Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Crit Care Med ; 48(12): e1332-e1336, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1895840

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Clinical observation suggests that early acute respiratory distress syndrome induced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may be "atypical" due to a discrepancy between a relatively unaffected static respiratory system compliance and a significant hypoxemia. This would imply an "atypical" response to the positive end-expiratory pressure. DESIGN: Single-center, unblinded, crossover study. SETTING: ICU of Bari Policlinico Academic Hospital (Italy), dedicated to care patients with confirmed diagnosis of novel coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Eight patients with early severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 acute respiratory distress syndrome and static respiratory compliance higher than or equal to 50 mL/cm H2O. INTERVENTIONS: We compared a "lower" and a "higher" positive end-expiratory pressure approach, respectively, according to the intervention arms of the acute respiratory distress syndrome network and the positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome studies. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were ventilated with the acute respiratory distress syndrome network and, subsequently, with the ExPress protocol. After 1 hour of ventilation, for each protocol, we recorded arterial blood gas, respiratory mechanics, alveolar recruitment, and hemodynamic variables. Comparisons were performed with analysis of variance for repeated measures or Friedman test as appropriate. Positive end-expiratory pressure was increased from 9 ± 3.5 to 17.7 ± 1.7 cm H2O (p < 0.01). Alveolar recruitment was 450 ± 111 mL. Static respiratory system compliance decreased from 58.3 ± 7.6 mL/cm H2O to 47.4 ± 14.5 mL/cm H2O (p = 0.018) and the "stress index" increased from 0.97 ± 0.03 to 1.22 ± 0.07 (p < 0.001). The PaO2/FIO2 ratio increased from 131 ± 22 to 207 ± 41 (p < 0.001), and the PaCO2 increased from 45.9 ± 12.7 to 49.8 ± 13.2 mm Hg (p < 0.001). The cardiac index went from 3.6 ± 0.4 to 2.9 ± 0.6 L/min/m (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the "higher" positive end-expiratory pressure approach in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 acute respiratory distress syndrome and high compliance improves oxygenation and lung aeration but may result in alveolar hyperinflation and hemodynamic alterations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Blood Gas Analysis , Cross-Over Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Mechanics/physiology , SARS-CoV-2
2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(2)2022 Feb 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1687067

ABSTRACT

The Omicron variant of concern (VOC), first detected in Italy at the end of November 2021, has since spread rapidly, despite high vaccine coverage in the Italian population, especially in healthcare workers (HCWs). This study describes an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in 15 booster-vaccinated HCWs. On 16 December 2021, two HCWs working in the same ward were infected with SARS-CoV-2. The Omicron VOC was suspected due to S gene target failure on molecular testing. Further investigation revealed that 15 (65%) of 23 HCWs attending a social gathering on 13 December were infected with Omicron, as shown by whole-genome sequencing, with a phylogenetic tree suggesting a common source of exposure. Five of these HCWs experienced mild symptoms. A patient with multiple chronic conditions hospitalized in the same ward was also infected by one of the HCWs involved in the outbreak. Despite being booster vaccinated, this patient required ICU treatment. Ten subjects achieved negativity in 10-19 days. The outbreak in booster-vaccinated subjects confirms the high transmissibility and immune evasion of the Omicron VOC. More stringent non-pharmaceutical interventions, administration of booster doses, and genomic surveillance are crucial long-term strategies to mitigate the consequences of the spread of the Omicron VOC.

