Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a boom in the use of V-V ECMO for ARDS secondary to COVID. Comparisons of outcomes of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for influenza have emerged. Very few comparisons of ECMO for COVID to ECMO for ARDS of all etiologies are available., Objectives: To compare clinically important outcome measures in recipients of ECMO for COVID to those observed in recipients of ECMO for ARDS of other etiologies., Methods: V-V ECMO recipients between March 2020 and March 2022 consisted exclusively of COVID patients and formed the COVID ECMO group. All patients who underwent V-V ECMO for ARDS between January 2014 and March 2020 were eligible for analysis as the non-COVID ECMO comparator group. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included ECMO decannulation, ECMO duration >30 days, and serious complications., Results: Thirty-six patients comprised the COVID ECMO group and were compared to 18 non-COVID ECMO patients. Survival to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the two groups (33% in COVID vs. 50% in non-COVID; p = 0.255) nor was there a significant difference in the rate of non-palliative ECMO decannulation. The proportion of patients connected to ECMO for >30 days was significantly higher in the COVID ECMO group: 69% vs. 17%; p = 0.001. There was no significant difference in serious complications., Conclusion: This study could not identify a statistically significant difference in hospital survival and rate of successful ECMO decannulation between COVID ECMO and non-COVID ECMO patients. Prolonged ECMO may be more common in COVID. Complications were not significantly different., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors has any relevant competing interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Corticosteroid dosing in the range of 0.5-2 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone equivalents has become a standard part of the management of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 pneumonia based on positive results of randomized trials and a meta-analysis. Alongside such conventional dosing, administration of 1 gm of methylprednisolone daily (pulse dosing) has also been reported in the literature with claims of favorable outcomes. Comparisons between such disparate approaches to corticosteroids for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are lacking. In this retrospective study of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19 pneumonia, we compared patients treated with 0.5-2 mg/kg/day in methylprednisolone equivalents (high-dose corticosteroids) and patients treated with 1 gm of methylprednisolone (pulse-dose corticosteroids) to those who did not receive any corticosteroids. The endpoints of interest were hospital mortality, ICU-free days at Day 28, and complications potentially attributable to corticosteroids. Pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy was associated with a significant increase in ICU-free days at Day 28 compared to no receipt: adjusted relative risk (aRR): 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-2.02; p = 0.03) and compared with high-dose corticosteroid administration (p = 0.003). Nonetheless, receipt of high-dose corticosteroids-but not of pulse-dose corticosteroids-significantly reduced the odds of hospital mortality compared to no receipt: adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) 0.31 (95% CI: 0.12-0.77; p = 0.01). High-dose corticosteroids reduced mortality compared to pulse-dose corticosteroids (p = 0.04). Pulse-dose corticosteroids-but not high-dose corticosteroids-significantly increased the odds of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared to no receipt: aOR 3.53 (95% CI: 1.27-9.82; p = 0.02). The odds of this complication were also significantly higher in the pulse-dose group when compared to the high-dose group (p = 0.05 for the comparison). In this single-center study, pulse-dose corticosteroid therapy for COVID-19 pneumonia in the ICU was associated with an increase in ICU-free days but failed to impact hospital mortality, perhaps because of its association with development of severe renal failure. In line with existing trial data, the effect of high-dose corticosteroids on mortality was favorable., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The clinical features and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who develop a pneumothorax has not been rigorously described or compared to those who do not develop a pneumothorax., Purpose: To determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax. In addition, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients who developed a pneumothorax with those who did not develop a pneumothorax., Methods: This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of all adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection who were admitted to intensive care units in 4 tertiary care centers in the United States., Results: A total of 842 critically ill patients with COVID-19 infection were analyzed, out of which 594 (71%) were mechanically ventilated. The overall incidence of pneumothorax was 85/842 (10%), and 80/594 (13%) in those who were mechanically ventilated. As compared to mechanically ventilated patients in the non-pneumothorax group, mechanically ventilated patients in the pneumothorax group had worse respiratory parameters at the time of intubation (mean PaO 2 :FiO 2 ratio 105 vs 150, P<0.001 and static respiratory system compliance: 30ml/cmH 2 O vs 39ml/cmH 2 O, P = 0.01) and significantly higher in-hospital mortality (63% vs 49%, P = 0.04)., Conclusion: The overall incidence of pneumothorax in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection was 13%. Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection who developed pneumothorax had worse gas exchange and respiratory mechanics at the time of intubation and had a higher mortality compared to those who did not develop pneumothorax., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The epidemiology and mycology of invasive candidiasis in the ICU is well-described in certain types of critically ill patients but not in others. One population that has been scarcely studied is non-neutropenic patients admitted specifically to medical ICUs. Even less is known about the broader category of medical ICU patients without active oncological disease. This group constitutes a very large share of the patients requiring critical care across the globe, especially in the era of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We analysed medical ICU candidaemia episodes that occurred in non-oncological patients in our tertiary academic centre in the United States from May 2014 to October 2020 to determine the incidence and species distribution of the associated isolates. We then separately considered non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 cases and compared their characteristics. In the non-COVID-19 group, there were 38 cases for an incidence of 1.1% and rate of 11/1000 admissions. In the COVID-19 group, there were 12 cases for an incidence of 5.1% and rate of 51/1000 admissions. In the entire sample, as well as separately in the non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 groups,Candida albicans accounted for a minority of isolates. Compared to non-COVID-19 patients with candidaemia, COVID-19 patients had lower ICU admission SOFA score but longer ICU length of stay and central venous catheter dwell time at candidaemia detection. This study provides valuable insight into the incidence and species distribution of candidaemia cases occurring in non-oncological critically ill patients and identifies informative differences between non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients., (© 2021 The Authors. Mycoses published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

• Despite a superficial resemblance, care should be taken not to reflexively conflate COVID-19 lung disease with the more familiar entity of ARDS. • There is reason to believe that there are histopathological differences between COVID-19 lung disease and ARDS known to complicate influenza • From the pulmonology perspective, this distinction has major treatment implications. • The argument for corticosteroid use, which is ineffective in ARDS caused by influenza, in COVID-19 lung disease rests on this separation. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has introduced the medical community to a lung disease heretofore unknown to most clinicians. In much of the discourse about COVID-19 lung disease, the more familiar clinical entity of ARDS has been used as the guiding paradigm. Reflecting on studies in ARDS, particularly that due to influenza, and on data from the SARS-CoV and MERS epidemics, many authorities, including within the discipline of infectious diseases, were initially passionate in their opposition to the use of corticosteroids for lung involvement in COVID-19. The voice of the pulmonology community—the community of lung experts—has continued to be among the quietest in this conversation. Herein we offer our perspective as academic pulmonologists who encountered COVID-19 in its first United States epicenter of New York City. We encourage a conceptual separation between early COVID-19 lung involvement and ARDS. We draw on history with other immune cell-mediated lung diseases, on insights from the SARS-CoV experience, and on frontline observations in an attempt to allay the skepticism towards corticosteroids in COVID-19 lung disease that is likely to persist even as favorable study results emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]