The study was supported by Novartis.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to new approaches to manage patients outside the ICU, including prone positioning in non-intubated patients.Objectives: To report the use of prolonged active prone positioning in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure. Spontaneously breathing vs non-invasive respiratory support for COVID19 associated acute respiratory failure.Methods: Patients with PaO2/FiO2 > 150, with lung posterior consolidations as assessed by means of lung ultrasound, and chest x-ray were studied. Under continuous pulse oximetry (SpO2) monitoring, patients maintained active prone position. A PaO2/FiO2 < 150 was considered as treatment failure and patients had to be switched to non-invasive respiratory support. Retrospectively, data of 16 patients undergoing who refused proning and underwent non-invasive respiratory support were used as controls. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients maintaining prolonged prone position and discharged home. Secondary outcomes included improvement in oxygenation, hospital length of stay, and 6-month survival.Results: Three out of 16 (18.7%) patients did not tolerate the procedure. Three more patients showed a worsening in PaO2/FiO2 to <150 and required non-invasive support, two of whom finally needing endotracheal intubation. After 72 h, 10 out of 16 (62.5%) patients improved oxygenation [PaO2/FiO2: from 194.6 (42.1) to 304.7 (79.3.2) (p < 0.001)] and were discharged home. In the control group, three out of 16 failed, required invasive ventilatory support, and died within 1 month in ICU. Thirteen were successful and discharged home.Conclusion: In non-intubated spontaneously breathing COVID-19 patients with PaO2/FiO2 >150, active prolonged prone positioning was feasible and tolerated with significant improvement in oxygenation.

Background Patients hospitalized for COVID-19-related pneumonia often need several degrees of ventilatory support, which are performed between Respiratory Intermediate Care Units (RICUs) and Intensive Care Units (ICUs), and which depend on the severity of acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is no firm consensus on transfer predictors from the RICU to the ICU. Methods In this retrospective observational single center study, we evaluated 96 COVID-19 patients referred to the RICU for acute respiratory failure (ARF) according to their transferal to the ICU or their stay at the RICU. We compared demographic data, baseline laboratory profile, and final clinical outcomes to identify early risk factors for transfer. Results The best predictors for transfer to the ICU were elevated C-reactive protein and lymphopenia. The mortality rate was lower in the RICU than in the ICU, where transferred patients who died were mostly younger men and with less comorbidities than those in the RICU. Conclusions Few inflammatory markers can predict the need for transfer from the RICU to the ICU. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, we urge better clinical stratification by early and meaningful profiles in patients admitted to the RICU who are at risk of transferal to the ICU.

No abstract

The correct type and time of follow-up for patients affected by COVID19 ARDS is still unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate at the survivors to COVID19 ARDS requiring non-invasive respiratory support (NRS) admitted to a Respiratory Intensive care unit (RICU) from March 8th till May 31th 2020 looking at all sequelae via a comprehensive follow up. All patients underwent a multi-disciplinary instrumental and clinical assessment within three months form admission to evaluate all infection related sequelae. Thirty-eight patients were enrolled Lung-Ultrasound (LUS) showed an outstanding discrimination ability (ROC AUC: 0.95) and a substantial agreement rate (Cohen’s K: 0.74) compared to chest CT-scan detecting improvement of lung consolidations. Youden’s test showed a cut-off pressure of 11 cmH2O ExpiratoryPAP-Continuous-PAP-max (EPAP-CPAP) applied at the airways during hospitalization to be significantly correlated (p value: 0.026) to the increased pulmonary artery common trunk diameter. A total of 8/38 patients (21.8%), 2 of whom during follow-up, were diagnosed with Pulmonary Emboli (PE) and started anticoagulant treatment. Patients with PE had a statistically significant shorter length of time of hospitalization, time to negative swab, CPAP/NIV duration, P/F ratio and D-dimers at follow-up compared to non PE. A comprehensive approach to patients with ARDS COVID19 requiring NRS is necessary. This study highlighted cardiopulmonary impairment related to the ARDS and to the high-EPAP-CPAP-max greater than 11mmHg provided during admission, the usefulness of LUS in monitoring post-infection recovery and the correct identification and  treatment of patients with PE during follow up.