Complement and complement regulatory proteins are upregulated in lungs of COVID-19 patients.

We explored the pathological changes and the activation of local complement system in COVID-19 pneumonia. Lung paraffin sections of COVID-19 infected patients were analyzed by HE (hematoxylin-eosin) staining. The deposition of complement C3, the deposition of C3b/iC3b/C3d and C5b-9, and the expression of complement regulatory proteins, CD59, CD46 and CD55 were detected by immunohistochemistry. In COVID-19 patients' lung tissues, fibrin exudation, mixed with erythrocyte, alveolar macrophage and shed pneumocyte are usually observed in the alveoli. The formation of an "alveolar emboli" structure may contribute to thrombosis and consolidation in lung tissue. In addition, we also found that compared to normal tissue, the lung tissues of COVID-19 patients displayed the hyper-activation of complement that is represented by extensive deposition of C3, C3b/iC3b/C3d and C5b-9, and the increased expression level of complement regulatory proteins CD55, and especially CD59 but not CD46. The thrombosis and consolidation in lung tissues may contribute to the pathogenesis of COVID-19. The increased expression of CD55 and CD59 may reflect a feedback of self-protection on the complement hyper-activation. Further, the increased C3 deposition and the strongly activated complement system in lung tissues may suggest the rationale of complement-targeted therapeutics in conquering COVID-19.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for SARS-CoV-2 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Retrospective Study From Hubei, China.

Background: The data on long-term outcomes of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 and treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in China are merely available. Methods: A retrospective study included 73 patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 and treated with ECMO in 21 intensive care units in Hubei, China. Data on demographic information, clinical features, laboratory tests, ECMO durations, complications, and living status were collected. Results: The 73 ECMO-treated patients had a median age of 62 (range 33-78) years and 42 (63.6%) were males. Before ECMO initiation, patients had severe respiratory failure on mechanical ventilation with a median PO2/FiO2 of 71.9 [interquartile range (IQR), 58.6-87.0] mmHg and a median PCO2 of 62 [IQR, 43-84] mmHg on arterial blood analyses. The median duration from symptom onset to invasive mechanical ventilation, and to ECMO initiation was19 [IQR, 15-25] days, and 23 [IQR, 19-31] days. Before and after ECMO initiation, the proportions of patients receiving prone position ventilation were 58.9 and 69.9%, respectively. The median duration of ECMO support was 18.5 [IQR 12-30] days. During the treatments with ECMO, major hemorrhages occurred in 31 (42.5%) patients, and oxygenators were replaced in 21 (28.8%) patients. Since ECMO initiation, the 30-day mortality and 60-day mortality were 63.0 and 80.8%, respectively. Conclusions: In Hubei, China, the ECMO-treated patients infected by SARS-CoV-2 were of a broad age range and with severe hypoxemia. The durations of ECMO support, accompanied with increased complications, were relatively long. The long-term mortality in these patients was considerably high.

The clinical course of critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with subsequent terminal weaning: Primary data from 11 cases.

ABSTRACT: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. Specific information about critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is rare.To describe the clinical course and complications of critically ill patients with COVID-19 who received IMV and were successfully weaned from it.This retrospective study included patients admitted to 3 intensive care units (ICUs) and 1 sub-ICU of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University and Wuhan Jin Yin-tan Hospital between December 24, 2019, and March 12, 2020. Eleven patients who had been diagnosed with critically ill COVID-19 according to the World Health Organization interim guidance, received invasive ventilation, and were finally successfully weaned from it, were enrolled in our study. Their presenting symptoms, comorbidity conditions, laboratory values, ICU course, ventilator parameters, treatments, and relative complications were recorded.Of 108 critically ill COVID-19 patients who received invasive ventilation, 11 patients who underwent tracheal extubation or terminal weaning were included. The mean age of the 11 patients was 52.8 years (range, 38-70 years), 8 (72.7%) were male, and 2 were health care workers. The median time from onset of symptoms to dyspnea was 6.6 days (range, 3-13 days), and the median duration of IMV was 15.7 days (range, 6-29 days). All 11 patients presented with acute severe hypoxemic respiratory failure and received IMV, and 1 patient switched to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation assistance. A lung-protective strategy with lower tidal volume ventilation and proper driving pressure is the main strategy of IMV. All patients had extrapulmonary manifestations, including acute kidney injury, hepatic dysfunction, myocardial damage, and/or lymphopenia. Hospital-acquired infections occurred in 7 (63.6%) patients.Critical COVID-19 illness is characterized by acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and subsequent dysfunction of other organs with a high mortality rate. Correct ventilation strategies and other clinical strategies to improve oxygenation based on the skilled trained group and the availability of equipment are the key methods to rescue lives.

Tracheostomy in 80 COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study.

Background: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to a large and increasing number of patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. The indication and optimal timing of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients are still unclear, and the outcomes about tracheostomy have not been extensively reported. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia who underwent elective tracheostomies. Methods: The multi-center, retrospective, observational study investigated all the COVID-19 patients who underwent elective tracheostomies in intensive care units (ICUs) of 23 hospitals in Hubei province, China, from January 8, 2020 to March 25, 2020. Demographic information, clinical characteristics, treatment, details of the tracheostomy procedure, successful weaning after tracheostomy, and living status were collected and analyzed. Data were compared between early tracheostomy patients (tracheostomy performed within 14 days of intubation) and late tracheostomy patients (tracheostomy performed after 14 days). Results: A total of 80 patients were included. The median duration from endotracheal intubation to tracheostomy was 17.5 [IQR 11.3-27.0] days. Most tracheotomies were performed by ICU physician [62 (77.5%)], and using percutaneous techniques [63 (78.8%)] at the ICU bedside [76 (95.0%)]. The most common complication was tracheostoma bleeding [14 (17.5%)], and major bleeding occurred in 4 (5.0%) patients. At 60 days after intubation, 31 (38.8%) patients experienced successful weaning from ventilator, 17 (21.2%) patients discharged from ICU, and 43 (53.8%) patients had died. Higher 60 day mortality [22 (73.3%) vs. 21 (42.0%)] were identified in patients who underwent early tracheostomy. Conclusions: In patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, tracheostomies were feasible to conduct by ICU physician at bedside with few major complications. Compared with tracheostomies conducted after 14 days of intubation, tracheostomies within 14 days were associated with an increased mortality rate.

Chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management of COVID-19: An evidence-based clinical practice guideline (updated version).

The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting more than seventeen million people around the world. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for clinicians caring for patients are needed. In the early stage, we have issued "A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version)"; now there are many direct evidences emerged and may change some of previous recommendations and it is ripe for develop an evidence-based guideline. We formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members proposed 29 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 covering the following areas: chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of COVID-19, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 34 statements. Among them, 6 were strong recommendations for, 14 were weak recommendations for, 3 were weak recommendations against and 11 were ungraded consensus-based statement. They covered topics of chemoprophylaxis (including agents and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) agents), diagnosis (including clinical manifestations, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), respiratory tract specimens, IgM and IgG antibody tests, chest computed tomography, chest x-ray, and CT features of asymptomatic infections), treatments (including lopinavir-ritonavir, umifenovir, favipiravir, interferon, remdesivir, combination of antiviral drugs, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interleukin-6 inhibitors, interleukin-1 inhibitors, glucocorticoid, qingfei paidu decoction, lianhua qingwen granules/capsules, convalescent plasma, lung transplantation, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)), and discharge management (including discharge criteria and management plan in patients whose RT-PCR retesting shows SARS-CoV-2 positive after discharge). We also created two figures of these recommendations for the implementation purpose. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients.

