Pulmonary pathophysiology development of COVID-19 assessed by serial Electrical Impedance Tomography in the MaastrICCht cohort.

Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection present with different lung compliance and progression of disease differs. Measures of lung mechanics in SARS-CoV-2 patients may unravel different pathophysiologic mechanisms during mechanical ventilation. The objective of this prospective observational study is to describe whether Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels unravel changes in EIT-derived parameters over time and whether the changes differ between survivors and non-survivors. Serial EIT-measurements of alveolar overdistension, collapse, and compliance change in ventilated SARS-CoV-2 patients were analysed. In 80 out of 94 patients, we took 283 EIT measurements (93 from day 1-3 after intubation, 66 from day 4-6, and 124 from day 7 and beyond). Fifty-one patients (64%) survived the ICU. At admission mean PaO2/FiO2-ratio was 184.3 (SD 61.4) vs. 151.3 (SD 54.4) mmHg, (p = 0.017) and PEEP was 11.8 (SD 2.8) cmH2O vs. 11.3 (SD 3.4) cmH2O, (p = 0.475), for ICU survivors and non-survivors. At day 1-3, compliance was ~ 55 mL/cmH2O vs. ~ 45 mL/cmH2O in survivors vs. non-survivors. The intersection of overdistension and collapse curves appeared similar at a PEEP of ~ 12-13 cmH2O. At day 4-6 compliance changed to ~ 50 mL/cmH2O vs. ~ 38 mL/cmH2O. At day 7 and beyond, compliance was ~ 38 mL/cmH2O with the intersection at a PEEP of ~ 9 cmH2O vs. ~ 25 mL/cmH2O with overdistension intersecting at collapse curves at a PEEP of ~ 7 cmH2O. Surviving SARS-CoV-2 patients show more favourable EIT-derived parameters and a higher compliance compared to non-survivors over time. This knowledge is valuable for discovering the different groups.

Differences and Similarities Among COVID-19 Patients Treated in Seven ICUs in Three Countries Within One Region: An Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate healthcare system-driven variation in general characteristics, interventions, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the ICU within one Western European region across three countries. DESIGN: Multicenter observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: Consecutive COVID-19 patients supported in the ICU during the first pandemic wave. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory values, and outcome data were retrieved after ethical approval and data-sharing agreements. Descriptive statistics were performed to investigate country-related practice variation. From March 2, 2020, to August 12, 2020, 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, and 29% were female. At admission, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 15.0 ± 5.5, 16.8 ± 5.5, and 15.8 ± 5.3 (p = 0.002), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 4.4 ± 2.7, 7.4 ± 2.2, and 7.7 ± 3.2 (p < 0.001) in the Belgian, Dutch, and German parts of Euregio, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 22%, 42%, and 44%, respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences were observed in the frequency of organ support, antimicrobial/inflammatory therapy application, and ICU capacity. Mixed-multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that differences in ICU mortality were independent of age, sex, disease severity, comorbidities, support strategies, therapies, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within one region, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, differed significantly in general characteristics, applied interventions, and outcomes despite presumed genetic and socioeconomic background, admission diagnosis, access to international literature, and data collection are similar. Variances in healthcare systems' organization, particularly ICU capacity and admission criteria, combined with a rapidly spreading pandemic might be important drivers for the observed differences. Heterogeneity between patient groups but also healthcare systems should be presumed to interfere with outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019.

Functional Outcomes and Their Association With Physical Performance in Mechanically Ventilated Coronavirus Disease 2019 Survivors at 3 Months Following Hospital Discharge: A Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a comprehensive health assessment in mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 survivors to assess the impact of respiratory and skeletal muscle injury sustained during ICU stay on physical performance at 3 months following hospital discharge. DESIGN: Preregistered prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: University hospital ICU. PATIENTS: All mechanically ventilated coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted to our ICU during the first European pandemic wave. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 3 months after hospital discharge, 46 survivors underwent a comprehensive physical assessment (6-min walking distance, Medical Research Council sum score and handgrip strength), a full pulmonary function test, and a chest CT scan which was used to analyze skeletal muscle architecture. In addition, patient-reported outcomes measures were collected. Physical performance assessed by 6-minute walking distance was below 80% of predicted in 48% of patients. Patients with impaired physical performance had more muscle weakness (Medical Research Council sum score 53 [51-56] vs 59 [56-60]; p < 0.001), lower lung diffusing capacity (54% [44-66%] vs 68% of predicted [61-72% of predicted]; p = 0.002), and higher intermuscular adipose tissue area (p = 0.037). Reduced lung diffusing capacity and increased intermuscular adipose tissue were independently associated with physical performance. CONCLUSIONS: Physical disability is common at 3 months in severe coronavirus disease 2019 survivors. Lung diffusing capacity and intermuscular adipose tissue assessed on CT were independently associated with walking distance, suggesting a key role for pulmonary function and muscle quality in functional disability.

Anti-C5a antibody IFX-1 (vilobelimab) treatment versus best supportive care for patients with severe COVID-19 (PANAMO): an exploratory, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe COVID-19 is characterised by inflammation and coagulation in the presence of complement system activation. We aimed to explore the potential benefit and safety of selectively blocking the anaphylatoxin and complement protein C5a with the monoclonal antibody IFX-1 (vilobelimab), in patients with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an exploratory, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial (part of the adaptive phase 2/3 PANAMO trial) of intravenous IFX-1 in adults with severe COVID-19 at three academic hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligibility criteria were age 18 years or older; severe pneumonia with pulmonary infiltrates consistent with pneumonia, a clinical history of severe shortness of breath within the past 14 days, or a need for non-invasive or invasive ventilation; severe disease defined as a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (PaO2/FiO2) between 100 mm Hg and 250 mm Hg in the supine position; and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive IFX-1 (up to seven doses of 800 mg intravenously) plus best supportive care (IFX-1 group) or best supportive care only (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage change in PaO2/FiO2 in the supine position between baseline and day 5. Mortality at 28 days and treatment-emergent and serious adverse events were key secondary outcomes. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in all patients according to treatment received. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04333420). FINDINGS: Between March 31 and April 24, 2020, 30 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the IFX-1 group (n=15) or the control group (n=15). During the study it became clear that several patients could not be assessed regularly in the supine position because of severe hypoxaemia. It was therefore decided to focus on all PaO2/FiO2 assessments (irrespective of position). At day 5 after randomisation, the mean PaO2/FiO2 (irrespective of position) was 158 mm Hg (SD 63; range 84-265) in the IFX-1 group and 189 mm Hg (89; 71-329) in the control group. Analyses of the least squares mean relative change in PaO2/FiO2 at day 5 showed no differences between treatment groups (17% change in the IFX-1 group vs 41% in the control group; difference -24% [95% CI -58 to 9], p=0·15. Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days were 13% (95% CI 0-31) for the IFX-1 group and 27% (4-49) for the control group (adjusted hazard ratio for death 0·65 [95% CI 0·10-4·14]). The frequency of serious adverse events were similar between groups (nine [60%] in the IFX-1 group vs seven [47%] in the control group) and no deaths were considered related to treatment assignment. However, a smaller proportion of patients had pulmonary embolisms classed as serious in the IFX-1 group (two [13%]) than in the control group (six [40%]). Infections classed as serious were reported in three (20%) patients in the IFX-1 group versus five (33%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION: In this small exploratory phase 2 part of the PANAMO trial, C5a inhibition with IFX-1 appears to be safe in patients with severe COVID-19. The secondary outcome results in favour of IFX-1 are preliminary because the study was not powered on these endpoints, but they support the investigation of C5a inhibition with IFX-1 in a phase 3 trial using 28-day mortality as the primary endpoint. FUNDING: InflaRx.

Decreased serial scores of severe organ failure assessments are associated with survival in mechanically ventilated patients; the prospective Maastricht Intensive Care COVID cohort.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for mechanical ventilation. The role of multi-organ failure during ICU admission as driver for outcome remains to be investigated yet. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort of mechanically ventilated critically ill with SARS-CoV-2 infection. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: 94 participants of the MaastrICCht cohort (21% women) had a median length of stay of 16 days (maximum of 77). After division into survivors (n = 59) and non-survivors (n = 35), we analysed 1555 serial SOFA scores using linear mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Survivors improved one SOFA score point more per 5 days (95% CI: 4-8) than non-survivors. Adjustment for age, sex, and chronic lung, renal and liver disease, body-mass index, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular risk factors, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score did not change this result. This association was stronger for women than men (P-interaction = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in SOFA score associated with survival suggests multi-organ failure involvement during mechanical ventilation in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Surviving women appeared to improve faster than surviving men. Serial SOFA scores may unravel an unfavourable trajectory and guide decisions in mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2.

Serial measurements in COVID-19-induced acute respiratory disease to unravel heterogeneity of the disease course: design of the Maastricht Intensive Care COVID cohort (MaastrICCht).

INTRODUCTION: The course of the disease in SARS-CoV-2 infection in mechanically ventilated patients is unknown. To unravel the clinical heterogeneity of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in these patients, we designed the prospective observational Maastricht Intensive Care COVID cohort (MaastrICCht). We incorporated serial measurements that harbour aetiological, diagnostic and predictive information. The study aims to investigate the heterogeneity of the natural course of critically ill patients with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the intensive care with a SARS-CoV-2 infection will be included. We will collect clinical variables, vital parameters, laboratory variables, mechanical ventilator settings, chest electrical impedance tomography, ECGs, echocardiography as well as other imaging modalities to assess heterogeneity of the course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill patients. The MaastrICCht is also designed to foster various other studies and registries and intends to create an open-source database for investigators. Therefore, a major part of the data collection is aligned with an existing national intensive care data registry and two international COVID-19 data collection initiatives. Additionally, we create a flexible design, so that additional measures can be added during the ongoing study based on new knowledge obtained from the rapidly growing body of evidence. The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic requires the swift implementation of observational research to unravel heterogeneity of the natural course of the disease of SARS-CoV-2 infection in mechanically ventilated patients. Our study design is expected to enhance aetiological, diagnostic and prognostic understanding of the disease. This paper describes the design of the MaastrICCht. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the medical ethics committee (Medisch Ethische Toetsingscommissie 2020-1565/3 00 523) of the Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (Maastricht UMC+), which will be performed based on the Declaration of Helsinki. During the pandemic, the board of directors of Maastricht UMC+ adopted a policy to inform patients and ask their consent to use the collected data and to store serum samples for COVID-19 research purposes. All study documentation will be stored securely for fifteen years after recruitment of the last patient. The results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, with a preference for open access journals, while particularly considering deposition of the manuscripts on a preprint server early. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The Netherlands Trial Register (NL8613).