ACE2 and COVID-19 and the resulting ARDS.

This article reviews the correlation between ACE2 and COVID-19 and the resulting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). ACE2 is a crucial component of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). The classical ACE-angiotensin Ⅱ (Ang II)-angiotensin type 1 receptor (AT1R) axis and the ACE2-Ang(1-7)-Mas counter-regulatory axis play an essential role in RAS system. ACE2 antagonises the activation of the classical RAS ACE-Ang II-AT1R axis and protects against lung injury. Similar to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus, 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) also uses ACE2 for cell entry. ARDS is a clinical high-mortality disease which is probably due to the excessive activation of RAS caused by 2019-nCoV infection, and ACE2 has a protective effect on ARDS caused by COVID-19. Because of these protective effects of ACE2 on ARDS, the development of drugs enhancing ACE2 activity may become one of the most promising approaches for the treatment of COVID-19 in the near future. In the meantime, however, the use of RAS blockers such as ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers that inhibit the damaging (ACE-Ang II) arm of the RAS cascade in the lung may also be promising. Trial registration number: NCT04287686.

[Follow-up of patients after COVID-19 pneumonia. Pulmonary sequelae]. / Seguimiento de los pacientes después de neumonía por COVID-19. Secuelas pulmonares.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection caused by SARS-CoV-2 that has caused an unprecedented pandemic with a high rate of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although most cases are mild, there are a considerable number of patients who develop pneumonia or even acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). After having recovered from the initial disease, many patients continue with various symptoms (fatigue, dry cough, fever, dyspnea, anosmia, and chest pain, among others.), which has led to consider the possible existence of "post-COVID-19 syndrome". Although the definition and validity of this syndrome are not clear yet, several studies report that individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 may have persistent symptoms, radiological abnormalities, and compromised respiratory function. Current evidence suggests that there is a large number of pulmonary sequelae after COVID-19 pneumonia (interstitial thickening, ground glass opacities, crazy paving pattern, and bronchiectasis, among others.). Likewise, it seems that pulmonary function tests (spirometry, DLCO, 6MWT, and measurement of maximum respiratory pressures), in addition to high-resolution computed axial tomographies (CAT scan), are useful for the assessment of these post-COVID-19 pulmonary sequelae. This review aims to describe the possible pulmonary sequelae after COVID-19 pneumonia, as well as to suggest diagnostic procedures for their correct assessment and follow-up; thus, allowing proper management by a multidisciplinary medical team.

COVID-19 es la enfermedad causada por el virus SARS-CoV-2, la cual ha ocasionado una pandemia sin precedentes, con gran cantidad de infectados y muertos en el mundo. Aunque la mayoría de los casos son leves, existe una cantidad considerable de pacientes que desarrollan neumonía o, incluso, síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA). Luego de recuperarse del cuadro inicial, muchos pacientes continúan con diversos síntomas (fatiga, tos seca, fiebre, disnea, anosmia, dolor torácico, entre otras), lo que ha llevado a considerar la posible existencia del "síndrome pos-COVID-19". Aunque la definición y validez de este síndrome aún no son claras, varios estudios reportan que los individuos recuperados de la COVID-19 pueden tener persistencia de síntomas, anormalidades radiológicas y compromiso en la función respiratoria. La evidencia actual sugiere que existe gran cantidad de secuelas pulmonares despues de una neumonía por COVID-19 (engrosamiento intersticial, infiltrado en vidrio esmerilado, patrón en empedrado, bronquiectasias, entre otras.). De igual forma, parece ser que las pruebas de función pulmonar (espirometría, prueba de difusión pulmonar de monóxido de carbono, prueba de caminata de seis minutos y la medición de las presiones respiratorias máximas), además de la tomografía axial computarizada de alta resolución, son útiles para evaluar las secuelas pulmonares pos-COVID-19. En esta revisión se pretende describir las posibles secuelas a nivel pulmonar posteriores a neumonía por COVID-19, así como sugerir procedimientos diagnósticos para su correcta evaluación y seguimiento, que permitan el manejo adecuado por parte de un equipo médico multidisciplinario.

