Managing the Next Wave of Influenza and/or SARS-CoV-2 in the ICU-Practical Recommendations from an Expert Group for CAPA/IAPA Patients.

The aim of this study was to establish practical recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of influenza-associated invasive aspergillosis (IAPA) based on the available evidence and experience acquired in the management of patients with COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA). The CAPA/IAPA expert group defined 14 areas in which recommendations would be made. To search for evidence, the PICO strategy was used for both CAPA and IAPA in PubMed, using MeSH terms in combination with free text. Based on the results, each expert developed recommendations for two to three areas that they presented to the rest of the group in various meetings in order to reach consensus. As results, the practical recommendations for the management of CAPA/IAPA patients have been grouped into 12 sections. These recommendations are presented for both entities in the following situations: when to suspect fungal infection; what diagnostic methods are useful to diagnose these two entities; what treatment is recommended; what to do in case of resistance; drug interactions or determination of antifungal levels; how to monitor treatment effectiveness; what action to take in the event of treatment failure; the implications of concomitant corticosteroid administration; indications for the combined use of antifungals; when to withdraw treatment; what to do in case of positive cultures for Aspergillus spp. in a patient with severe viral pneumonia or Aspergillus colonization; and how to position antifungal prophylaxis in these patients. Available evidence to support the practical management of CAPA/IAPA patients is very scarce. Accumulated experience acquired in the management of CAPA patients can be very useful for the management of IAPA patients. The expert group presents eminently practical recommendations for the management of CAPA/IAPA patients.

Identification of a panel of serum protein markers in early stage of sepsis and its validation in a cohort of patients.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening illness with a challenging diagnosis. Current serum biomarkers are not sensitive enough for diagnosis. With the aim of finding proteins associated with sepsis, serum protein profile was compared between patients and healthy donors and serum classical inflammatory proteins were analyzed in both groups. METHODS: Serum protein profiles were characterized by two-dimensional electrophoresis (2DE). Identification of the proteins was carried out by mass spectrophotometry and their validation was performed by Enzyme-Linked-ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA) in a cohort of 85 patients and 67 healthy donors. Seven classical inflammatory proteins were analyzed in the same cohort by ELISA: interleukin-2 receptor α-chain (sCD25), scavenger receptor cysteine-rich-type-1 (sCD163), tumor-necrosis factor receptor superfamily-member-6 (sFas), hemeoxigenase-1 decycling (HO-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-18 (IL-18) and intercellular adhesion-molecule-1 (sICAM-1). RESULTS: After 2DE, 20 significantly differently expressed spots were identified by mass spectrometry analysis, revealing deregulation of six different proteins upon sepsis and 50% were validated by ELISA: Antithrombin-III (AT-III), Clusterin (CLUS) and Serum amyloid A-1 (SAA-1). Serum concentration of AT-III and CLUS was significantly lower in patients' serum, whereas SAA-1 showed higher values in septic patients. Serum concentration of the seven inflammatory proteins was significantly increased in septic patients. Functional analysis of the ten deregulated proteins revealed an enrichment of proteins related mainly to the activation of the immune response. CONCLUSION: We have identified a panel of ten potential sepsis marker proteins biologically connected and validated in a large number of patients, whose analysis could be considered as a complementary tool for the diagnosis of sepsis.

Epidemiology, antibiotic therapy and clinical outcomes of healthcare-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a Spanish cohort study.

PURPOSE: Information about healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) in critically ill patients is scarce. METHODS: This prospective study compared clinical presentation, outcomes, microbial etiology, and treatment of HCAP, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), and immunocompromised patients (ICP) with severe pneumonia admitted to 34 Spanish ICUs. RESULTS: A total of 726 patients with pneumonia (449 CAP, 133 HCAP, and 144 ICP) were recruited during 1 year from April 2011. HCAP patients had more comorbidities and worse clinical status (Barthel score). HCAP and ICP patients needed mechanical ventilation and tracheotomy more frequently than CAP patients. Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most frequent pathogen in all three groups (CAP, 34.2 %; HCAP, 19.5 %; ICP, 23.4 %; p = 0.001). The overall incidence of Gram-negative pathogens, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was low, but higher in HCAP and ICP patients than CAP. Empirical treatment was in line with CAP guidelines in 73.5 % of patients with CAP, in 45.5 % of those with HCAP, and in 40 % of those with ICP. The incidence of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy was 6.5 % in CAP, 14.4 % in HCAP, and 21.8 % in ICP (p < 0.001). Mortality was highest in ICP (38.6 %) and did not differ between CAP (18.4 %) and HCAP (21.2 %). CONCLUSIONS: HCAP accounts for one-fifth of cases of severe pneumonia in patients admitted to Spanish ICUs. The empirical antibiotic therapy recommended for CAP would be appropriate for 90 % of patients with HCAP in our population, and consequently the decision to include coverage of multidrug-resistant pathogens for HCAP should be cautiously judged in order to prevent the overuse of antimicrobials.

Ventilatory support in critically ill hematology patients with respiratory failure.

INTRODUCTION: Hematology patients admitted to the ICU frequently experience respiratory failure and require mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) may decrease the risk of intubation, but NIMV failure poses its own risks. METHODS: To establish the impact of ventilatory management and NIMV failure on outcome, data from a prospective, multicenter, observational study were analyzed. All hematology patients admitted to one of the 34 participating ICUs in a 17-month period were followed up. Data on demographics, diagnosis, severity, organ failure, and supportive therapies were recorded. A logistic regression analysis was done to evaluate the risk factors associated with death and NIVM failure. RESULTS: Of 450 patients, 300 required ventilatory support. A diagnosis of congestive heart failure and the initial use of NIMV significantly improved survival, whereas APACHE II score, allogeneic transplantation, and NIMV failure increased the risk of death. The risk factors associated with NIMV success were age, congestive heart failure, and bacteremia. Patients with NIMV failure experienced a more severe respiratory impairment than did those electively intubated. CONCLUSIONS: NIMV improves the outcome of hematology patients with respiratory insufficiency, but NIMV failure may have the opposite effect. A careful selection of patients with rapidly reversible causes of respiratory failure may increase NIMV success.