High-Flow Nasal Therapy in Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure: Past, Present, and Future.

High-flow nasal therapy (HFNT) was introduced into clinical practice in the early 2000s as a form of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) [...].

The COVID-HIGH RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL

The aim of this unblinded parallel-group randomized multicenter clinical trial is to compare the clinical effectiveness of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in patients with confirmed COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04655638

Emotional status and fear in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cross-sectional survey (COVID-SURGERY)

The aim of this multicentre nationwide prospective cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the impact of pandemic on emotional status and fear of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in a cohort of elective surgical patients in Italy, scheduled for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Variation in Communication and Family Visiting Policies in Italian Intensive Care Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Secondary Analysis of the COVISIT International Survey

Background: During COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions to in-person visiting of caregivers to patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) were applied in many countries. Our aim was to describe the variations in communication and family visiting policies in Italian ICUs during the pandemic. Methods: A secondary analysis from the COVISIT international survey was conducted, focusing on data from Italy. Results: Italian ICUs provided 118 (18%) responses out of 667 responses collected worldwide. A total of 12 Italian ICUs were at the peak of COVID-19 admissions at the time of the survey and 42/118 had 90% or more of patients admitted to ICU affected by COVID-19. During the COVID-19 peak, 74% of Italian ICUs adopted a no-in-person-visiting policy. This remained the most common strategy (67%) at the time of the survey. Information to families was provided by regular phone calls (81% in Italy versus 47% for the rest of the world). Virtual visiting was available for 69% and most commonly performed using devices provided by the ICU (71% in Italy versus 36% outside Italy). Conclusion: Our study showed that restrictions to the ICU applied during the COVID-19 pandemic were still in use at the time of the survey. The main means of communication with caregivers were telephone and virtual meetings.

Variation in Communication and Family Visiting Policies in Italian Intensive Care Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Secondary Analysis of the COVISIT International Survey.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions to in-person visiting of caregivers to patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) were applied in many countries. Our aim was to describe the variations in communication and family visiting policies in Italian ICUs during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis from the COVISIT international survey was conducted, focusing on data from Italy. RESULTS: Italian ICUs provided 118 (18%) responses out of 667 responses collected worldwide. A total of 12 Italian ICUs were at the peak of COVID-19 admissions at the time of the survey and 42/118 had 90% or more of patients admitted to ICU affected by COVID-19. During the COVID-19 peak, 74% of Italian ICUs adopted a no-in-person-visiting policy. This remained the most common strategy (67%) at the time of the survey. Information to families was provided by regular phone calls (81% in Italy versus 47% for the rest of the world). Virtual visiting was available for 69% and most commonly performed using devices provided by the ICU (71% in Italy versus 36% outside Italy). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that restrictions to the ICU applied during the COVID-19 pandemic were still in use at the time of the survey. The main means of communication with caregivers were telephone and virtual meetings.

High-flow nasal oxygen versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia: a randomised controlled trial.

RATIONALE: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO2 ≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO2 ratio >300 mm Hg). RESULTS: Among 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference -8.2% (95% CI -18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI -1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference -3.3% (95% CI -9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8-17) vs 11 (IQR 7-20) days, absolute risk difference -1.0% (95% CI -3.1% to +1.1%)). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04655638.

Ventilatory associated barotrauma in COVID-19 patients: A multicenter observational case control study (COVI-MIX-study).

BACKGROUND: The risk of barotrauma associated with different types of ventilatory support is unclear in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the different respiratory support strategies on barotrauma occurrence; we also sought to determine the frequency of barotrauma and the clinical characteristics of the patients who experienced this complication. METHODS: This multicentre retrospective case-control study from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 included COVID-19 patients who experienced barotrauma during hospital stay. They were matched with controls in a 1:1 ratio for the same admission period in the same ward of treatment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (OR) were performed to explore which factors were associated with barotrauma and in-hospital death. RESULTS: We included 200 cases and 200 controls. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 39.3% of patients in the barotrauma group, and in 20.1% of controls (p<0.001). Receiving non-invasive ventilation (C-PAP/PSV) instead of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) increased the risk of barotrauma (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.30 - 11.08, p<0.001), similarly for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.86-13.60, p<0.001). High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), compared with COT, did not significantly increase the risk of barotrauma. Barotrauma frequency occurred in 1.00% [95% CI 0.88-1.16] of patients; these were older (p=0.022) and more frequently immunosuppressed (p=0.013). Barotrauma was shown to be an independent risk for death (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.82-10.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: C-PAP/PSV compared with COT or HFNO increased the risk of barotrauma; otherwise HFNO did not. Barotrauma was recorded in 1.00% of patients, affecting mainly patients with more severe COVID-19 disease. Barotrauma was independently associated with mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: this case-control study was prospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov as NCT04897152 (on 21 May 2021).

