Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 44
Filter
1.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(5): e36261, 2022 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862513

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The LOVIT (Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C) trial is a blinded multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing high-dose intravenous vitamin C to placebo in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis and receiving a vasopressor. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a prespecified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the LOVIT trial prior to unblinding and locking of the trial database. METHODS: The SAP was designed by the LOVIT principal investigators and statisticians, and approved by the steering committee and coinvestigators. The SAP defines the primary and secondary outcomes, and describes the planned primary, secondary, and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The SAP includes a draft participant flow diagram, tables, and planned figures. The primary outcome is a composite of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or new renal replacement therapy) at 28 days, where day 1 is the day of randomization. All analyses will use a frequentist statistical framework. The analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the risk ratio and 95% CI in a generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution and log link, with site as a random effect. We will perform a secondary analysis adjusting for prespecified baseline clinical variables. Subgroup analyses will include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock, baseline ascorbic acid level, and COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an SAP for the LOVIT trial and will adhere to it in the analysis phase. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36261.

2.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 May 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832818

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-Day mortality vs IMV only Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand, and when initiated within the first 4 days of MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

3.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e059383, 2022 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1816767

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04808882.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Blood Coagulation , Humans , Microcirculation , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Quality of Life , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
4.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(6): 667-678, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800369

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Severely ill patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop circulatory failure. We aimed to report patterns of left and right ventricular dysfunction in the first echocardiography following admission to intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Retrospective, descriptive study that collected echocardiographic and clinical information from severely ill COVID-19 patients admitted to 14 ICUs in 8 countries. Patients admitted to ICU who received at least one echocardiography between 1st February 2020 and 30th June 2021 were included. Clinical and echocardiographic data were uploaded using a secured web-based electronic database (REDCap). RESULTS: Six hundred and seventy-seven patients were included and the first echo was performed 2 [1, 4] days after ICU admission. The median age was 65 [56, 73] years, and 71% were male. Left ventricle (LV) and/or right ventricle (RV) systolic dysfunction were found in 234 (34.5%) patients. 149 (22%) patients had LV systolic dysfunction (with or without RV dysfunction) without LV dilatation and no elevation in filling pressure. 152 (22.5%) had RV systolic dysfunction. In 517 patients with information on both paradoxical septal motion and quantitative RV size, 90 (17.4%) had acute cor pulmonale (ACP). ACP was associated with mechanical ventilation (OR > 4), pulmonary embolism (OR > 5) and increased PaCO2. Exploratory analyses showed that patients with ACP and older age were more likely to die in hospital (including ICU). CONCLUSION: Almost one-third of this cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients exhibited abnormal LV and/or RV systolic function in their first echocardiography assessment. While LV systolic dysfunction appears similar to septic cardiomyopathy, RV systolic dysfunction was related to pressure overload due to positive pressure ventilation, hypercapnia and pulmonary embolism. ACP and age seemed to be associated with mortality in this cohort.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Hypertension, Pulmonary , Pulmonary Embolism , Ventricular Dysfunction, Left , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right , Aged , Echocardiography , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Retrospective Studies , Ventricular Dysfunction, Right/diagnostic imaging
6.
J Clin Med ; 11(7)2022 Apr 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1776266

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with COVID-19, however, its mechanism is still controversial, particularly in ICU settings. Urinary proteinuria profile could be a non-invasive tool of interest to scrutinize the pathophysiological process underlying AKI in COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study between March 2020 and April 2020. All patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and without end-stage kidney disease requiring renal replacement therapy before ICU admission were included. Our objectives were to assess the incidence and risk factors for AKI and to describe its clinical and biological characteristics, particularly its urinary protein profile. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included; 87% needed mechanical ventilation and 61% needed vasopressor during their ICU stay; 64.3% of patients developed AKI and half of them needed dialysis. Total and tubular proteinuria on day 1 were higher in patients with AKI, whereas glomerular proteinuria was similar in both groups. The main risk factor for AKI was shock at admission (OR = 5.47 (1.74-17.2), p < 0.01). Mortality on day 28 was higher in AKI (23/45, 51.1%) than in no-AKI patients (1/25, 4%), p < 0.001. Risk factors for 28-days mortality were AKI with need for renal replacement therapy, non-renal SOFA score and history of congestive heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: AKI is common in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in ICU; it seems to be related to tubular lesions rather than glomerular injury and is related to shock at ICU admission.

