Impairment of central language processing in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients with delirium.

Accumulating evidence indicates that coronavirus disease 2019 is a major cause of delirium. Given the global dimension of the current pandemic and the fact that delirium is a strong predictor of cognitive decline for critically ill patients, this raises concerns regarding the neurological cost of coronavirus disease 2019. Currently, there is a major knowledge gap related to the covert yet potentially incapacitating higher-order cognitive impairment underpinning coronavirus disease 2019 related delirium. The aim of the current study was to analyse the electrophysiological signatures of language processing in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with delirium by using a specifically designed multidimensional auditory event-related potential battery to probe hierarchical cognitive processes, including self-processing (P300) and semantic/lexical priming (N400). Clinical variables and electrophysiological data were prospectively collected in controls subjects (n = 14) and in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients with (n = 19) and without (n = 22) delirium. The time from intensive care unit admission to first clinical sign of delirium was of 8 (3.5-20) days, and the delirium lasted for 7 (4.5-9.5) days. Overall, we have specifically identified in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with delirium, both a preservation of low-level central auditory processing (N100 and P200) and a coherent ensemble of covert higher-order cognitive dysfunctions encompassing self-related processing (P300) and sematic/lexical language priming (N400) (spatial-temporal clustering, P-cluster ≤ 0.05). We suggest that our results shed new light on the neuropsychological underpinnings of coronavirus disease 2019 related delirium, and may constitute a valuable method for patient's bedside diagnosis and monitoring in this clinically challenging setting.

Co-Infection and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Considering virus-related and drug-induced immunocompromised status of critically ill COVID-19 patients, we hypothesize that these patients would more frequently develop ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) than patients with ARDS from other viral causes. We conducted a retrospective observational study in two intensive care units (ICUs) from France, between 2017 and 2020. We compared bacterial co-infection at ICU admission and throughout the disease course of two retrospective longitudinally sampled groups of critically ill patients, who were admitted to ICU for either H1N1 or SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection and depicted moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria upon admission. Sixty patients in the H1N1 group and 65 in the COVID-19 group were included in the study. Bacterial co-infection at the endotracheal intubation time was diagnosed in 33% of H1N1 and 16% COVID-19 patients (p = 0.08). The VAP incidence per 100 days of mechanical ventilation was 3.4 (2.2-5.2) in the H1N1 group and 7.2 (5.3-9.6) in the COVID-19 group (p < 0.004). The HR to develop VAP was of 2.33 (1.34-4.04) higher in the COVID-19 group (p = 0.002). Ten percent of H1N1 patients and 30% of the COVID-19 patients had a second episode of VAP (p = 0.013). COVID-19 patients have fewer bacterial co-infections upon admission, but the incidence of secondary infections increased faster in this group compared to H1N1 patients.

Lung Ultrasound to Assist ICU Admission Decision-Making Process of COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure.

There is only low-certainty evidence on the use of predictive models to assist COVID-19 patient's ICU admission decision-making process. Accumulative evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) assessment of COVID-19 patients allows accurate bedside evaluation of lung integrity, with the added advantage of repeatability, absence of radiation exposure, reduced risk of virus dissemination, and low cost. Our goal is to assess the performance of a quantified indicator resulting from LUS data compared with standard clinical practice model to predict critical respiratory illness in the 24 hours following hospital admission. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Critical Care Unit from University Hospital Purpan (Toulouse, France) between July 2020 and March 2021. PATIENTS: Adult patients for COVID-19 who were in acute respiratory failure (ARF), defined as blood oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry less than 90% while breathing room air or respiratory rate greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min at hospital admission. Linear multivariate models were used to identify factors associated with critical respiratory illness, defined as death or mild/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (Pao2/Fio2 < 200) in the 24 hours after patient's hospital admission. INTERVENTION: LUS assessment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and forty COVID-19 patients with ARF were studied. This cohort was split into two independent groups: learning sample (first 70 patients) and validation sample (last 70 patients). Interstitial lung water, thickening of the pleural line, and alveolar consolidation detection were strongly associated with patient's outcome. The LUS model predicted more accurately patient's outcomes than the standard clinical practice model (DeLong test: Testing: z score = 2.50, p value = 0.01; Validation: z score = 2.11, p value = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: LUS assessment of COVID-19 patients with ARF at hospital admission allows a more accurate prediction of the risk of critical respiratory illness than standard clinical practice. These results hold the promise of improving ICU resource allocation process, particularly in the case of massive influx of patients or limited resources, both now and in future anticipated pandemics.

