Relationship between corticosteroid use and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The aim of this ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter observational retrospective study is to assess the relationship between adjuvant corticosteroid use and the incidence of VAP. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort in 36 ICUs. Adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were consecutively included between February and May 2020. VAP diagnosis required strict definition with clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological confirmation. We assessed the association of VAP with corticosteroid treatment using univariate and multivariate cause-specific Cox's proportional hazard models with adjustment on pre-specified confounders. RESULTS: Among the 545 included patients, 191 (35%) received corticosteroids. The proportional hazard assumption for the effect of corticosteroids on the incidence of VAP could not be accepted, indicating that this effect varied during ICU stay. We found a non-significant lower risk of VAP for corticosteroid-treated patients during the first days in the ICU and an increased risk for longer ICU stay. By modeling the effect of corticosteroids with time-dependent coefficients, the association between corticosteroids and the incidence of VAP was not significant (overall effect p = 0.082), with time-dependent hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 0.47 (0.17-1.31) at day 2, 0.95 (0.63-1.42) at day 7, 1.48 (1.01-2.16) at day 14 and 1.94 (1.09-3.46) at day 21. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association was found between adjuvant corticosteroid treatment and the incidence of VAP, although a time-varying effect of corticosteroids was identified along the 28-day follow-up.

Early Bacterial Identification among Intubated Patients with COVID-19 or Influenza Pneumonia: A European Multicenter Comparative Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, as compared with influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes.Methods: A multicenter retrospective European cohort was performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48 hours were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture within 48 hours after intubation in endotracheal aspirates, BAL, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 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 compared with patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs. 33.6%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.30; adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16-0.33; P < 0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of coinfection 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, 1.01-2.44; P = 0.043). However, no significant difference was found in the heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of coinfection on mortality was not different between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza.Conclusions: Bacterial identification within 48 hours after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than patients with influenza pneumonia.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359693).

Relationship between SARS-CoV-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: a European multicenter cohort study.

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.

Relationship between ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality in COVID-19 patients: a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). No study has evaluated the relationship between VAP and mortality in this population, or compared this relationship between SARS-CoV-2 patients and other populations. The main objective of our study was to determine the relationship between VAP and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort. VAP was diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. Univariable and multivariable marginal Cox's regression models, with cause-specific hazard for duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Extubation, and ICU discharge alive were considered as events of interest, and mortality as competing event. FINDINGS: Of 1576 included patients, 568 were SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 482 influenza pneumonia, and 526 no evidence of viral infection at ICU admission. VAP was associated with significantly higher risk for 28-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16-2.47), p = 0.006), and influenza groups (1.75 (1.03-3.02), p = 0.045), but not in the no viral infection group (1.07 (0.64-1.78), p = 0.79). VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation in the SARS-CoV-2 group, but not in the influenza or no viral infection groups. VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of ICU stay in the 3 study groups. No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to VAP between the 3 groups, suggesting that the impact of VAP on mortality was not different between study groups. INTERPRETATION: VAP was associated with significantly increased 28-day mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients. However, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, did not significantly modify the relationship between VAP and 28-day mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693.

Impact of early low-calorie low-protein versus standard-calorie standard-protein feeding on outcomes of ventilated adults with shock: design and conduct of a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.

Saving lives by ventilating two patients with specific pressure-controlled ventilation from a single ICU-ventilator during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In late December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was discovered, which is responsible for a new human disease called COVID-19. Among all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, 14% were hospitalized, with 2% admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation [1]. SARS-CoV-2 has spread quickly across the world, with more than one hundred million confirmed cases and more than 2,500,000 dead. In March 2020, the Hospital of Valenciennes had to admit hundreds of COVID-19 patients, and its capacity was almost exceeded [2]. More recently, in France, thousands of critically ill patients had to be admitted to ICUs. In Europe, the next wave of COVID-19 pandemic could be more severe than the first one, and we already know that, in the case of increasing numbers of critically ill, some of them will die as a result of the unavailability of mechanical ventilators [3]. This shortage may be lessened if one ventilator could service more than one patient. The main worry is that this concept could be not useful and systematically deleterious for the patient. Some concepts have already been proposed to ventilate differently two circuits with a single ventilator, with several limitations like the lack of individualization of ventilation of each circuit [4-6]. More recently, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Clarke et al. [7] described a new concept able to deliver specific ventilation for two different lung tests with a single ventilator. Again, Levin et al. [8] have recently shown that a similar concept of differential ventilation using a single ventilator with flow control valves is feasible in humans.

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in COVID-19 critically ill patients: Results of a French monocentric cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19 is a new infectious disease responsible for potentially severe respiratory impairment associated with initial immunosuppression. Similarly to influenza, several authors have described a higher risk of fungal infection after COVID-19, in particular for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. The main objective here is to define the prevalence of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in a cohort of COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a large monocentric retrospective study investigating all the ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS hospitalized at Valenciennes' general hospital, France, between March 15, 2020 and April 30, 2020. In the center a systematic IPA screening strategy was carried out for all ARDS patients, with weekly tests of serum galactomannan and beta-D-glucan. Bronchoalveolar lavage with culture and chest CT scan were performed when the serum assays were positives. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were studied. Their median age was 65 years, and 37 of the patients (71%) were male. Two patients had chronic immunosuppression and among all the patients, only 2 non-immunocompromised presented a putative IPA during their stay. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of IPA in this cohort of COVID-19 patients (3.7%) is not higher than what is described in the other ARDS populations in the literature. These results are however different from the previous publications on COVID-19 patients and must therefore be confirmed by larger and multicentric studies.