Co-Infection and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Considering virus-related and drug-induced immunocompromised status of critically ill COVID-19 patients, we hypothesize that these patients would more frequently develop ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) than patients with ARDS from other viral causes. We conducted a retrospective observational study in two intensive care units (ICUs) from France, between 2017 and 2020. We compared bacterial co-infection at ICU admission and throughout the disease course of two retrospective longitudinally sampled groups of critically ill patients, who were admitted to ICU for either H1N1 or SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection and depicted moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria upon admission. Sixty patients in the H1N1 group and 65 in the COVID-19 group were included in the study. Bacterial co-infection at the endotracheal intubation time was diagnosed in 33% of H1N1 and 16% COVID-19 patients (p = 0.08). The VAP incidence per 100 days of mechanical ventilation was 3.4 (2.2-5.2) in the H1N1 group and 7.2 (5.3-9.6) in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.004). The HR to develop VAP was of 2.33 (1.34-4.04) higher in the COVID-19 group (p = 0.002). Ten percent of H1N1 patients and 30% of the COVID-19 patients had a second episode of VAP (p = 0.013). COVID-19 patients have fewer bacterial co-infections upon admission, but the incidence of secondary infections increased faster in this group compared to H1N1 patients.

Mass Training In Situ During COVID-19 Pandemic: Enhancing Efficiency and Minimizing Sick Leaves.

INTRODUCTION: Avoiding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related infection in frontline healthcare workers is a major challenge. A massive training program was launched in our university hospital for anesthesia/intensive care unit and operating room staff, aiming at upskilling 2249 healthcare workers for COVID-19 patients' management. We hypothesized that such a massive training was feasible in a 2-week time frame and efficient in avoiding sick leaves. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study. Training focused on personal protective equipment donning/doffing and airway management in a COVID-19 simulated patient. The educational models used were in situ procedural and immersive simulation, peer-teaching, and rapid cycle deliberate practice. Self-learning organization principles were used for trainers' management. Ordinary disease quantity in full-time equivalent in March and April 2020 were compared with the same period in 2017, 2018, and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1668 healthcare workers were trained (74.2% of the target population) in 99 training sessions over 11 days. The median number of learners per session was 16 (interquartile range = 9-25). In the first 5 days, the median number of people trained per weekday was 311 (interquartile range = 124-385). Sick leaves did not increase in March to April 2020 compared with the same period in the 3 preceding years. CONCLUSIONS: Massive training for COVID-19 patient management in frontline healthcare workers is feasible in a very short time and efficient in limiting the rate of sick leave. This experience could be used in the anticipation of new COVID-19 waves or for rapidly preparing hospital staff for an unexpected major health crisis.

Hydroxychloroquine in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: What Still Needs to Be Known About the Kinetics.

Different dosage regimens of hydroxychloroquine are used to manage coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, without information on the pharmacokinetics in this population. Blood samples (n = 101) were collected from 57 COVID-19 patients for 7 days, and concentrations were compared with simulated kinetic profiles. Hydroxychloroquine exposure is low and cannot be predicted by other populations.

Cardiac imaging phenotype in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): results of the cocarde study.

Biological cardiac injury related to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 infection has been associated with excess mortality. However, its functional impact remains unknown. The aim of our study was to explore the impact of biological cardiac injury on myocardial functions in patients with COVID-19. 31 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (CoV+) and 16 controls (CoV-) were prospectively included in this observational study. Demographic data, laboratory findings, comorbidities, treatments and myocardial function assessed by transthoracic echocardiography were collected and analysed in CoV+ with (TnT+) and without (TnT-) elevation of troponin T levels and compared with CoV-. Among CoV+, 13 (42%) exhibited myocardial injury. CoV+/TnT + patients were older, had lower diastolic arterial pressure and were more likely to have hypertension and chronic renal failure compared with CoV+/TnT-. The control group was comparable except for an absence of biological inflammatory syndrome. Left ventricular ejection fraction and global longitudinal strain were not different among the three groups. There was a trend of decreased myocardial work and increased peak systolic tricuspid annular velocity between the CoV- and CoV + patients, which became significant when comparing CoV- and CoV+/TnT+ (2167 ± 359 vs. 1774 ± 521%/mmHg, P = 0.047 and 14 ± 3 vs. 16 ± 3 cm/s, P = 0.037, respectively). There was a decrease of global work efficiency from CoV- (96 ± 2%) to CoV+/TnT- (94 ± 4%) and then CoV+/TnT+ (93 ± 3%, P = 0.042). In conclusion, biological myocardial injury in COVID 19 has low functional impact on left ventricular systolic function.