3.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 10(6)2021 May 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256419

ABSTRACT

Cefiderocol is a new cephalosporin displaying against extensively resistant (XDR) Gram-negative bacteria. We report our experience with cefiderocol-based combination therapies as "rescue" treatments in immunocompromised or critically ill patients or in patients with post-surgical infections who had failed previous regimens. A total of 13 patients were treated from 1 September 2020 to 31 March 2021. In total, 5/13 (38%) patients were classified as critically ill, due to severe COVID-19 lung failure; 4/13 (31%) patients had post-surgical infections and 4/13 (31%) had severe infections in immunocompromised subjects due to solid organ transplantation (2/4) or hematological malignancy (2/4). Overall, 10/13 infections were caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, one by KPC-positive ceftazidime/avibactam-resistant Klebsiella pneumonia and two by Pseudomonas aeruginosa XDR. Based on clinical, microbiological and hematobiochemical evaluation, cefiderocol was associated with different companion drugs, particularly with fosfomycin, high-dose tigecycline and/or colistin. Microbiological eradication was achieved in all cases and the 30-day survival rate was 10/13; two patients died due to SARS-CoV-2 lung failure, whereas one death was attributed to subsequent infections. No recurrent infections within 30 days were reported. Finally, we hereby discuss the therapeutic potential of cefiderocol and the possible place in the therapy of this novel drug.

5.
J Thromb Thrombolysis ; 52(3): 772-778, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1176387

ABSTRACT

It is still debated whether prophylactic doses of low-molecular- weight heparin (LMWH) are always effective in preventing Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) and mortality in COVID-19. Furthermore, there is paucity of data for those patients not requiring ventilation. We explored mortality and the safety/efficacy profile of LMWH in a cohort of Italian patients with COVID-19 who did not undergo ventilation. From the initial cohort of 422 patients, 264 were enrolled. Most (n = 156, 87.7%) received standard LMWH prophylaxis during hospitalization, with no significant difference between medical wards and Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Major or not major but clinically relevant hemorrhages were recorded in 13 (4.9%) patients: twelve in those taking prophylactic LMWH and one in a patient taking oral anticoagulants (p: n.s.). Thirty-nine patients (14.8%) with median age 75 years. were transfused. Hemoglobin (Hb) at admission was significantly lower in transfused patients and Hb at admission inversely correlated with the number of red blood cells units transfused (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality occurred in 76 (28.8%) patients, 46 (24.3%) of whom admitted to medical wards. Furthermore, Hb levels at admittance were significantly lower in fatalities (g/dl 12.3; IQR 2.4 vs. 13.3; IQR 2.8; Mann-Whitney U-test; p = 0.001). After the exclusion of patients treated by LMWH intermediate or therapeutic doses (n = 32), the logistic regression showed that prophylaxis significantly and independently reduced mortality (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.85). Present data show that COVID-19 patients who do not require ventilation benefit from prophylactic doses of LMWH.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Transfusion , COVID-19/therapy , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Blood Transfusion/mortality , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Clinical Decision-Making , Female , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/adverse effects , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Protective Factors , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Thromboembolism/blood , Thromboembolism/diagnosis , Thromboembolism/mortality , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
6.
J Clin Med ; 10(2)2021 Jan 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1021981

ABSTRACT

There is paucity of data on the transfusion need and its impact on the overall mortality in patients with COVID-19. We explored mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who required transfusions. Information on clinical variables and in-hospital mortality were obtained from medical records of 422 patients admitted to medical wards or the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). In-hospital mortality occurred in 147 (34.8%) patients, 94 (63.9%) of whom were admitted to the ICU. The median fatalities age was 77 years (IQR 14). Overall, 100 patients (60 males) received transfusion during hospitalization. The overall mortality was significantly and independently associated with age, ICU admission, Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), and the number of transfused Red Blood Cell (RBC) units. Specifically, CKD was associated with mortality in patients admitted to medical wards, whereas the number of transfused RBC units predicted mortality in those admitted to the ICU. Transfusion strongly interacted with the admission to ICU (OR: 9.9; 95% CI: 2.5-40.0). In patients with COVID-19, age is one of the strongest risk factors in predicting mortality independently of the disease's severity. CKD confers a higher risk of mortality in patients admitted to medical wards. In those admitted to the ICU, the more RBC units are transfused, the more mortality increases.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL