Background: Pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and pneumothorax are not rarely observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such complications can worsen gas exchange and the overall prognosis in critical patients. The aim of this study is to investigate what predisposing factors are related to pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax in SARS-CoV2-Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), what symptoms may predict a severe and potentially fatal complication and what therapeutical approach may provide a better outcome. Methods: In this single center cohort study, we recorded data from 45 critically ill COVID-19 patients who developed one or more complicating events among pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and pneumothorax. All patients showed ARDS and underwent non-invasive ventilation (NIV) at baseline. Patients with mild to moderate ARDS and pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax (n = 25) received High Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC), while patients with severe ARDS and pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax underwent HFNC (n = 10) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (n = 10). Results: Pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax developed in 10.5% of subjects affected by SARS-coV2-ARDS. Dyspnea affected 40% and cough affected 37% of subjects. High resolution computed tomography of the chest showed bilateral diffuse ground glass opacities (GGO) in 100% of subjects. Traction bronchiolectasis, reticulation, crazy paving and distortion were observed in 64%. Furthermore, 36% showed subcutaneous emphysema. Non-severe ARDS cases received HFNC, and 76% patients recovered from pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax over a median follow up of 5 days. Among severe ARDS cases the recovery rate of pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax was 70% with the HFNC approach, and 10% with IMV. Conclusion: HFNC is a safe and effective ventilatory approach for critical COVID-19 and has a positive role in associated complications such as pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax.

No abstract

Background: Antiviral treatment is a hot topic regarding therapy for COVID-19. Several antiviral drugs have been tested in the months since the pandemic began. Yet only Remdesivir obtained approval after first trials. The best time to administer Remdesivir is still a matter for discussion and this could also depend upon the severity of lung damage and the staging of the infection. Methods: We performed a real-life study of patients hospitalized forCOVID-19 and receiving non-invasive ventilation (NIV). In this single-center study, a 5 day course of Remdesivir was administered as compassionate use. Further therapeutic supports included antibiotics, low molecular weight heparin and steroids. Data collection included clinical signs and symptoms, gas exchange, laboratory markers of inflammation, and radiological findings. Major outcomes were de-escalation of oxygen-support requirements, clinical improvement defined by weaning from ventilation to oxygen therapy or discharge, and mortality. Adverse drug reactions were also recorded. All data were collected during hospitalization and during a 20-day follow up after treatment. Results: 51 patients were enrolled. A global clinical improvement was recorded in 22 patients (43%) at 12 days, and 36 (71%) at 20 days; in particular, at 12 days, 27 patients (53%) also had a de-escalation of oxygen-support class from a therapeutic point of view. Remdesivir use was associated with a lower hazard ratio for clinical improvement in the elderly (older than 70 years) and in subjects with more extensive lung involvement (total severity score at HRCT of more than 14). The 20-day mortality was 13%. Conclusions: Results demonstrated that Remdesivir is associated with an improvement in clinical, laboratory and radiological parameters in patients with severe COVID-19 and showed an overall mortality of 13%. We conclude that, in this cohort, Remdesivir was a beneficial add-on therapy for severe COVID-19, especially in adults with moderate lung involvement at HRCT.

Background: Home treatment of patients affected by COVID-19 is still a matter of daily debate. During the clinical evolution of the disease, there are high risks of lung failure, which requires oxygen therapy. Here, we report our clinical experience with at-home treatment using high-flow nasal cannula in non-hospitalised patients with confirmed COVID-19. Patients and methods: In this study, 18 patients with moderate-to-severe respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 were monitored at home daily for temperature and SpO2 measurements. Other parameters such as saturation of peripheral oxygen (SpO2), SpO2/FiO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen), temperature, and lung performance were monitored periodically. Depending on oxygen requirements, the patients also received either standard oxygen via a face mask or, if higher FiO2 required, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). Results: All 18 patients had favourable outcomes and recovered from COVID-19. No death was recorded in this group. Conclusion: Our clinical experience proves that high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy may be considered for at-home treatment of COVID-19 patients with moderate lung failure. This could be useful for further treatment during the pandemic and may also be considered in future epidemics.

No abstract