Tidal volume challenge to predict preload responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome under prone position.

BACKGROUND: Prone position is frequently used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and its changes during a tidal volume challenge (TVC) to assess preload responsiveness in ARDS patients under prone position. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted in a 25-bed intensive care unit at a university hospital. We included patients with ARDS under prone position, ventilated with 6 mL/kg tidal volume and monitored by a transpulmonary thermodilution device. We measured PPV and its changes during a TVC (ΔPPV TVC6-8) after increasing the tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg for one minute. Changes in cardiac index (CI) during a Trendelenburg maneuver (ΔCITREND) and during end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) at 8 mL/kg tidal volume (ΔCI EEO8) were recorded. Preload responsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND ≥ 8% and ΔCI EEO8 ≥ 5%. Preload unresponsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND < 8% and ΔCI EEO8 < 5%. RESULTS: Eighty-four sets of measurements were analyzed in 58 patients. Before prone positioning, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen was 104 ± 27 mmHg. At the inclusion time, patients were under prone position for 11 (2-14) hours. Norepinephrine was administered in 83% of cases with a dose of 0.25 (0.15-0.42) µg/kg/min. The positive end-expiratory pressure was 14 (11-16) cmH2O. The driving pressure was 12 (10-17) cmH2O, and the respiratory system compliance was 32 (22-40) mL/cmH2O. Preload responsiveness was detected in 42 cases. An absolute change in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC assessed preload responsiveness with an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve of 0.94 ± 0.03 (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 86%) better than that of baseline PPV (0.85 ± 0.05; p = 0.047). In the 56 cases where baseline PPV was inconclusive (≥ 4% and < 11%), ΔPPV TVC6-8 ≥ 3.5% still enabled to reliably assess preload responsiveness (AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.05, sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 81%; p < 0.01 vs. baseline PPV). CONCLUSION: In patients with ARDS under low tidal volume ventilation during prone position, the changes in PPV during a TVC can reliably assess preload responsiveness without the need for cardiac output measurements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04457739). Registered 30 June 2020 -Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04457739.

Pathomechanisms Underlying Hypoxemia in Two COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Phenotypes: Insights From Thrombosis and Hemostasis.

BACKGROUND: The pathomechanisms of hypoxemia and treatment strategies for type H and type L acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been elucidated. MAIN TEXT: SARS-CoV-2 mainly targets the lungs and blood, leading to ARDS, and systemic thrombosis or bleeding. Angiotensin II-induced coagulopathy, SARS-CoV-2-induced hyperfibrin(ogen)olysis, and pulmonary and/or disseminated intravascular coagulation due to immunothrombosis contribute to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. Type H ARDS is associated with hypoxemia due to diffuse alveolar damage-induced high right-to-left shunts. Immunothrombosis occurs at the site of infection due to innate immune inflammatory and coagulofibrinolytic responses to SARS-CoV-2, resulting in microvascular occlusion with hypoperfusion of the lungs. Lung immunothrombosis in type L ARDS results from neutrophil extracellular traps containing platelets and fibrin in the lung microvasculature, leading to hypoxemia due to impaired blood flow and a high ventilation/perfusion (VA/Q) ratio. COVID-19-associated ARDS is more vascular centric than the other types of ARDS. D-dimer levels have been monitored for the progression of microvascular thrombosis in COVID-19 patients. Early anticoagulation therapy in critical patients with high D-dimer levels may improve prognosis, including the prevention and/or alleviation of ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Right-to-left shunts and high VA/Q ratios caused by lung microvascular thrombosis contribute to hypoxemia in type H and L ARDS, respectively. D-dimer monitoring-based anticoagulation therapy may prevent the progression to and/or worsening of ARDS in COVID-19 patients.

Prone Position in COVID-19 and -COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An International Multicenter Observational Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Prone position is used in acute respiratory distress syndrome and in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is unclear how responders may be identified and whether an oxygenation response improves outcome. The objective of this study was to quantify the response to prone position, describe the differences between coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and explore variables associated with survival. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, multicenter, international cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in Italy, United Kingdom, and France. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventy-six adults (220 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and 156 acute respiratory distress syndrome). INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preproning, a greater proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had severe disease (53% vs 40%), worse Pao2/Fio2 (13.0 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-15.5 kPa] vs 14.1 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-18.6 kPa]; p = 0.017) but greater compliance (38 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 27-53 mL/cm H2O] vs 31 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 21-37 mL/cm H2O]; p < 0.001). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome had a longer median time from intubation to prone position (2.0 d [interquartile range, 0.7-5.0 d] vs 1.0 d [interquartile range, 0.5-2.9 d]; p = 0.03). The proportion of responders, defined by an increase in Pao2/Fio2 greater than or equal to 2.67 kPa (20 mm Hg), upon proning, was similar between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (79% vs 76%; p = 0.5). Responders had earlier prone position (1.4 d [interquartile range, 0.7-4.2 d] vs 2.5 d [interquartile range, 0.8-6.2 d]; p = 0.06)]. Prone position less than 24 hours from intubation achieved greater improvement in oxygenation (11 kPa [interquartile range, 4-21 kPa] vs 7 kPa [interquartile range, 2-13 kPa]; p = 0.002). The variables independently associated with the "responder" category were Pao2/Fio2 preproning (odds ratio, 0.89 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93 kPa-1]; p < 0.001) and interval between intubation and proning (odds ratio, 0.94 d-1 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99 d-1]; p = 0.019). The overall mortality was 45%, with no significant difference observed between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Variables independently associated with mortality included age (odds ratio, 1.03 yr-1 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05 yr-1]; p < 0.001); interval between hospital admission and proning (odds ratio, 1.04 d-1 [95% CI, 1.002-1.084 d-1]; p = 0.047); and change in Pao2/Fio2 on proning (odds ratio, 0.97 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99 kPa-1]; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position, particularly when delivered early, achieved a significant oxygenation response in ~80% of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome, similar to acute respiratory distress syndrome. This response was independently associated with improved survival.

Monitoring respiratory mechanics by oscillometry in COVID-19 patients receiving non-invasive respiratory support.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been increasingly used in COVID-19 patients. The limited physiological monitoring and the unavailability of respiratory mechanic measures, usually obtainable during invasive ventilation, is a limitation of NIV for ARDS and COVID-19 patients management. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study was aimed to evaluate the feasibility of non-invasively monitoring respiratory mechanics by oscillometry in COVID-19 patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving NIV. METHOD: 15 COVID-19 patients affected by moderate-severe ARDS at the RICU (Respiratory Intensive Care Unit) of the University hospital of Cattinara, Trieste, Italy were recruited. Patients underwent oscillometry tests during short periods of spontaneous breathing between NIV sessions. RESULTS: Oscillometry proved to be feasible, reproducible and well-tolerated by patients. At admission, 8 of the 15 patients showed oscillometry parameters within the normal range which further slightly improved before discharge. At discharge, four patients had still abnormal respiratory mechanics, not exclusively linked to pre-existing respiratory comorbidities. Lung mechanics parameters were not correlated with oxygenation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that lung mechanics provide complementary information for improving patients phenotyping and personalisation of treatments during NIV in COVID 19 patients, especially in the presence of respiratory comorbidities where deterioration of lung mechanics may be less coupled with changes in oxygenation and more difficult to identify. Oscillometry may provide a valuable tool for monitoring lung mechanics in COVID 19 patients receiving NIV.

Blocking the human common beta subunit of the GM-CSF, IL-5 and IL-3 receptors markedly reduces hyperinflammation in ARDS models.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is triggered by various aetiological factors such as trauma, sepsis and respiratory viruses including SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A virus. Immune profiling of severe COVID-19 patients has identified a complex pattern of cytokines including granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and interleukin (IL)-5, which are significant mediators of viral-induced hyperinflammation. This strong response has prompted the development of therapies that block GM-CSF and other cytokines individually to limit inflammation related pathology. The common cytokine binding site of the human common beta (ßc) receptor signals for three inflammatory cytokines: GM-CSF, IL-5 and IL-3. In this study, ßc was targeted with the monoclonal antibody (mAb) CSL311 in engineered mice devoid of mouse ßc and ßIL-3 and expressing human ßc (hßcTg mice). Direct pulmonary administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) caused ARDS-like lung injury, and CSL311 markedly reduced lung inflammation and oedema, resulting in improved oxygen saturation levels in hßcTg mice. In a separate model, influenza (HKx31) lung infection caused viral pneumonia associated with a large influx of myeloid cells into the lungs of hßcTg mice. The therapeutic application of CSL311 potently decreased accumulation of monocytes/macrophages, neutrophils, and eosinophils without altering lung viral loads. Furthermore, CSL311 treatment did not limit the viral-induced expansion of NK and NKT cells, or the tissue expression of type I/II/III interferons needed for efficient viral clearance. Simultaneously blocking GM-CSF, IL-5 and IL-3 signalling with CSL311 may represent an improved and clinically applicable strategy to reducing hyperinflammation in the ARDS setting.

Trajectories of hypoxemia and pulmonary mechanics of COVID-19 ARDS in the NorthCARDS dataset.

BACKGROUND: Understanding heterogeneity seen in patients with COVIDARDS and comparing to non-COVIDARDS may inform tailored treatments. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of frontline clinicians and data scientists worked to create the Northwell COVIDARDS dataset (NorthCARDS) leveraging over 11,542 COVID-19 hospital admissions. The data was then summarized to examine descriptive differences based on clinically meaningful categories of lung compliance, and to examine trends in oxygenation. FINDINGS: Of the 1536 COVIDARDS patients in the NorthCARDS dataset, there were 531 (34.6%) who had very low lung compliance (< 20 ml/cmH2O), 970 (63.2%) with low-normal compliance (20-50 ml/cmH2O), and 35 (2.2%) with high lung compliance (> 50 ml/cmH2O). The very low compliance group had double the median time to intubation compared to the low-normal group (107.3 h (IQR 25.8, 239.2) vs. 39.5 h (IQR 5.4, 91.6)). Overall, 68.8% (n = 1057) of the patients died during hospitalization. In comparison to non-COVIDARDS reports, there were less patients in the high compliance category (2.2% vs. 12%, compliance ≥ 50 mL/cmH20), and more patients with P/F ≤ 150 (59.8% vs. 45.6%). There is a statistically significant correlation between compliance and P/F ratio. The Oxygenation Index is the highest in the very low compliance group (12.51, SD(6.15)), and lowest in high compliance group (8.78, SD(4.93)). CONCLUSIONS: The respiratory system compliance distribution of COVIDARDS is similar to non-COVIDARDS. In some patients, there may be a relation between time to intubation and duration of high levels of supplemental oxygen treatment on trajectory of lung compliance.

Respiratory system compliance at the same PEEP level is similar in COVID and non-COVID ARDS.

BACKGROUND: The comparison of respiratory system compliance (Crs) between COVID and non-COVID ARDS patients has been the object of debate, but few studies have evaluated it when considering applied positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), which is one of the known determinants of Crs itself. The aim of this study was to compare Crs taking into account the applied PEEP. METHODS: Two cohorts of patients were created: those with COVID-ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS. In the whole sample the association between Crs and type of ARDS at different PEEP levels was adjusted for anthropometric and clinical variables. As secondary analyses, patients were matched for predicted functional residual capacity and the same association was assessed. Moreover, the association between Crs and type of ARDS was reassessed at predefined PEEP level of 0, 5, 10, and 15 cmH2O with a propensity score-weighted linear model. RESULTS: 367 patients were included in the study, 276 patients with COVID-ARDS and 91 with non-COVID ARDS. The association between Crs and type of ARDS was not significant in both the complete cohorts (p = 0.17) and in the matched cohorts (p = 0.92). This was true also for the propensity score weighted association at PEEP 5, 10 and 15 cmH2O, while it was statistically significant at PEEP 0 (with a median difference of 3 ml/cmH2O, which in our opinion is not clinically significant). CONCLUSIONS: The compliance of the respiratory system is similar between COVID ARDS and non-COVID ARDS when calculated at the same PEEP level and while taking into account patients' anthropometric characteristics.

