Post severe COVID-19 infection lung damages study. The experience of early three months multidisciplinary follow-up.

The correct type and time of follow-up for patients affected by COVID19 ARDS is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate at the survivors to COVID19 ARDS requiring non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) admitted to a Respiratory Intensive care unit (RICU) from March 8th till May 31th 2020 looking at all sequelae via a comprehensive follow up. All patients underwent a multi-disciplinary instrumental and clinical assessment within three months form admission to evaluate all infection related sequelae. Thirty-eight patients were enrolled Lung-Ultrasound (LUS) showed an outstanding discrimination ability (ROC AUC: 0.95) and a substantial agreement rate (Cohen's K: 0.74) compared to chest CT-scan detecting improvement of lung consolidations. Youden's test showed a cut-off pressure of 11 cmH2O ExpiratoryPAP-Continuous-PAP-max (EPAP-CPAP) applied at the airways during hospitalization to be significantly correlated (p value: 0.026) to the increased pulmonary artery common trunk diameter. A total of 8/38 patients (21.8%), 2 of whom during follow-up, were diagnosed with Pulmonary Emboli (PE) and started anticoagulant treatment. Patients with PE had a statistically significant shorter length of time of hospitalization, time to negative swab, CPAP/NIV duration, P/F ratio and D-dimers at follow-up compared to non PE. A comprehensive approach to patients with ARDS COVID19 requiring NRS is necessary. This study highlighted cardiopulmonary impairment related to the ARDS and to the high-EPAP-CPAP-max greater than 11mmHg provided during admission, the usefulness of LUS in monitoring post-infection recovery and the correct identification and  treatment of patients with PE during follow up.

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.

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.

Surgical mask and N95 in healthcare workers of Covid-19 departments: clinical and social aspects.

Introdution. In order to prevent or slow down the transmission of COVID-19, various public health measures have been introduced, including social distancing, environmental disinfection and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). In this perspective, the clinical practice of healthcare professionals has changed dramatically. As a matter of fact, the use of surgical masks and N95 has significantly worsened the job performance of workers who deal directly with COVID-19 disease. METHODS: The study included 116 health workers employed in the pulmonology, intensive care and infectious diseases departments of Bari and Foggia Hospital, directly involved in the healthcare of patients affected by COVID-19. Between May 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020, each participant completed an online questionnaire aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers' lifestyle changes and job performances. We compared the results based on the type of mask used by each participant (surgical mask vs N95). RESULTS: Although disturbances related to the use of the mask arose earlier in subjects who wore the N95 (p = 0.0094), healthcare workers that wore surgical masks reported a statistically higher average score for a greater number of disorders. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that compares the effects of the two most used PPE on the quality of life of health workers and which highlights the greater discomfort caused by surgical masks. This result brings to light a serious social problem, being surgical masks widely used in everyday life by ordinary people and non-healthcare workers.