[A comparative study on clinical effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 on non-invasive ventilation].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the therapeutic effects and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam on patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received non-invasive ventilation. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 who needed non-invasive ventilation in one critical care medicine ward of Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital during the team support period from the department of critical care medicine of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University from January 23rd to February 15th in 2020 were investigated retrospectively. Ramsay score, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2) before sedation and at 1, 12, 24 hours after sedation, sleep time were collected, and the side effects such as excessive sedation, fall of tongue, abdominal distension, aspiration, bradycardia, escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation during 24 hours were also collected. According to different sedative drugs, patients were divided into the control group (without sedative drugs), dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group. The changes of indicators among the three groups were compared. RESULTS: Fourteen patients were injected with dexmedetomidine (loading dose of 1 µg/kg for 10 minutes, maintained at 0.2-0.7 µg×kg-1×h-1); 9 patients were injected with midazolam (loading dose of 0.05 mg/kg for 2 minutes, maintained at 0.02-0.10 mg×kg-1×h-1); 12 patients didn't use sedative drugs due to limitations of previous hospital or patients' rejection. In dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group, the Ramsay score was maintained at 2-3 points after sedation, which were higher than those of control group at different time points after sedation, and there was no significant difference between dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group. MAP of dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group decreased gradually after sedation. MAP after 1-hour sedation was significantly lower than that before sedation, and MAP after 24 hours sedation was significantly lower than that in the control group [mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa): 109.7±11.5, 107.1±12.3 vs. 121.1±13.3, both P < 0.05]. HR decreased gradually after sedation treatment, which was significantly lower after 12 hours of sedation than that before sedation, and HR in dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in control group after 12 hours of sedation (bpm: 84.0±13.9 vs. 92.8±15.4 at 12 hours; 81.0±16.7 vs 92.6±12.7 at 24 hours, both P < 0.05). PaO2 increased and RR decreased in all three groups after ventilation. PaO2 in dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group were significantly higher than that in the control group after 12 hours of sedation [cmH2O (1 cmH2O = 0.098 kPa): 79.0±6.5, 79.0±8.9 vs. 70.0±7.8, both P < 0.05]; the decreases of RR in dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group were significant than that in control group after 1 hour of sedation (bpm: 34.0±3.9, 33.8±4.6 vs. 39.0±3.6, both P < 0.05). There were no differences of MAP, HR, PaO2 and RR between dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group at different time points. The sleep duration in dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group were significantly longer than that in the control group (hours: 4.9±1.9, 5.8±2.4 vs. 3.0±1.8, both P < 0.05), but there was no difference between dexmedetomidine group and midazolam group (P > 0.05). Adverse events occurred in all three groups. In midazolam group, there were 2 cases of excessive sedation with fall of tongue and abdominal distension, including 1 case of aspiration, 1 case receiving intubation due to refractory hypoxemia and 1 case due to unconsciousness. In dexmedetomidine group, there were 2 cases of bradycardia, 1 case of intubation due to refractory hypoxemia. In control group, 4 cases underwent intubation due to refractory hypoxemia. CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive mechanical ventilation is an important respiratory support technology for patients with severe COVID-19. Appropriate sedation can increase the efficiency of non-invasive mechanical ventilation. Dexmedetomidine is more effective and safer than midazolam in these patients, but attention should be paid to HR and blood pressure monitoring.

Management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 in ICU: statement from front-line intensive care experts in Wuhan, China.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic has swept all over the world, posing a great pressure on critical care resources due to large number of patients needing critical care. Statements from front-line experts in the field of intensive care are urgently needed. METHODS: Sixteen front-line experts in China fighting against the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan were organized to develop an expert statement after 5 rounds of expert seminars and discussions to provide trustworthy recommendation on the management of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Each expert was assigned tasks within their field of expertise to provide draft statements and rationale. Parts of the expert statement are based on epidemiological and clinical evidence, without available scientific evidences. RESULTS: A comprehensive document with 46 statements are presented, including protection of medical personnel, etiological treatment, diagnosis and treatment of tissue and organ functional impairment, psychological interventions, immunity therapy, nutritional support, and transportation of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Among them, 5 recommendations were strong (Grade 1), 21 were weak (Grade 2), and 20 were experts' opinions. A strong agreement from voting participants was obtained for all recommendations. CONCLUSION: There are still no targeted therapies for COVID-19 patients. Dynamic monitoring and supportive treatment for the restoration of tissue vascularization and organ function are particularly important.

Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: An ongoing outbreak of pneumonia associated with the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) started in December, 2019, in Wuhan, China. Information about critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is scarce. We aimed to describe the clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. METHODS: In this single-centered, retrospective, observational study, we enrolled 52 critically ill adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of Wuhan Jin Yin-tan hospital (Wuhan, China) between late December, 2019, and Jan 26, 2020. Demographic data, symptoms, laboratory values, comorbidities, treatments, and clinical outcomes were all collected. Data were compared between survivors and non-survivors. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, as of Feb 9, 2020. Secondary outcomes included incidence of SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. FINDINGS: Of 710 patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 52 critically ill adult patients were included. The mean age of the 52 patients was 59·7 (SD 13·3) years, 35 (67%) were men, 21 (40%) had chronic illness, 51 (98%) had fever. 32 (61·5%) patients had died at 28 days, and the median duration from admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) to death was 7 (IQR 3-11) days for non-survivors. Compared with survivors, non-survivors were older (64·6 years [11·2] vs 51·9 years [12·9]), more likely to develop ARDS (26 [81%] patients vs 9 [45%] patients), and more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (30 [94%] patients vs 7 [35%] patients), either invasively or non-invasively. Most patients had organ function damage, including 35 (67%) with ARDS, 15 (29%) with acute kidney injury, 12 (23%) with cardiac injury, 15 (29%) with liver dysfunction, and one (2%) with pneumothorax. 37 (71%) patients required mechanical ventilation. Hospital-acquired infection occurred in seven (13·5%) patients. INTERPRETATION: The mortality of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is considerable. The survival time of the non-survivors is likely to be within 1-2 weeks after ICU admission. Older patients (>65 years) with comorbidities and ARDS are at increased risk of death. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia poses great strain on critical care resources in hospitals, especially if they are not adequately staffed or resourced. FUNDING: None.