Alveolar, Endothelial, and Organ Injury Marker Dynamics in Severe COVID-19.

Rationale: Alveolar and endothelial injury may be differentially associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity over time. Objectives: To describe alveolar and endothelial injury dynamics and associations with COVID-19 severity, cardiorenovascular injury, and outcomes. Methods: This single-center observational study enrolled patients with COVID-19 requiring respiratory support at emergency department presentation. More than 40 markers of alveolar (including receptor for advanced glycation endproducts [RAGE]), endothelial (including angiopoietin-2), and cardiorenovascular injury (including renin, kidney injury molecule-1, and troponin-I) were serially compared between invasively and spontaneously ventilated patients using mixed-effects repeated-measures models. Ventilatory ratios were calculated for intubated patients. Associations of biomarkers with modified World Health Organization scale at Day 28 were determined with multivariable proportional-odds regression. Measurements and Main Results: Of 225 patients, 74 (33%) received invasive ventilation at Day 0. RAGE was 1.80-fold higher in invasive ventilation patients at Day 0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.17) versus spontaneous ventilation, but decreased over time in all patients. Changes in alveolar markers did not correlate with changes in endothelial, cardiac, or renal injury markers. In contrast, endothelial markers were similar to lower at Day 0 for invasive ventilation versus spontaneous ventilation, but then increased over time only among intubated patients. In intubated patients, angiopoietin-2 was similar (fold difference, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17) to nonintubated patients at Day 0 but 1.80-fold higher (95% CI, 1.56-2.06) at Day 3; cardiorenovascular injury markers showed similar patterns. Endothelial markers were not consistently associated with ventilatory ratios. Endothelial markers were more often significantly associated with 28-day outcomes than alveolar markers. Conclusions: Alveolar injury markers increase early. Endothelial injury markers increase later and are associated with cardiorenovascular injury and 28-day outcome. Alveolar and endothelial injury likely contribute at different times to disease progression in severe COVID-19.

Peripheral microcirculatory alterations are associated with the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome in COVID-19 patients admitted to intermediate respiratory and intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory disease; however, there is also evidence that it causes endothelial damage in the microvasculature of several organs. The aim of the present study is to characterize in vivo the microvascular reactivity in peripheral skeletal muscle of severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study carried out in Spain, Mexico and Brazil. Healthy subjects and severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the intermediate respiratory (IRCU) and intensive care units (ICU) due to hypoxemia were studied. Local tissue/blood oxygen saturation (StO2) and local hemoglobin concentration (THC) were non-invasively measured on the forearm by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). A vascular occlusion test (VOT), a three-minute induced ischemia, was performed in order to obtain dynamic StO2 parameters: deoxygenation rate (DeO2), reoxygenation rate (ReO2), and hyperemic response (HAUC). In COVID-19 patients, the severity of ARDS was evaluated by the ratio between peripheral arterial oxygen saturation (SpO2) and the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (SF ratio). RESULTS: Healthy controls (32) and COVID-19 patients (73) were studied. Baseline StO2 and THC did not differ between the two groups. Dynamic VOT-derived parameters were significantly impaired in COVID-19 patients showing lower metabolic rate (DeO2) and diminished endothelial reactivity. At enrollment, most COVID-19 patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) (53%) or high-flow nasal cannula support (32%). Patients on MV were also receiving sedative agents (100%) and vasopressors (29%). Baseline StO2 and DeO2 negatively correlated with SF ratio, while ReO2 showed a positive correlation with SF ratio. There were significant differences in baseline StO2 and ReO2 among the different ARDS groups according to SF ratio, but not among different respiratory support therapies. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe COVID-19 show systemic microcirculatory alterations suggestive of endothelial dysfunction, and these alterations are associated with the severity of ARDS. Further evaluation is needed to determine whether these observations have prognostic implications. These results represent interim findings of the ongoing HEMOCOVID-19 trial. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04689477 . Retrospectively registered 30 December 2020.

eARDS: A multi-center validation of an interpretable machine learning algorithm of early onset Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) among critically ill adults with COVID-19.

We present an interpretable machine learning algorithm called 'eARDS' for predicting ARDS in an ICU population comprising COVID-19 patients, up to 12-hours before satisfying the Berlin clinical criteria. The analysis was conducted on data collected from the Intensive care units (ICU) at Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, GA and University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN and the Cerner® Health Facts Deidentified Database, a multi-site COVID-19 EMR database. The participants in the analysis consisted of adults over 18 years of age. Clinical data from 35,804 patients who developed ARDS and controls were used to generate predictive models that identify risk for ARDS onset up to 12-hours before satisfying the Berlin criteria. We identified salient features from the electronic medical record that predicted respiratory failure among this population. The machine learning algorithm which provided the best performance exhibited AUROC of 0.89 (95% CI = 0.88-0.90), sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI = 0.75-0.78), specificity 0.85 (95% CI = 085-0.86). Validation performance across two separate health systems (comprising 899 COVID-19 patients) exhibited AUROC of 0.82 (0.81-0.83) and 0.89 (0.87, 0.90). Important features for prediction of ARDS included minimum oxygen saturation (SpO2), standard deviation of the systolic blood pressure (SBP), O2 flow, and maximum respiratory rate over an observational window of 16-hours. Analyzing the performance of the model across various cohorts indicates that the model performed best among a younger age group (18-40) (AUROC = 0.93 [0.92-0.94]), compared to an older age group (80+) (AUROC = 0.81 [0.81-0.82]). The model performance was comparable on both male and female groups, but performed significantly better on the severe ARDS group compared to the mild and moderate groups. The eARDS system demonstrated robust performance for predicting COVID19 patients who developed ARDS at least 12-hours before the Berlin clinical criteria, across two independent health systems.

The evolution of the ventilatory ratio is a prognostic factor in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients.

BACKGROUND: Mortality due to COVID-19 is high, especially in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The purpose of the study is to investigate associations between mortality and variables measured during the first three days of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 intubated at ICU admission. METHODS: Multicenter, observational, cohort study includes consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to 44 Spanish ICUs between February 25 and July 31, 2020, who required intubation at ICU admission and mechanical ventilation for more than three days. We collected demographic and clinical data prior to admission; information about clinical evolution at days 1 and 3 of mechanical ventilation; and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 2,095 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, 1,118 (53.3%) were intubated at day 1 and remained under mechanical ventilation at day three. From days 1 to 3, PaO2/FiO2 increased from 115.6 [80.0-171.2] to 180.0 [135.4-227.9] mmHg and the ventilatory ratio from 1.73 [1.33-2.25] to 1.96 [1.61-2.40]. In-hospital mortality was 38.7%. A higher increase between ICU admission and day 3 in the ventilatory ratio (OR 1.04 [CI 1.01-1.07], p = 0.030) and creatinine levels (OR 1.05 [CI 1.01-1.09], p = 0.005) and a lower increase in platelet counts (OR 0.96 [CI 0.93-1.00], p = 0.037) were independently associated with a higher risk of death. No association between mortality and the PaO2/FiO2 variation was observed (OR 0.99 [CI 0.95 to 1.02], p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Higher ventilatory ratio and its increase at day 3 is associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation at ICU admission. No association was found in the PaO2/FiO2 variation.

