One year after ICU admission for severe community-acquired pneumonia of bacterial, viral or unidentified etiology. What are the outcomes?

INTRODUCTION: Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) for respiratory virus testing is increasingly used in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), however data on one-year outcome in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with reference to the causative pathogen are scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study in 123 ICU patients who had undergone respiratory virus testing for CAP by mPCR and with known one-year survival status. Functional status including dyspnea (mMRC score), autonomy (ADL Katz score) and need for new home-care ventilatory support was assessed at a one-year post-ICU follow-up. Mortality rates and functional status were compared in patients with CAP of a bacterial, viral or unidentified etiology one year after ICU admission. RESULTS: The bacterial, viral and unidentified groups included 19 (15.4%), 37 (30.1%), and 67 (54.5%) patients, respectively. In multivariate analysis, one-year mortality in the bacterial group was higher compared to the viral group (HR 2.92, 95% CI 1.71-7.28, p = 0.02) and tended to be higher compared to the unidentified etiology group (p = 0.06); but no difference was found between the viral and the unidentified etiology group (p = 0.43). In 64/83 one-year survivors with a post-ICU follow-up consultation, there were no differences in mMRC score, ADL Katz score and new home-care ventilatory support between the groups (p = 0.52, p = 0.37, p = 0.24, respectively). Severe dyspnea (mMRC score = 4 or death), severe autonomy deficiencies (ADL Katz score ≤ 2 or death), and major adverse respiratory events (new home-care ventilatory support or death) were observed in 52/104 (50.0%), 47/104 (45.2%), and 65/104 (62.5%) patients, respectively; with no difference between the bacterial, viral and unidentified group: p = 0.58, p = 0.06, p = 0.61, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: CAP of bacterial origin had a poorer outcome than CAP of viral or unidentified origin. At one-year, impairment of functional status was frequently observed, with no difference according to the etiology.

Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide, it also induced urgent mobilisation of research teams to develop treatments preventing or curing the disease and its consequences. It has, therefore, challenged critical care research to rapidly focus on specific fields while forcing critical care physicians to make difficult ethical decisions. This narrative review aims to summarise critical care research -from organisation to research fields- in this pandemic setting and to highlight opportunities to improve research efficiency in the future, based on what is learned from COVID-19. This pressure on research revealed, i.e., (i) the need to harmonise regulatory processes between countries, allowing simplified organisation of international research networks to improve their efficiency in answering large-scale questions; (ii) the importance of developing translational research from which therapeutic innovations can emerge; (iii) the need for improved triage and predictive scores to rationalise admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, key areas for future critical care research and better pandemic preparedness are artificial intelligence applied to healthcare, characterisation of long-term symptoms, and ethical considerations. Such collaborative research efforts should involve groups from both high and low-to-middle income countries to propose worldwide solutions. As a conclusion, stress tests on healthcare organisations should be viewed as opportunities to design new research frameworks and strategies. Worldwide availability of research networks ready to operate is essential to be prepared for next pandemics. Importantly, researchers and physicians should prioritise realistic and ethical goals for both clinical care and research.