Background: Diagnosis of co/superinfection in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is challenging. The FilmArray Pneumonia plus Panel (bioMérieux, France), a new rapid multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (mPCR), has never been assessed on a blinded protected telescope catheter (PTC) samples, a very common diagnostic tool in patients under mechanical ventilation. We evaluated the performance of mPCR on PTC samples compared with conventional culture and its impact on antibiotic stewardship. Methods: Observational study in two intensive care units, conducted between March and July 2020, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. Results: We performed 125 mPCR on blinded PTC samples of 95 ARDS patients, including 73 (77%) SARS-CoV-2 cases and 28 (29%) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Respiratory samples were drawn from mechanically ventilated patients either just after intubation (n = 48; 38%) or later for suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (n = 77; 62%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of mPCR were 93% (95% CI 84–100), 99% (95% CI 99–100), 68% (95% CI 54–83), and 100% (95% CI 100–100), respectively. The overall coefficient of agreement between mPCR and standard culture was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68–0.89). Intensivists changed empirical antimicrobial therapy in only 14% (18/125) of cases. No new antibiotic was initiated in more than half of the CAP/HAP pneumonia-suspected cases (n = 29; 60%) and in more than one-third of those suspected to have VAP without affecting or delaying their antimicrobial therapy. Conclusions: Rapid mPCR was feasible on blinded PTC with good sensitivity and specificity. New antibiotics were not initiated in more than half of patients and more than one-third of VAP-suspected cases. Further studies are needed to assess mPCR potential in improving antibiotic stewardship.

Background Airway opening pressure (AOP) detection and measurement are essential for assessing respiratory mechanics and adapting ventilation. We propose a novel approach for AOP assessment during volume assist control ventilation at a usual constant-flow rate of 60 L/min. Objectives To validate the conductive pressure (Pcond) method, which compare the Pcond—defined on the airway pressure waveform as the difference between the airway pressure level at which an abrupt change in slope occurs at the beginning of insufflation and PEEP—to resistive pressure for AOP detection and measurement, and to compare its respiratory and hemodynamic tolerance to the standard low-flow insufflation method. Methods The proof-of-concept of the Pcond method was assessed on mechanical (lung simulator) and physiological (cadavers) bench models. Its diagnostic performance was evaluated in 213 patients, using the standard low-flow insufflation method as a reference. In 45 patients, the respiratory and hemodynamic tolerance of the Pcond method was compared with the standard low-flow method. Measurements and main results Bench assessments validated the Pcond method proof-of-concept. Sensitivity and specificity of the Pcond method for AOP detection were 93% and 91%, respectively. AOP obtained by Pcond and standard low-flow methods strongly correlated (r = 0.84, p < 0.001). Changes in SpO2 were significantly lower during Pcond than during standard method (p < 0.001). Conclusion Determination of Pcond during constant-flow assist control ventilation may permit to easily and safely detect and measure AOP.