Annals of Intensive Care

Data on the prevalence of bacterial and viral co-infections among patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure related to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia are lacking. We aimed to assess the rate of bacterial and viral co-infections, as well as to report the most common micro-organisms involved in patients admitted to the ICU for severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

In this monocenter retrospective study, we reviewed all the respiratory microbiological investigations performed within the first 48 h of ICU admission of COVID-19 patients (RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2) admitted for acute respiratory failure.

From March 13th to April 16th 2020, a total of 92 adult patients (median age: 61 years, 1st–3rd quartiles [55–70]; males: n = 73/92, 79%; baseline SOFA: 4 [3–7] and SAPS II: 31 [21–40]; invasive mechanical ventilation: n = 83/92, 90%; ICU mortality: n = 45/92, 49%) were admitted to our 40-bed ICU for acute respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Among them, 26 (28%) were considered as co-infected with a pathogenic bacterium at ICU admission with no co-infection related to atypical bacteria or viruses. The distribution of the 32 bacteria isolated from culture and/or respiratory PCRs was as follows: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (n = 10/32, 31%), Haemophilus influenzae (n = 7/32, 22%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n = 6/32, 19%), Enterobacteriaceae (n = 5/32, 16%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 2/32, 6%), Moraxella catarrhalis (n = 1/32, 3%) and Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 1/32, 3%). Among the 24 pathogenic bacteria isolated from culture, 2 (8%) and 5 (21%) were resistant to 3rd generation cephalosporin and to amoxicillin–clavulanate combination, respectively.

We report on a 28% rate of bacterial co-infection at ICU admission of patients with severe SARSCoV-2 pneumonia, mostly related to Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Enterobacteriaceae. In French patients with confirmed severe SARSCoV-2 pneumonia requiring ICU admission, our results encourage the systematic administration of an empiric antibiotic monotherapy with a 3rd generation cephalosporin, with a prompt de-escalation as soon as possible. Further larger studies are needed to assess the real prevalence and the predictors of co-infection together with its prognostic impact on critically ill patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Few specific medications have been proven effective for the treatment of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we tested whether high-dose vitamin C infusion was effective for severe COVID-19.

This randomized, controlled, clinical trial was performed at 3 hospitals in Hubei, China. Patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the ICU were randomly assigned in as 1:1 ratio to either the high-dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) or the placebo. HDIVC group received 12 g of vitamin C/50 ml every 12 h for 7 days at a rate of 12 ml/hour, and the placebo group received bacteriostatic water for injection in the same way within 48 h of arrival to ICU. The primary outcome was invasive mechanical ventilation-free days in 28 days (IMVFD28). Secondary outcomes were 28-day mortality, organ failure (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score), and inflammation progression (interleukin-6).

Only 56 critical COVID-19 patients were ultimately recruited due to the early control of the outbreak. There was no difference in IMVFD28 between two groups (26.0 [9.0–28.0] in HDIVC vs 22.0 [8.50–28.0] in control, p = 0.57). HDIVC failed to reduce 28-day mortality (P = 0.27). During the 7-day treatment period, patients in the HDIVC group had a steady rise in the PaO₂/FiO₂ (day 7: 229 vs. 151 mmHg, 95% CI 33 to 122, P = 0.01), which was not observed in the control group. IL-6 in the HDIVC group was lower than that in the control group (19.42 vs. 158.00; 95% CI -301.72 to -29.79; P = 0.04) on day 7.

This pilot trial showed that HDIVC failed to improve IMVFD28, but might show a potential signal of benefit in oxygenation for critically ill patients with COVID-19 improving PaO2/FiO2 even though.

Preliminary reports have described significant procoagulant events in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), including life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE).

We review the current data on the epidemiology, the possible underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms, and the therapeutic implications of PE in relation to COVID-19. The incidence of PE is reported to be around 2.6–8.9% of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and up to one-third of those requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission, despite standard prophylactic anticoagulation. This may be explained by direct and indirect pathologic consequences of COVID-19, complement activation, cytokine release, endothelial dysfunction, and interactions between different types of blood cells.

Thromboprophylaxis should be started in all patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the hospital. The use of an intermediate therapeutic dose of low molecular weight (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin can be considered on an individual basis in patients with multiple risk factors for venous thromboembolism, including critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. Decisions about extending prophylaxis with LMWH after hospital discharge should be made after balancing the reduced risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the risk of increased bleeding events and should be continued for 7–14 days after hospital discharge or in the pre-hospital phase in case of pre-existing or persisting VTE risk factors. Therapeutic anticoagulation is the cornerstone in the management of patients with PE. Selection of an appropriate agent and correct dosing requires consideration of underlying comorbidities.

The data on incidence, clinical presentation, and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) are limited. We performed this retrospective cohort study to assess frequency, clinical characteristics, responsible pathogens, and outcomes of VAP in patients COVID-19 pneumonia requiring MV between March 12th and April 24th, 2020 (all had RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection). Patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring ECMO were compared with an historical cohort of 45 patients with severe influenza-associated ARDS requiring ECMO admitted to the same ICU during the preceding three winter seasons.

Among 50 consecutive patients with Covid-19-associated ARDS requiring ECMO included [median (IQR) age 48 (42–56) years; 72% male], 43 (86%) developed VAP [median (IQR) MV duration before the first episode, 10 (8–16) days]. VAP-causative pathogens were predominantly Enterobacteriaceae (70%), particularly inducible AmpC-cephalosporinase producers (40%), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (37%). VAP recurred in 34 (79%) patients and 17 (34%) died. Most recurrences were relapses (i.e., infection with the same pathogen), with a high percentage occurring on adequate antimicrobial treatment. Estimated cumulative incidence of VAP, taking into account death and extubation as competing events, was significantly higher in Covid-19 patients than in influenza patients (p = 0.002). Despite a high P. aeruginosa-VAP rate in patients with influenza-associated ARDS (54%), the pulmonary infection recurrence rate was significantly lower than in Covid-19 patients. Overall mortality was similar for the two groups.

Patients with severe Covid-19-associated ARDS requiring ECMO had a very high late-onset VAP rate. Inducible AmpC-cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa frequently caused VAP, with multiple recurrences and difficulties eradicating the pathogen from the lung.

There is no consensus on the management of anticoagulation during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). ECMO is currently burdened by a high rate of hemostatic complications, possibly associated with inadequate monitoring of heparin anticoagulation. This study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of an anticoagulation protocol for patients undergoing ECMO based on thromboelastography (TEG) as opposed to an activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT)-based protocol.

We performed a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in two academic tertiary care centers. Adult patients with acute respiratory failure treated with veno-venous ECMO were randomized to manage heparin anticoagulation using a TEG-based protocol (target 16–24 min of the R parameter, TEG group) or a standard of care aPTT-based protocol (target 1.5–2 of aPTT ratio, aPTT group). Primary outcomes were safety and feasibility of the study protocol.

Forty-two patients were enrolled: 21 were randomized to the TEG group and 21 to the aPTT group. Duration of ECMO was similar in the two groups (9 (7–16) days in the TEG group and 11 (4–17) days in the aPTT group, p = 0.74). Heparin dosing was lower in the TEG group compared to the aPTT group (11.7 (9.5–15.3) IU/kg/h vs. 15.7 (10.9–21.3) IU/kg/h, respectively, p = 0.03). Safety parameters, assessed as number of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events and transfusions given, were not different between the two study groups. As for the feasibility, the TEG-based protocol triggered heparin infusion rate adjustments more frequently (p < 0.01) and results were less frequently in the target range compared to the aPTT-based protocol (p < 0.001). Number of prescribed TEG or aPTT controls (according to study groups) and protocol violations were not different between the study groups.

TEG seems to be safely used to guide anticoagulation management during ECMO. Its use was associated with the administration of lower heparin doses compared to a standard of care aPTT-based protocol.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, October 22,2014. Identifier: NCT02271126.