Quality of Life in COVID-Related ARDS Patients One Year after Intensive Care Discharge (Odissea Study): A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Investigating the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge is necessary to identify possible modifiable risk factors. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the HRQoL in COVID-19 critically ill patients one year after ICU discharge. METHODS: In this multicenter prospective observational study, COVID-19 patients admitted to nine ICUs from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 in Italy were enrolled. One year after ICU discharge, patients were required to fill in short-form health survey 36 (SF-36) and impact of event-revised (IES-R) questionnaire. A multivariate linear or logistic regression analysis to search for factors associated with a lower HRQoL and post-traumatic stress disorded (PTSD) were carried out, respectively. RESULTS: Among 1003 patients screened, 343 (median age 63 years [57-70]) were enrolled. Mechanical ventilation lasted for a median of 10 days [2-20]. Physical functioning (PF 85 [60-95]), physical role (PR 75 [0-100]), emotional role (RE 100 [33-100]), bodily pain (BP 77.5 [45-100]), social functioning (SF 75 [50-100]), general health (GH 55 [35-72]), vitality (VT 55 [40-70]), mental health (MH 68 [52-84]) and health change (HC 50 [25-75]) describe the SF-36 items. A median physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores were 45.9 (36.5-53.5) and 51.7 (48.8-54.3), respectively, considering 50 as the normal value of the healthy general population. In all, 109 patients (31.8%) tested positive for post-traumatic stress disorder, also reporting a significantly worse HRQoL in all SF-36 domains. The female gender, history of cardiovascular disease, liver disease and length of hospital stay negatively affected the HRQoL. Weight at follow-up was a risk factor for PTSD (OR 1.02, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The HRQoL in COVID-19 ARDS (C-ARDS) patients was reduced regarding the PCS, while the median MCS value was slightly above normal. Some risk factors for a lower HRQoL have been identified, the presence of PTSD is one of them. Further research is warranted to better identify the possible factors affecting the HRQoL in C-ARDS.

VENTILATORY ASSOCIATED BAROTRAUMA IN COVID-19 PATIENTS: A MULTICENTER OBSERVATIONAL CASE CONTROL STUDY (COVI-MIX-STUDY)

Background The risk of barotrauma associated with different types of ventilatory support is unclear in COVID-19 patients. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the different respiratory support strategies on barotrauma occurrence;we also sought to determine the frequency of barotrauma and the clinical characteristics of the patients who experienced this complication. Methods This multicentre retrospective case-control study from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2021 included COVID-19 patients who experienced barotrauma during hospital stay. They were matched with controls in a 1:1 ratio for the same admission period in the same ward of treatment. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression (OR) were performed to explore which factors were associated with barotrauma and in-hospital death. Results We included 200 cases and 200 controls. Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 39.3% of patients in the barotrauma group, and in 20.1% of controls (p<0.001). Receiving non-invasive ventilation (C-PAP/PSV) instead of conventional oxygen therapy (COT) increased the risk of barotrauma (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.30 - 11.08, p<0.001), similarly for invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 6.24, 95% CI 2.86-13.60, p<0.001). High Flow Nasal Oxygen (HFNO), compared with COT, did not significantly increase the risk of barotrauma. Barotrauma frequency occurred in 1.00% [95% CI 0.88-1.16] of patients;these were older (p=0.022) and more frequently immunosuppressed (p=0.013). Barotrauma was shown to be an independent risk for death (OR 5.32, 95% CI 2.82-10.03, p<0.001). Conclusions C-PAP/PSV compared with COT or HFNO increased the risk of barotrauma;otherwise HFNO did not. Barotrauma was recorded in 1.00% of patients, affecting mainly patients with more severe COVID-19 disease. Barotrauma was independently associated with mortality. Trial registration this case-control study was prospectively registered in clinicaltrial.gov as NCT04897152 (on 21 May 2021).

Facepiece filtering respirators with exhalation valve should not be used in the community to limit SARS-CoV-2 diffusion

During normal speech, a huge number of droplets are produced, and face covering may be effective in limiting the distance reached by the droplets, potentially reducing the transmission of the virus from individuals who are unaware that they are infected.1 Face covering with masks or tissue has been widely recommended as a complementary measure to reduce the infection rate in the community by limiting the excretion of droplets from asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals.2 In this context, some governments are ordering face covering, especially during activities when social distancing is impossible or difficult (eg, using public transportation and visiting grocery stores or supermarkets, etc).2,3 Such measures should be intended as a protection towards the community and not as self-protection. FFRs are disposable filtering media, designed to provide the wearer an inward protection from inhaling contaminants conveyed by respiratory droplets or aerosols.4 On one hand, this ‘panic buying’ of FFRs may have contributed to the lack of supplies available for those employed in risky settings, such as healthcare workers frequently exposed to aerosol generating procedures, and it has also likely encourages counterfeiting.5 On the other hand, the uncontrolled sale of FFRs to people who are unaware of their specific features and are untrained in their use can create additional risks: incorrect doffing procedures can increase cross contamination;a false perception of safety can reduce the compliance to other measures (ie, hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, social distancing);and even worse, the use of FFRs with exhalation valves in the community may be an additional and underrecognized transmission source. The European Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and Africa Centre for Disease Prevention and Control have provided clear statements against their use in the community setting.7,8 The US Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) recommended against their use in healthcare settings where a sterile field must be maintained, thus implying that the outward protection is not provided by FFRs.9 Recently, the City and County of San Francisco explicitly listed respirators with one-way valves among those forbidden for use in the community, clarifying that they ‘allow droplets out of the mask, putting others nearby at risk,’ thus not complying with the face-covering order.10 Communication campaigns should aim to promote the wearing of masks as a source control measure and to increase awareness that FFR supplies are already insufficient to protect highly exposed workers.

Different epidemiology of bloodstream infections in COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 critically ill patients: a descriptive analysis of the Eurobact II study.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. METHODS: We used data from the Eurobact II study, a prospective observational multicontinental cohort study on HABSI treated in ICU. For the current analysis, we selected centers that included both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. We performed descriptive statistics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 in terms of patients' characteristics, source of infection and microorganism distribution. We studied the association between COVID-19 status and mortality using multivariable fragility Cox models. RESULTS: A total of 53 centers from 19 countries over the 5 continents were eligible. Overall, 829 patients (median age 65 years [IQR 55; 74]; male, n = 538 [64.9%]) were treated for a HABSI. Included patients comprised 252 (30.4%) COVID-19 and 577 (69.6%) non-COVID-19 patients. The time interval between hospital admission and HABSI was similar between both groups. Respiratory sources (40.1 vs. 26.0%, p < 0.0001) and primary HABSI (25.4% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.006) were more frequent in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients had more often enterococcal (20.5% vs. 9%) and Acinetobacter spp. (18.8% vs. 13.6%) HABSIs. Bacteremic COVID-19 patients had an increased mortality hazard ratio (HR) versus non-COVID-19 patients (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.49-2.45). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that the epidemiology of HABSI differed between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Enterococcal HABSI predominated in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients with HABSI had elevated risk of mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.org number NCT03937245 . Registered 3 May 2019.

Level of Diffusion and Training of Lung Ultrasound during the COVID-19 Pandemic - A National Online Italian Survey (ITALUS) from the Lung Ultrasound Working Group of the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).

PURPOSE: The goal of this survey was to describe the use and diffusion of lung ultrasound (LUS), the level of training received before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the clinical impact LUS has had on COVID-19 cases in intensive care units (ICU) from February 2020 to May 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Italian Lung Ultrasound Survey (ITALUS) was a nationwide online survey proposed to Italian anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians carried out after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It consisted of 27 questions, both quantitative and qualitative. RESULTS: 807 responded to the survey. The median previous LUS experience was 3 years (IQR 1.0-6.0). 473 (60.9 %) reported having attended at least one training course on LUS before the COVID-19 pandemic. 519 (73.9 %) reported knowing how to use the LUS score. 404 (52 %) reported being able to use LUS without any supervision. 479 (68.2 %) said that LUS influenced their clinical decision-making, mostly with respect to patient monitoring. During the pandemic, the median of patients daily evaluated with LUS increased 3-fold (p < 0.001), daily use of general LUS increased from 10.4 % to 28.9 % (p < 0.001), and the daily use of LUS score in particular increased from 1.6 % to 9.0 % (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This survey showed that LUS was already extensively used during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic by anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians in Italy, and then its adoption increased further. Residency programs are already progressively implementing LUS teaching. However, 76.7 % of the sample did not undertake any LUS certification.