Possibility of deterioration of respiratory status when steroids precede antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Although most patients with COVID-19 develop asymptomatic or mild disease, some patients develop severe disease. The effectiveness of various therapeutic agents, including antiviral drugs, steroids, and anti-inflammatories for COVID-19, have been being confirmed. The effect of administering steroids in early disease is unclear. This study therefore aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and risk of exacerbation of steroids administered preceding antiviral drugs in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This retrospective, single-center, observational study included consecutive patients with COVID-19 between March 2020 and March 2021. Patients were divided into a steroids-first group and antiviral-drugs-first group. Mortality, duration of hospitalization, incidence rate and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) induction of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 258 patients were admitted during the study period. After excluding patients who received symptomatic treatment only, who were taking immunosuppressive drugs, or who were administered antiviral drugs only, 68 patients were included in the analysis, 16 in the steroids-first group and 52 in the antiviral-drugs-first group. The rate of intubation, ICU admission and ECMO induction were significantly higher in the steroids-first group than in the antiviral-drugs-first group (81.3% vs. 33.3, p<0.001, 75.0% vs. 29.4%, p = 0.001, and 31.3% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.017, respectively). Furthermore, patients who received steroids within ten days after starting antiviral drugs had significantly lower rates of ICU admission, intubation, and ECMO induction. (81.3% vs. 42.9% p = 0.011, 75.0% vs. 37.1% p = 0.012, and 31.3% vs. 8.6% p = 0.039, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Administering steroids prior to antiviral drugs soon after symptom onset can aggravate disease severity. When administration of steroids is considered soon after symptom onset, it may be safer to initiate antiviral drugs first.

Clinical and laboratory factors associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SARS Coronavirus-2 is one of the most widespread viruses globally during the 21st century, whose severity and ability to cause severe pneumonia and death vary. We performed a comprehensive systematic review of all studies that met our standardised criteria and then extracted data on the age, symptoms, and different treatments of Covid-19 patients and the prognosis of this disease during follow-up. Cases in this study were divided according to severity and death status and meta-analysed separately using raw mean and single proportion methods. We included 171 complete studies including 62,909 confirmed cases of Covid-19, of which 148 studies were meta-analysed. Symptoms clearly emerged in an escalating manner from mild-moderate symptoms, pneumonia, severe-critical to the group of non-survivors. Hypertension (Pooled proportion (PP): 0.48 [95% Confident interval (CI): 0.35-0.61]), diabetes (PP: 0.23 [95% CI: 0.16-0.33]) and smoking (PP: 0.12 [95% CI: 0.03-0.38]) were highest regarding pre-infection comorbidities in the non-survivor group. While acute respiratory distress syndrome (PP: 0.49 [95% CI: 0.29-0.78]), (PP: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.34-0.97]) remained one of the most common complications in the severe and death group respectively. Bilateral ground-glass opacification (PP: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.59-0.75]) was the most visible radiological image. The mortality rates estimated (PP: 0.11 [95% CI: 0.06-0.19]), (PP: 0.03 [95% CI: 0.01-0.05]), and (PP: 0.01 [95% CI: 0-0.3]) in severe-critical, pneumonia and mild-moderate groups respectively. This study can serve as a high evidence guideline for different clinical presentations of Covid-19, graded from mild to severe, and for special forms like pneumonia and death groups.

To prone or not to prone ARDS patients on ECMO.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2021. Other selected articles can be found online at  https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2021 . Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from  https://link.springer.com/bookseries/8901 .

Ventilator output splitting interface 'ACRA': Description and evaluation in lung simulators and in an experimental ARDS animal model.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has led the world to an unprecedented global shortage of ventilators, and its sharing has been proposed as an alternative to meet the surge. This study outlines the performance of a preformed novel interface called 'ACRA', designed to split ventilator outflow into two breathing systems. The 'ACRA' interface was built using medical use approved components. It consists of four unidirectional valves, two adjustable flow-restrictor valves placed on the inspiratory limbs of each unit, and one adjustable PEEP valve placed on the expiratory limb of the unit that would require a greater PEEP. The interface was interposed between a ventilator and two lung units (phase I), two breathing simulators (phase II) and two live pigs with heterogeneous lung conditions (phase III). The interface and ventilator adjustments tested the ability to regulate individual pressures and the resulting tidal volumes. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Wilcoxon tests test (p < 0.05). Ventilator outflow splitting, independent pressure adjustments and individual tidal volume monitoring were feasible in all phases. In all experimental measurements, dual ventilation allowed for individual and tight adjustments of the pressure, and thus volume delivered to each paired lung unit without affecting the other unit's ventilation-all the modifications performed on the ventilator equally affected both paired lung units. Although only suggested during a dire crisis, this experiment supports dual ventilation as an alternative worth to be considered.