Long-term ketamine infusion-induced cholestatic liver injury in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A higher-than-usual resistance to standard sedation regimens in COVID-19 patients suffering from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has led to the frequent use of the second-line anaesthetic agent ketamine. Simultaneously, an increased incidence of cholangiopathies in mechanically ventilated patients receiving prolonged infusion of high-dose ketamine has been noted. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate a potential dose-response relationship between ketamine and bilirubin levels. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational cohort of patients suffering from COVID-19-associated ARDS between March 2020 and August 2021. A time-varying, multivariable adjusted, cumulative weighted exposure mixed-effects model was employed to analyse the exposure-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and total bilirubin levels. RESULTS: Two-hundred forty-three critically ill patients were included into the analysis. Ketamine was infused to 170 (70%) patients at a rate of 1.4 [0.9-2.0] mg/kg/h for 9 [4-18] days. The mixed-effects model revealed a positively correlated infusion duration-effect as well as dose-effect relationship between ketamine infusion and rising bilirubin levels (p < 0.0001). In comparison, long-term infusion of propofol and sufentanil, even at high doses, was not associated with increasing bilirubin levels (p = 0.421, p = 0.258). Patients having received ketamine infusion had a multivariable adjusted competing risk hazard of developing a cholestatic liver injury during their ICU stay of 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.3-7.8] (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A causally plausible, dose-effect relationship between long-term infusion of ketamine and rising total bilirubin levels, as well as an augmented, ketamine-associated, hazard of cholestatic liver injury in critically ill COVID-19 patients could be shown. High-dose ketamine should be refrained from whenever possible for the long-term analgosedation of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.

Antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of respiratory Gram-negative bacterial isolates from COVID-19 patients in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial superinfections associated with COVID-19 are common in ventilated ICU patients and impact morbidity and lethality. However, the contribution of antimicrobial resistance to the manifestation of bacterial infections in these patients has yet to be elucidated. METHODS: We collected 70 Gram-negative bacterial strains, isolated from the lower respiratory tract of ventilated COVID-19 patients in Zurich, Switzerland between March and May 2020. Species identification was performed using MALDI-TOF; antibiotic susceptibility profiles were determined by EUCAST disk diffusion and CLSI broth microdilution assays. Selected Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates were analyzed by whole-genome sequencing. RESULTS: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (46%) and Enterobacterales (36%) comprised the two largest etiologic groups. Drug resistance in P. aeruginosa isolates was high for piperacillin/tazobactam (65.6%), cefepime (56.3%), ceftazidime (46.9%) and meropenem (50.0%). Enterobacterales isolates showed slightly lower levels of resistance to piperacillin/tazobactam (32%), ceftriaxone (32%), and ceftazidime (36%). All P. aeruginosa isolates and 96% of Enterobacterales isolates were susceptible to aminoglycosides, with apramycin found to provide best-in-class coverage. Genotypic analysis of consecutive P. aeruginosa isolates in one patient revealed a frameshift mutation in the transcriptional regulator nalC that coincided with a phenotypic shift in susceptibility to ß-lactams and quinolones. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable levels of antimicrobial resistance may have contributed to the manifestation of bacterial superinfections in ventilated COVID-19 patients, and may in some cases mandate consecutive adaptation of antibiotic therapy. High susceptibility to amikacin and apramycin suggests that aminoglycosides may remain an effective second-line treatment of ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, provided efficacious drug exposure in lungs can be achieved.

Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.