Comment on Liu et al. Application of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19: A Narrative Review. Life 2022, 12, 1419.

We read the article "Application of High-Flow Nasal Cannula in COVID-19: A Narrative Review" by Liu and colleagues [...].

Nasal pressure swings as the measure of inspiratory effort in spontaneously breathing patients with de novo acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Excessive inspiratory effort could translate into self-inflicted lung injury, thus worsening clinical outcomes of spontaneously breathing patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Although esophageal manometry is a reliable method to estimate the magnitude of inspiratory effort, procedural issues significantly limit its use in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study is to describe the correlation between esophageal pressure swings (ΔPes) and nasal (ΔPnos) as a potential measure of inspiratory effort in spontaneously breathing patients with de novo ARF. METHODS: From January 1, 2021, to September 1, 2021, 61 consecutive patients with ARF (83.6% related to COVID-19) admitted to the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (RICU) of the University Hospital of Modena (Italy) and candidate to escalation of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) were enrolled. Clinical features and tidal changes in esophageal and nasal pressure were recorded on admission and 24 h after starting NRS. Correlation between ΔPes and ΔPnos served as primary outcome. The effect of ΔPnos measurements on respiratory rate and ΔPes was also assessed. RESULTS: ΔPes and ΔPnos were strongly correlated at admission (R2 = 0.88, p < 0.001) and 24 h apart (R2 = 0.94, p < 0.001). The nasal plug insertion and the mouth closure required for ΔPnos measurement did not result in significant change of respiratory rate and ΔPes. The correlation between measures at 24 h remained significant even after splitting the study population according to the type of NRS (high-flow nasal cannulas [R2 = 0.79, p < 0.001] or non-invasive ventilation [R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with ARF, nasal pressure swings did not alter respiratory mechanics in the short term and were highly correlated with esophageal pressure swings during spontaneous tidal breathing. ΔPnos might warrant further investigation as a measure of inspiratory effort in patients with ARF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03826797 . Registered October 2016.

Cardiac arrest and coronavirus disease 2019.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the cardiovascular system has been highlighted since the very first weeks after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 identification. We reviewed the influence of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac arrest, both considering those occurred out of the hospital (OHCA) and in the hospital (IHCA). RECENT FINDINGS: An increase in OHCA incidence occurred in different countries, especially in those regions most burdened by the COVID-19, as this seems to be bounded to the pandemic trend. A change of OHCA patients' characteristics, with an increase of the OHCA occurred at home, a decrease in bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use before Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrival and an increase in non-shockable rhythms, have been highlighted. A dramatic drop in the OHCA patients' survival was pointed out in almost all the countries, regardless of the high or low-incidence of COVID-19 cases. Concerning IHCA, a reduction in survival was highlighted in patients with COVID-19 who sustained a cardiac arrest. SUMMARY: Cardiac arrest occurrence and survival were deeply affected by the pandemic. Informative campaigns to the population to call EMS in case of need and the re-allocation of the prehospital resources basing on the pandemic trend are needed to improve survival.

Timing of surgery and elective perioperative management of patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: a SIAARTI expert consensus statement

Background The appropriate timing of surgery and perioperative management of patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection are open issues. The purpose of this document is to support the clinical decision-making process regarding the patient with previous Sars-CoV-2 infection to undergo elective surgery. The recipients of this document are physicians, nurses, healthcare personnel, and other professionals involved in the patient’s surgical process. Methods The Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected 11 experts to reach a consensus on key aspects of this theme in adult and pediatric population. The methods of this process document were in accordance to the principles of rapid review of the scientific literature and modified Delphi method. The experts produced statements and supporting reasons in the form of an informative text. The overall list of statements was subjected to a vote in order to express the degree of consent. Results Patients should not undergo elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection unless there is the risk of a negative evolution of the disease. To mitigate the risk of postsurgical mortality, a multidisciplinary approach seemed useful in addition to the use of validated algorithms to estimate the risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality;the risk related to SARS-CoV-2 infection should be added. The risk of potential nosocomial contagion from a positive patients should also be considered when deciding to proceed with surgery. Most of the evidence came from previous SARS-CoV-2 variants, so the evidence should be considered indirect. Conclusion A balanced preoperative multidisciplinary risk–benefit evaluation is needed in patients with previous infection by SARS-CoV-2 for elective surgery. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44158-022-00058-3.