9.
Respir Res ; 23(1): 68, 2022 Mar 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1759751

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patient hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pulmonary infection can have sequelae such as impaired exercise capacity. We aimed to determine the frequency of long-term exercise capacity limitation in survivors of severe COVID-19 pulmonary infection and the factors associated with this limitation. METHODS: Patients with severe COVID-19 pulmonary infection were enrolled 3 months after hospital discharge in COVulnerability, a prospective cohort. They underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing, pulmonary function test, echocardiography, and skeletal muscle mass evaluation. RESULTS: Among 105 patients included, 35% had a reduced exercise capacity (VO2peak < 80% of predicted). Compared to patients with a normal exercise capacity, patients with reduced exercise capacity were more often men (89.2% vs. 67.6%, p = 0.015), with diabetes (45.9% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.002) and renal dysfunction (21.6% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.006), but did not differ in terms of initial acute disease severity. An altered exercise capacity was associated with an impaired respiratory function as assessed by a decrease in forced vital capacity (p < 0.0001), FEV1 (p < 0.0001), total lung capacity (p < 0.0001) and DLCO (p = 0.015). Moreover, we uncovered a decrease of muscular mass index and grip test in the reduced exercise capacity group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.047 respectively), whilst 38.9% of patients with low exercise capacity had a sarcopenia, compared to 10.9% in those with normal exercise capacity (p = 0.001). Myocardial function was normal with similar systolic and diastolic parameters between groups whilst reduced exercise capacity was associated with a slightly shorter pulmonary acceleration time, despite no pulmonary hypertension. CONCLUSION: Three months after a severe COVID-19 pulmonary infection, more than one third of patients had an impairment of exercise capacity which was associated with a reduced pulmonary function, a reduced skeletal muscle mass and function but without any significant impairment in cardiac function.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Exercise Tolerance/physiology , Pneumonia/physiopathology , Aged , COVID-19/physiopathology , Cohort Studies , Echocardiography/methods , Echocardiography/statistics & numerical data , Exercise Test/methods , Exercise Test/statistics & numerical data , Exercise Tolerance/immunology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , France , Humans , Lung/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia/etiology , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Function Tests/methods , Respiratory Function Tests/statistics & numerical data , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology
10.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319895

ABSTRACT

Background: The goal of this study was to assess risk factors of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: . We conducted a monocenter retrospective study comparing the prevalence of VAP and invasive aspergillosis between patients with COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) and those with non-SARS-CoV-2 viral ARDS (NC-ARDS). Results: . We assessed 90 C-ARDS and 82 NC-ARDS patients, who were mechanically ventilated for more than 48 hours. At ICU admission, there were significantly fewer bacterial coinfections documented in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS: 14 (16%) vs 38 (48%), p<0.01. Conversely, significantly more patients developed at least one VAP episode in C-ARDS as compared with NC-ARDS : 58 (64%) vs. 36 (44%), p=0.007. The probability of VAP was significantly higher in C-ARDS after adjusting on death and ventilator weaning [sub-hazard ratio = 1.72 (1.14-2.52), p<0.01].The prevalence of multi-drug resistant bacteria (MDR) related VAP was significantly higher in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS: 21 (23%) vs. 9 (11%), p=0.03. Carbapenem was more used in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS: 48 (53%), vs 21 (26%), p<0.01. According to AspICU algorithm, there were fewer cases of putative aspergillosis in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS [2 (2%) vs. 12 (15%), p=0.003], but there was no difference in Aspergillus colonization. Conclusions: . In this retrospective case-control study, we evidenced a higher prevalence of VAP and MDR-VAP in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS, and a lower risk for invasive aspergillosis in the former group.