A Clustered Case Series of Mucorales Detection in Respiratory Samples from COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care, France, August to September 2021.

While COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis is now well described in developed countries, COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM) has seemed to remain quite rare in Europe. A retrospective study was performed between March 2020 to September 2021 among COVID-19 adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at Toulouse Hospital (Southern France). PCR screening on respiratory samples, which target Aspergillus or Mucorales DNA, were performed, and the number of fungal detections was evaluated monthly during the study period. During the 19 months of the study, 44 (20.3%) COVID-19 ICU patients had a positive PCR for Aspergillus, an overall rate in keeping with the incidence of ICU COVID-19 patients. Ten patients (7.1%) had a positive Mucorales PCR over the same period. Surprisingly, 9/10 had a positive Mucor/Rhizopus PCR in August-September 2021, during the fourth Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant wave. Epidemic investigations have identified a probable environmental cause linked to construction works in the vicinity of the ICU (high levels of airborne spores due to the mistaken interruption of preventive humidification and summer temperature). Even if CAM are apparently rare in Europe, a cluster can also develop in industrialised countries when environmental conditions (especially during construction work) are associated with a high number of COVID-19 patients in the ICU.

Mass Training In Situ During COVID-19 Pandemic: Enhancing Efficiency and Minimizing Sick Leaves.

INTRODUCTION: Avoiding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related infection in frontline healthcare workers is a major challenge. A massive training program was launched in our university hospital for anesthesia/intensive care unit and operating room staff, aiming at upskilling 2249 healthcare workers for COVID-19 patients' management. We hypothesized that such a massive training was feasible in a 2-week time frame and efficient in avoiding sick leaves. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study. Training focused on personal protective equipment donning/doffing and airway management in a COVID-19 simulated patient. The educational models used were in situ procedural and immersive simulation, peer-teaching, and rapid cycle deliberate practice. Self-learning organization principles were used for trainers' management. Ordinary disease quantity in full-time equivalent in March and April 2020 were compared with the same period in 2017, 2018, and 2019. RESULTS: A total of 1668 healthcare workers were trained (74.2% of the target population) in 99 training sessions over 11 days. The median number of learners per session was 16 (interquartile range = 9-25). In the first 5 days, the median number of people trained per weekday was 311 (interquartile range = 124-385). Sick leaves did not increase in March to April 2020 compared with the same period in the 3 preceding years. CONCLUSIONS: Massive training for COVID-19 patient management in frontline healthcare workers is feasible in a very short time and efficient in limiting the rate of sick leave. This experience could be used in the anticipation of new COVID-19 waves or for rapidly preparing hospital staff for an unexpected major health crisis.

Effect of the use of an endotracheal tube and stylet versus an endotracheal tube alone on first-attempt intubation success: a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 999 patients.

PURPOSE: The effect of the routine use of a stylet during tracheal intubation on first-attempt intubation success is unclear. We hypothesised that the first-attempt intubation success rate would be higher with tracheal tube + stylet than with tracheal tube alone. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, conducted in 32 intensive care units, we randomly assigned patients to tracheal tube + stylet or tracheal tube alone (i.e. without stylet). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with first-attempt intubation success. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with complications related to tracheal intubation. Serious adverse events, i.e., traumatic injuries related to tracheal intubation, were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 999 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 501 (50%) to tracheal tube + stylet and 498 (50%) to tracheal tube alone. First-attempt intubation success occurred in 392 patients (78.2%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group and in 356 (71.5%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, 6.7; 95%CI 1.4-12.1; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 1.02-1.18; P = 0.01). A total of 194 patients (38.7%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group had complications related to tracheal intubation, as compared with 200 patients (40.2%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, - 1.5; 95%CI - 7.5 to 4.6; relative risk, 0.96; 95%CI 0.83-1.12; P = 0.64). The incidence of serious adverse events was 4.0% and 3.6%, respectively (absolute risk difference, 0.4; 95%CI, - 2.0 to 2.8; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 0.59-2.06. P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, using a stylet improves first-attempt intubation success.