Variation in communication and family visiting policies in intensive care within and between countries during the Covid-19 pandemic: The COVISIT international survey.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) introduced restrictions to in-person family visiting to safeguard patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey (March-July 2021) investigating ICU visiting practices before the pandemic, at peak COVID-19 ICU admissions, and at the time of survey response. We sought data on visiting policies and communication modes including use of virtual visiting (videoconferencing). RESULTS: We obtained 667 valid responses representing ICUs in all continents. Before the pandemic, 20% (106/525) had unrestricted visiting hours; 6% (30/525) did not allow in-person visiting. At peak, 84% (558/667) did not allow in-person visiting for patients with COVID-19; 66% for patients without COVID-19. This proportion had decreased to 55% (369/667) at time of survey reporting. A government mandate to restrict hospital visiting was reported by 53% (354/646). Most ICUs (55%, 353/615) used regular telephone updates; 50% (306/667) used telephone for formal meetings and discussions regarding prognosis or end-of-life. Virtual visiting was available in 63% (418/667) at time of survey. CONCLUSIONS: Highly restrictive visiting policies were introduced at the initial pandemic peaks, were subsequently liberalized, but without returning to pre-pandemic practices. Telephone became the primary communication mode in most ICUs, supplemented with virtual visits.

Emotional status and fear in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide cross-sectional survey (COVID-SURGERY).

BACKGROUND: Fragmented data exist on the emotional and psychological distress generated by hospital admission during the pandemic in specific populations of patients, and no data exists on patients scheduled for surgery. The aim of this multicentre nationwide prospective cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the impact of pandemic on emotional status and fear of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in a cohort of elective surgical patients in Italy, scheduled for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Twenty-nine Italian centres were involved in the study, for a total of 2376 patients surveyed (mean age of 58 years ± 16.61; 49.6% males). The survey consisted of 28 total closed questions, including four study outcome questions. More than half of patients had at least one chronic disease (54%), among which cardiovascular diseases were the commonest (58%). The most frequent type of surgery was abdominal (20%), under general anaesthesia (64%). Almost half of the patients (46%) declared to be frightened of going to the hospital for routine checkups; 55% to be afraid of getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and 62% were feared of being hospitalised without seeing family members. Having an oncological disease and other patient-related, centre-related or perioperative factors were independently associated with an increased risk of fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization and of being hospitalised without seeing family members. A previous infection due to SARS-COV-2 was associated with a reduced risk of worse emotional outcomes and fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Patients who showed the most emotionally vulnerable profile (e.g. use of sleep-inducing drugs, higher fear of surgery or anaesthesia) were at higher risk of worse emotional status towards the hospitalization during COVID-19 pandemic. Being operated in hospitals with lower surgical volume and with COVID-19 wards was associated with worse emotional status and fear of contagion. CONCLUSIONS: Additional fear and worse emotional status may be frequent in patients scheduled for elective surgery during COVID-19 pandemic. More than half of the participants to the survey were worried about not being able to receive family visits. Psychological support may be considered for patients at higher risk of psychological distress to improve perioperative wellbeing during the pandemic.

Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care expert consensus statement on the use of lung ultrasound in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (ITACO).

BACKGROUND: To produce statements based on the available evidence and an expert consensus (as members of the Lung Ultrasound Working Group of the Italian Society of Analgesia, Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care, SIAARTI) on the use of lung ultrasound for the management of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: A modified Delphi method was applied by a panel of anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians expert in the use of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 intensive critically ill patients to reach a consensus on ten clinical questions concerning the role of lung ultrasound in the following: COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring (with and without invasive mechanical ventilation), positive end expiratory pressure titration, the use of prone position, the early diagnosis of pneumothorax- or ventilator-associated pneumonia, the process of weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation, and the need for radiologic chest imaging. RESULTS: A total of 20 statements were produced by the panel. Agreement was reached on 18 out of 20 statements (scoring 7-9; "appropriate") in the first round of voting, while 2 statements required a second round for agreement to be reached. At the end of the two Delphi rounds, the median score for the 20 statements was 8.5 [IQR 8.9], and the agreement percentage was 100%. CONCLUSION: The Lung Ultrasound Working Group of the Italian Society of Analgesia, Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care produced 20 consensus statements on the use of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. This expert consensus strongly suggests integrating lung ultrasound findings in the clinical management of critically ill COVID-19 patients.