11.
Vieillard-Baron, Antoine, Flicoteaux, Rémi, Salmona, Maud, Annane, Djillali, Ayed, Soufia, Azoulay, Elie, Bellaiche, Raphael, Beloucif, Sadek, Berti, Enora, Bertier, Astrid, Besset, Sébastien, Bret, Marlène, Cariou, Alain, Carpentier, Christophe, Chaouch, Oussama, Chariot, Appoline, Charron, Cyril, Charpentier, Julien, Cheurfa, Cherifa, Cholley, Bernard, Clerc, Sébastien, Combes, Alain, Chousterman, Benjamin, Cohen, Yves, Constantin, Jean-Michel, Damoisel, Charles, Darmon, Michael, Degos, Vincent, D’Ableiges, Bertrand De Maupeou, Demeret, Sophie, Montmollin, Etienne De, Demoule, Alexandre, Depret, Francois, Diehl, Jean-Luc, Djibré, Michel, Do, Chung-Hi, Dudoignon, Emmanuel, Duranteau, Jacques, Fartoukh, Muriel, Fieux, Fabienne, Gayat, Etienne, Gennequin, Mael, Guidet, Bertrand, Gutton, Christophe, Hamada, Sophie, Heming, Nicholas, Jouffroy, Romain, Keita-Meyer, Hawa, Langeron, Olivier, Lortat-Jacob, Brice, Marey, Jonathan, Mebazaa, Alexandre, Megarbane, Bruno, Mekontso-Dessap, Armand, Mira, Jean-Paul, Molle, Julie, Mongardon, Nicolas, Montravers, Philippe, Morelot-Panzini, Capucine, Nemlaghi, Safaa, Nguyen, Bao-long, Parrot, Antoine, Pasqualotto, Romain, Peron, Nicolas, Picard, Lucile, de Chambrun, Marc Pineton, Planquette, Benjamin, Plaud, Benoit, Pons, Stéphanie, Quesnel, Christophe, Raphalen, Jean-Herlé, Razazi, Keyvan, Ricard, Jean-Damien, Roche, Anne, Rohaut, Benjamin, Roux, Damien, Savale, Laurent, Sobotka, Jennifer, Teboul, Jean-Louis, Timsit, Jean-François, Voiriot, Guillaume, Weiss, Emmanuel, Wildenberg, Lucille, Zogheib, Elie, Riou, Bruno, Batteux, Frédéric.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327150

ABSTRACT

Importance Information about the severity of Omicron is scarce. Objective To report the respective risk of ICU admission in patients hospitalized with Delta and Omicron variants and to compare the characteristics and disease severity of critically ill patients infected with both variants according to vaccination status. Design Analysis from the APHP database, called Reality, prospectively recording the following information in consecutive patients admitted in the ICU for COVID-19: age, sex, immunosuppression, vaccination, pneumonia, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, time between symptom onset and ICU admission, and in-ICU mortality. Retrospective analysis on an administrative database, “Système d’Information pour le Suivi des Victimes” (SI-VIC), which lists hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Setting 39 hospitals in the Paris area from APHP group. Participants Patients hospitalized from December 1, 2021 to January 18, 2022 for COVID-19. Main outcomes and measures Risk of ICU admission was evaluated in 3761 patients and Omicron cases were compared to Delta cases in the ICU in 888 consecutive patients. Results On January 18, 45% of patients in the ICU and 63.8% of patients in conventional hospital units were infected with the Omicron variant (p < 0.001). The risk of ICU admission with Omicron was reduced by 64% than with Delta (9.3% versus 25.8% of cases, respectively, p < 0.001). In critically ill patients, 400 had the Delta variant, 229 the Omicron variant, 98 had an uninformative variant screening test and 161 did not have information on variant screening test. 747 patients (84.1%) were admitted for pneumonia. Compared to patients infected with Delta, Omicron patients were more vaccinated (p<0.001), even with 3 doses, more immunocompromised (p<0.001), less admitted for pneumonia (p<0.001), especially when vaccinated (62.1% in vaccinated versus 80.7% in unvaccinated, p<0.001), and less invasively ventilated (p=0.02). Similar results were found in the subgroup of pneumonia but Omicron cases were older. Unadjusted in-ICU mortality did not differ between Omicron and Delta cases, neither in the overall population (20.0% versus 27.9%, p = 0.08), nor in patients with pneumonia (31.6% versus 29.7%, respectively) where adjusted in-ICU mortality did not differ according to the variant (HR 1.43 95%CI [0.89;2.29], p=0.14). Conclusion and relevance Compared to the Delta variant, the Omicron variant is less likely to result in ICU admission and less likely to be associated with pneumonia. However, when patients with the Omicron variant are admitted for pneumonia, the severity seems similar to that of patients with the Delta variant, with more immunocompromised and vaccinated patients and no difference in adjusted in-ICU mortality. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.

