Severely ill COVID-19 patients are at high risk of nosocomial infections. The aim of the study was to describe the characteristics of candidemia during the pre-pandemic period (January 2019–February 2020) compared to the pandemic period (March 2020–September 2021). Antifungal susceptibilities were assessed using the EUCAST E.Def 7.3.2 broth dilution method. Fluconazole-resistant C. parapsilosis isolates (FRCP) were studied for sequencing of the ERG11 gene. The incidence of candidemia and C. parapsilosis bloodstream infection increased significantly in the pandemic period (p = 0.021). ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, parenteral nutrition and corticosteroids administration were more frequent in patients with candidemia who had been admitted due to COVID-19. Fifteen cases of FRCP fungemia were detected. The first case was recorded 10 months before the pandemic in a patient transferred from another hospital. The incidence of FRCP in patients admitted for COVID-19 was 1.34 and 0.16 in all other patients (p < 0.001). ICU admission, previous Candida spp. colonization, arterial catheter use, parenteral nutrition and renal function replacement therapy were more frequent in patients with candidemia due to FRCP. All FRCP isolates showed the Y132F mutation. In conclusion, the incidence of candidemia experienced an increase during the COVID-19 pandemic and FRCP fungemia was more frequent in patients admitted due to COVID-19.

Background. Infective Endocarditis (IE) is a severe condition. Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been associated with a poor prognosis in other settings. Our aim was to describe the profile and prognosis of IE with and without DM and to analyze the prognostic relevance of DM-related organ damage. Methods. Retrospective analysis of the Spanish IE Registry (2008–2020). Results. The cohort comprises 5590 IE patients with a mean age of 65.0 ± 15.5 years; 3764 (67.3%) were male. DM was found in 1625 patients (29.1%) and 515 presented DM-related organ damage. DM prevalence during the first half of the study period was 27.6% vs. 30.6% in the last half, p = 0.015. Patients with DM presented higher in-hospital mortality than those without DM (521 [32.1%] vs. 924 [23.3%], p < 0.001) and higher one-year mortality (640 [39.4%] vs. 1131 [28.5%], p < 0.001). Among DM patients, organ damage was associated with higher in-hospital (200 [38.8%] vs. 321 [28.9%], p < 0.001) and one-year mortality (247 [48.0%] vs. 393 [35.4%], p < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed an independent association of DM with in-hospital (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16–1.55, p < 0.001) and one-year mortality (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.21–1.59, p < 0.001). Among DM patients, organ damage was independently associated with higher in-hospital (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.06–1.76, p = 0.015) and one-year mortality (OR = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.26–2.01, p < 0.001) Conclusions. The prevalence of DM among patients with IE is increasing and is already above 30%. DM is independently associated with a poor prognosis, particularly in the case of DM with organ damage.

Introduction: Mural infective endocarditis (MIE) is a rare type of endovascular infection. We present a comprehensive series of patients with mural endocarditis. Methods: Patients with infectious endocarditis (IE) from 35 Spanish hospitals were prospectively included in the GAMES registry between 2008 and 2017. MIEs were compared to non-MIEs. We also performed a literature search for cases of MIE published between 1979 and 2019 and compared them to the GAMEs series. Results: Twenty-seven MIEs out of 3676 IEs were included. When compared to valvular IE (VIE) or device-associated IE (DIE), patients with MIE were younger (median age 59 years, p \ 0.01). Transplantation (18.5% versus 1.6% VIE and 2% DIE, p \ 0.01), hemodialysis (18.5% versus 4.3% VIE and 4.4% DIE, p = 0.006),

Background In the past months, several lung ultrasonography (LUS) protocols have been proposed, mainly on previously validated schemes independent of coronavirus disease 2019 . Objectives The main purpose of this study was to determine the impact and accuracy of different LUS protocols proposed in COVID-19. Methods Patients were evaluated with a standard sequence of LUS scans in 72 intercostal spaces along 14 anatomic lines in the chest. A scoring system of LUS findings was reported and then analyzed separately according to each proposed LUS protocol zones. This score was then correlated to a validated Pulmonary Inflammation Index (PII) on chest Computed Tomography (CT). Results Thirty-two patients were enrolled. The most frequent pattern was ground-glass opacities in the chest X-ray (53.1%), chest CT (59.1%) and subpleural or lobar consolidations (40.8%) in the posteroinferior areas (p < 0.001) on LUS. The Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was significantly correlated with almost every protocol analyzed except the 8-zone (p = 0.119) and the 10-zone protocol that only included one posterior point (p = 0.052). The highest ICC was obtained with a 12-zone protocol (ICC 0.500; p = 0.027) and decreased as more points were included. Conclusions In conclusion, our study results suggest that performing an ultrasound protocol with 12-zone scanning, including the superior and inferior areas of the anterior, lateral and posterior regions of the chest was consistent with higher ICC and higher degree of concordance with CT. We emphasize the need of a more standardization technique to further implement and develop this imaging modality in COVID-19. KeywordsPoint-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) • Lung ultrasonography (LUS) • Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) • Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) * Yale Tung-Chen

Background: It is unclear whether the use of clinical prediction rules is sufficient to rule out infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) without an echocardiogram evaluation, either transthoracic (TTE) and/or transesophageal (TEE). Our primary purpose was to test the usefulness of PREDICT, POSITIVE, and VIRSTA scores to rule out IE without echocardiography. Our secondary purpose was to evaluate whether not performing an echocardiogram evaluation is associated with higher mortality. Methods: We conducted a unicentric retrospective cohort including all patients with a first SAB episode from January 2015 to December 2020. IE was defined according to modified Duke criteria. We predefined threshold cutoff points to consider that IE was ruled out by means of the mentioned scores. To assess 30-day mortality, we used a multivariable regression model considering performing an echocardiogram as covariate. Results: Out of 404 patients, IE was diagnosed in 50 (12.4%). Prevalence of IE within patients with negative PREDICT, POSITIVE, and VIRSTA scores was: 3.6% (95% CI 0.1–6.9%), 4.9% (95% CI 2.2–7.7%), and 2.2% (95% CI 0.2–4.3%), respectively. Patients with negative VIRSTA and negative TTE had an IE prevalence of 0.9% (95% CI 0–2.8%). Performing an echocardiogram was independently associated with lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.24 95% CI 0.10–0.54, p = 0.001). Conclusion: PREDICT and POSITIVE scores were not sufficient to rule out IE without TEE. In patients with negative VIRSTA score, it was doubtful if IE could be discarded with a negative TTE. Not performing an echocardiogram was associated with worse outcomes, which might be related to presence of occult IE. Further studies are needed to assess the usefulness of clinical prediction rules in avoiding echocardiographic evaluation in SAB patients.