF]) compared with LMWH therapy. A tendency toward hypercoagulation was observed by short CT and CFT in patients receiving LMWH. Clotting time was correlated with UFH dose (Spearman's rho = 0.48, p ≤ 0.001), and no correlation was found between CT and LMWH. All VCM tracings failed to show lysis at 30 and 45 minutes, indicating the absence of fibrinolysis. A10, A20, and MCF exhibited very-good to good diagnostic accuracy for detecting platelet count and fibrinogen above the upper reference limit of the laboratory. In conclusion, VCM provided reliable results in COVID-19 patients and was easy to perform with minimal training at the bedside.