12.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 11, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1607559

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent multicenter studies identified COVID-19 as a risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). However, no large multicenter study has compared the incidence of IPA between COVID-19 and influenza patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of putative IPA in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared with influenza patients. METHODS: This study was a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter retrospective European cohort. Consecutive adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for > 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia or influenza pneumonia were included. The 28-day cumulative incidence of putative IPA, based on Blot definition, was the primary outcome. IPA incidence was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, considering extubation (dead or alive) within 28 days as competing event. RESULTS: A total of 1047 patients were included (566 in the SARS-CoV-2 group and 481 in the influenza group). The incidence of putative IPA was lower in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia group (14, 2.5%) than in influenza pneumonia group (29, 6%), adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio (cHR) 3.29 (95% CI 1.53-7.02, p = 0.0006). When putative IPA and Aspergillus respiratory tract colonization were combined, the incidence was also significantly lower in the SARS-CoV-2 group, as compared to influenza group (4.1% vs. 10.2%), adjusted cHR 3.21 (95% CI 1.88-5.46, p < 0.0001). In the whole study population, putative IPA was associated with significant increase in 28-day mortality rate, and length of ICU stay, compared with colonized patients, or those with no IPA or Aspergillus colonization. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the incidence of putative IPA was low. Its incidence was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than in those with influenza pneumonia. Clinical trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Intubation , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/therapy , Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Trials ; 23(1): 4, 2022 Jan 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1606541

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition characterized by circulatory insufficiency caused by an acute dysfunction of the heart pump. The pathophysiological approach to CS has recently been enriched by the tissue consequences of low flow, including inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and alteration of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. The aim of the present trial is to evaluate the impact of early low-dose corticosteroid therapy on shock reversal in adults with CS. METHOD/DESIGN: This is a multicentered randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with two parallel arms in adult patients with CS recruited from medical, cardiac, and polyvalent intensive care units (ICU) in France. Patients will be randomly allocated into the treatment or control group (1:1 ratio), and we will recruit 380 patients (190 per group). For the treatment group, hydrocortisone (50 mg intravenous bolus every 6 h) and fludrocortisone (50 µg once a day enterally) will be administered for 7 days or until discharge from the ICU. The primary endpoint is catecholamine-free days at day 7. Secondary endpoints include morbidity and all-cause mortality at 28 and 90 days post-randomization. Pre-defined subgroups analyses are planned, including: postcardiotomy, myocardial infarction, etomidate use, vasopressor use, and adrenal profiles according the short corticotropin stimulation test. Each patient will be followed for 90 days. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide valuable evidence about the effectiveness of low dose of corticosteroid therapy for CS. If effective, this therapy might improve outcome and become a therapeutic adjunct for patients with CS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03773822 . Registered on 12 December 2018.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Shock, Cardiogenic , Adult , Humans , Hypothalamo-Hypophyseal System , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pituitary-Adrenal System , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock, Cardiogenic/diagnosis , Shock, Cardiogenic/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome
17.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2021 May 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1416749

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with COVID-19, based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48h were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture, within 48h after intubation, in endotracheal aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 1,050 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2 and 482 in influenza groups). The prevalence of bacterial identification was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs 33.6%, unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.30), adjusted OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.33), p<0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of co-infection in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia, respectively. Bacterial identification was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (1.57 (95% CI 1.01 to 2.44), p=0.043). However, no significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of co-infection on mortality was not different between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bacterial identification within 48h after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

19.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(2): 188-198, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1384370

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Although patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection have several risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI), the reported incidence of hospital-acquired infections is low. We aimed to determine the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, and the incidence of VA-LRTI. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective European cohort performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation > 48 h were eligible if they had: SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection at ICU admission. VA-LRTI, including ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), were diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. All VA-LRTI were prospectively identified, and chest-X rays were analyzed by at least two physicians. Cumulative incidence of first episodes of VA-LRTI was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, and compared using Fine-and Gray models. RESULTS: 1576 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2, 482 in influenza, and 526 in no viral infection groups). VA-LRTI incidence was significantly higher in SARS-CoV-2 patients (287, 50.5%), as compared to influenza patients (146, 30.3%, adjusted sub hazard ratio (sHR) 1.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26 to 2.04)) or patients with no viral infection (133, 25.3%, adjusted sHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.39)). Gram-negative bacilli were responsible for a large proportion (82% to 89.7%) of VA-LRTI, mainly Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter spp., and Klebsiella spp. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of VA-LRTI is significantly higher in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as compared to patients with influenza pneumonia, or no viral infection after statistical adjustment, but residual confounding may still play a role in the effect estimates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Respiratory Tract Infections , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Europe , Female , Humans , Incidence , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/epidemiology , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Ventilators, Mechanical
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL