Research priorities for therapeutic plasma exchange in critically ill patients.

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is a therapeutic intervention that separates plasma from blood cells to remove pathological factors or to replenish deficient factors. The use of TPE is increasing over the last decades. However, despite a good theoretical rationale and biological plausibility for TPE as a therapy for numerous diseases or syndromes associated with critical illness, TPE in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting has not been studied extensively. A group of eighteen experts around the globe from different clinical backgrounds used a modified Delphi method to phrase key research questions related to "TPE in the critically ill patient". These questions focused on: (1) the pathophysiological role of the removal and replacement process, (2) optimal timing of treatment, (3) dosing and treatment regimes, (4) risk-benefit assumptions and (5) novel indications in need of exploration. For all five topics, the current understanding as well as gaps in knowledge and future directions were assessed. The content should stimulate future research in the field and novel clinical applications.

Remdesivir plus Dexamethasone in COVID-19: A cohort study of severe patients requiring high flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation.

INTRODUCTION: Remdesivir and Dexamethasone represent the cornerstone of therapy for critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, clinical efficacy and safety of concomitant administration of Remdesivir and Dexamethasone (Rem-Dexa) in severe COVID-19 patients on high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study that was performed in two medical Intensive Care Units (ICUs) of a tertiary university hospital. The clinical impact of Rem-Dexa administration in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, who required NIV or HFOT and selected on the simplified acute physiology score II, the sequential organ failure assessment score and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score, was investigated. The primary outcome was 28-day intubation rate; secondary outcomes were end-of-treatment clinical improvement and PaO2/FiO2 ratio, laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications, ICU and hospital length of stay, 28-day and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: We included 132 patients and found that 28-day intubation rate was significantly lower among Rem-Dexa group (19.7% vs 48.5%, p<0.01). Although the end-of-treatment clinical improvement was larger among Rem-Dexa group (69.7% vs 51.5%, p = 0.05), the 28-day and 90-day mortalities were similar (4.5% and 10.6% vs. 15.2% and 16.7%; p = 0.08 and p = 0.45, respectively). The logistic regression and Cox-regression models showed that concomitant Rem-Dexa therapy was associated with a reduction of 28-day intubation rate (OR 0.22, CI95% 0.05-0.94, p = 0.04), in absence of laboratory abnormalities and clinical complications (p = ns). CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 critically ill patients receiving HFO or NIV, 28-day intubation rate was lower in patients who received Rem-Dexa and this finding corresponded to lower end-of-treatment clinical improvement. The individual contribution of either Remdesevir or Dexamethasone to the observed clinical effect should be further investigated.

Impaired clinical outcome and increased postoperative complications in COVID-19 patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass

Objective Previous studies reported unfavorable results in COVID-19 patients who underwent cardiac surgery. Complications most frequently observed were respiratory failure and higher incidence of thromboembolic events. We present our single-center experience in patients with perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19 infection undergoing cardiac surgery with extracorporeal circulation. Methods In this observational matched case-control (propensity match 1:2) study, we collected data of patients undergoing open heart cardiac surgery from January 2020 to May 2021, having positive perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19 infection confirmed by polymerase Chain Reaction-PCR (study group). Patients were compared with 56 corresponding controls (control group) who matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and Euro-Score II. Results In the study period 1060 patients underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Among them, 28 consecutive patients, aged 70.1±9.3 years, had perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. Four (14%) patients underwent emergency surgery for type-A aortic dissection, 2 (7%) patients died in the Intensive Care Unit for severe respiratory failure, shock and multiple organ failure. Significant bleeding complications occurred in 14 (50%) patients in the study group (vs 6% in the control group, p=<0.05). In the study group, 11 (39%) patients required early surgical reexploration for bleeding, 5 presented cardiac tamponade, 5 (18%) underwent multiple surgical revisions for recurrent bleeding. Three (11%) patients required late chest drainage of a massive sero-hemorrhagic pleural effusion, 1 (4%) presented late postoperative intracranial hemorrhage. Fourteen (50%) patients had severe thrombocytopenia (vs 9% in the control group, p=<0.05). In the study group blood components transfusion and procoagulant drugs administration increased (79% and 78% vs 18% and 11% in the control group, respectively, p=<0.05). In the study group 6 (21%) patients presented postoperative acute renal failure (2% in the control group, p=<0.05), 7 (25%) acute respiratory failure (p=<0.05) requiring prolonged postoperative orotracheal intubation. Sternal dehiscence was observed in 4 (14%) patients in the study group (vs 4% in the control group, p=< 0.05). Complications significantly influenced hospital stay length (20 ± 3.1 vs 8.1 ± 3.9 days, p=< 0.05). In the multivariable logistic regression model the SARS-CoV-2 infection and renal failure were independent factors associated with severe postoperative complications (p=<0.01). Conclusions Clinical outcome of open heart cardiac surgery patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection appears significantly impaired in terms of mortality and postoperative complications. CPB-related inflammatory reaction could likely exacerbate the deleterious effect of COVID-19 on the respiratory and renal systems, as well as on the coagulation pathways. Early and late hemorrhagic complications were very frequent with significantly increased surgical reexplorations for bleeding, a higher incidence of severe thrombocytopenia, of blood components transfusion and procoagulant drugs administration. The increased surgical risk should suggest a cautious attitude in indicating open heart surgery in patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection and surgery should be limited to not postponable or to urgent cases.

Bleeding Complications in Patients With Perioperative COVID-19 Infection Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Single-Center Matched Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies reported a poor outcome in patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) undergoing cardiac surgery. Complications most frequently described were respiratory failure, renal failure, and thromboembolic events. In their recent experience, the authors observed a very high incidence of bleeding complications. The purpose of the study was to investigate a possible significant correlation between perioperative COVID-19 infection and hemorrhagic complications compared to non-COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Single-center, observational, retrospective, matched case-control (1:2) study involving patients who underwent open-heart cardiac surgery from February 2020 and March 2021 with positive perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, matched with patients without COVID-19 infection. SETTING: Cardiac surgery unit and intensive care unit of a university tertiary center in a metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: In the study period, 773 patients underwent cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Among them, 23 consecutive patients had perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19 infection (study group). These patients were compared with 46 corresponding controls (control group) that matched for age, sex, body mass index, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons score. INTERVENTIONS: Open-heart cardiac surgery on CPB. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In the study group, 2 patients (9%) died in the intensive care unit from severe respiratory failure, shock, and multiple organ failure. In the study group, patients showed a significantly higher incidence of bleeding complications (48% v 2%, p = 0.0001) and cases of surgical reexploration for bleeding (35% v 2%, p = 0.0001), a higher incidence of severe postoperative thrombocytopenia (39% v 6%, p = 0.0007), and a higher need of blood components transfusions (74% v 30%, p = 0.0006). Chest tubes blood loss and surgical hemostasis time were markedly prolonged (p = 0.02 and p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A worrisome increased risk of early and late bleeding complications in COVID-19 patients was observed, and it should be considered when assessing the operative risk. CPB-related inflammatory reaction could exacerbate the deleterious effect of COVID-19 on the coagulation system and likely deviate it toward a hemorrhagic pattern.

Compassionate use of anti-IL6 receptor antibodies in critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients developing the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) show increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including interleukin-6 (IL-6). The use of humanized monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6R) may represent a potential treatment strategy. We analyzed the effects of compassionate use of tocilizumab and sarilumab on clinical outcome of patients affected by ARDS due COVID-19. METHODS: This single-center, observational, exploratory study was performed during the acute phase of COVID-19 outbreak, between March 7th and April 21st, 2020 in a University Hospital in Rome, Italy. All consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and fulfilling ARDS criteria were enrolled. Patients who were treated with anti-IL-6R therapy were compared to those who were not, as per clinical decision. Inverse probability weights were applied to weight individual's contribution to survival curves and in the multivariate regression model. RESULTS: Among 105 ARDS patients, 65 received compassionate treatment with anti-IL-6R therapy (43 [66%] Tocilizumab [Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland] and 22 [34%] Sarilumab, respectively], with oxygenation improvement. In the multivariable Cox proportional regression hazards model with propensity score inverse probability weighting, patients who received anti-IL-6R treatment had lower risk of death compared to those who did not, with a hazard ration of 0.34 [95% confidence interval 0.17-0.74], P=0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggested that immune modulator therapy based on anti-human IL-6 receptor monoclonal antibodies might lead to improved outcome in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. These data support the need for confirmatory randomized trials to assess the effect of immune modulator therapies on mortality.

Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with COVID-19: clinical features and potential inference with lung dysbiosis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and requiring mechanical ventilation are at risk of ventilator-associated bacterial infections secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study aimed to investigate clinical features of Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia (SA-VAP) and, if bronchoalveolar lavage samples were available, lung bacterial community features in ICU patients with or without COVID-19. METHODS: We prospectively included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across two medical ICUs of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS (Rome, Italy), who developed SA-VAP between 20 March 2020 and 30 October 2020 (thereafter referred to as cases). After 1:2 matching based on the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) and the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, cases were compared with SA-VAP patients without COVID-19 (controls). Clinical, microbiological, and lung microbiota data were analyzed. RESULTS: We studied two groups of patients (40 COVID-19 and 80 non-COVID-19). COVID-19 patients had a higher rate of late-onset (87.5% versus 63.8%; p = 0.01), methicillin-resistant (65.0% vs 27.5%; p < 0.01) or bacteremic (47.5% vs 6.3%; p < 0.01) infections compared with non-COVID-19 patients. No statistically significant differences between the patient groups were observed in ICU mortality (p = 0.12), clinical cure (p = 0.20) and microbiological eradication (p = 0.31). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, SAPS II and initial inappropriate antimicrobial therapy were independently associated with ICU mortality. Then, lung microbiota characterization in 10 COVID-19 and 16 non-COVID-19 patients revealed that the overall microbial community composition was significantly different between the patient groups (unweighted UniFrac distance, R2 0.15349; p < 0.01). Species diversity was lower in COVID-19 than in non COVID-19 patients (94.4 ± 44.9 vs 152.5 ± 41.8; p < 0.01). Interestingly, we found that S. aureus (log2 fold change, 29.5), Streptococcus anginosus subspecies anginosus (log2 fold change, 24.9), and Olsenella (log2 fold change, 25.7) were significantly enriched in the COVID-19 group compared to the non-COVID-19 group of SA-VAP patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, COVID-19 seemed to significantly affect microbiological and clinical features of SA-VAP as well as to be associated with a peculiar lung microbiota composition.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.