IntroductionSeverity assessment and site-of-care decisions for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are pivotal for patients' safety and adequate allocation of resources. Late admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with increased mortality in CAP. We aimed to review and meta-analyze systematically the performance of clinical prediction rules to identify CAP patients requiring ICU admission or intensive treatment.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials registry for clinical trials evaluating the performance of prognostic rules to predict the need for ICU admission, intensive treatment, or the occurrence of early mortality in patients with CAP.ResultsSufficient data were available to perform a meta-analysis on eight scores: PSI, CURB-65, CRB-65, CURB, ATS 2001, ATS/IDSA 2007, SCAP score, and SMART-COP. The estimated AUC of PSI and CURB-65 scores to predict ICU admission was 0.69. Among scores proposed for prediction of ICU admission, ATS-2001 and ATS/IDSA 2007 scores had better operative characteristics, with a sensitivity of 70% (CI, 61 to 77) and 84% (48 to 97) and a specificity of 90% (CI, 82 to 95) and 78% (46 to 93), but their clinical utility is limited by the use of major criteria.ATS/IDSA 2007 minor criteria have good specificity (91% CI, 84 to 95) and moderate sensitivity (57% CI, 46 to 68). SMART-COP and SCAP score have good sensitivity (79% CI, 69 to 97, and 94% CI, 88 to 97) and moderate specificity (64% CI, 30 to 66, and 46% CI, 27 to 66). Major differences in populations, prognostic factor measurement, and outcome definition limit comparison. Our analysis also highlights a high degree of heterogeneity among the studies.ConclusionsNew severity scores for predicting the need for ICU or intensive treatment in patients with CAP, such as ATS/IDSA 2007 minor criteria, SCAP score, and SMART-COP, have better discriminative performances compared with PSI and CURB-65. High negative predictive value is the most consistent finding among the different prediction rules. These rules should be considered an aid to clinical judgment to guide ICU admission in CAP patients.

One hundred twenty patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were hospitalized in our intensive care unit, Geneva, Switzerland, between March 9 and April 16, 2020. We report the clinical evolution of 5 consecutive patients intubated because of COVID-19related acute respiratory distress syndrome, presenting with a pathologic recovery of consciousness, which was responsive to high-dose glucocorticoids. These patients all presented with angio-MRI signs of inflammation of CNS arteries, consistent with an endothelialitis rather than a vasculitis. The median time between COVID-19 first symptoms and intubation was 10 days (IQR 10-11 days).After at least 2 weeks of mechanical ventilation, all 5 patients presented with delayed awakening (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score 4-9). Sedation/agitation Confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit or Richmond agitation sedation scale scores were not measured due to the severity of the impaired consciousness. Other causes of impaired consciousness classically found in such patients were assessed. Metabolic disorders including renal or hepatic insufficiency, dysnatremia, persistence of sedatives effects, or hypoxemia were not present in these patients and could therefore not explain their clinical status (tables S1-S3, available from Dryad, doi.org/10.5061/dryad.dv41ns1vq). An EEG was performed in all patients, ruling out epilepsy showing only nonspecific changes.

Rationale and objectivesProne positioning as a complement to oxygen therapy to treat hypoxemia in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pneumonia in spontaneously breathing patients has been widely adopted, despite a lack of evidence for its benefit.To test the hypothesis that a simple incentive to self-prone for a maximum of 12 h per day would decrease oxygen needs in patients admitted to the ward for COVID-19 pneumonia on low-flow oxygen therapy.MethodsTwenty-seven patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to Geneva University Hospitals were included in the study. Ten patients were randomised to self-prone positioning and 17 to usual care.Measurements and Main ResultsOxygen needs assessed by oxygen flow on nasal cannula at inclusion were similar between groups. Twenty-four hours after starting the intervention, the median oxygen flow was 1.0 L·min−1 (interquartile range, 0.1–2.9) in the prone position group and 2.0 L·min−1 (interquartile range, 0.5–3.0) in the control group (p=0.507). Median oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio was 390 (interquartile range, 300–432) in the prone position group and 336 (interquartile range, 294–422) in the control group (p=0.633). One patient from the intervention group who did not self-prone was transferred to the high-dependency unit. Self-prone positioning was easy to implement. The intervention was well tolerated and only mild side-effects were reported.ConclusionsSelf-prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring low-flow oxygen therapy resulted in a clinically meaningful reduction of oxygen flow, but without reaching statistical significance.

Background. Immobilization of the cervical spine worsens tracheal intubation conditions. Various intubation devices have been tested in this setting. Their relative usefulness remains unclear.Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing any intubation device with the Macintosh laryngoscope in human subjects with cervical spine immobilization. The primary outcome was the risk of tracheal intubation failure at the first attempt. Secondary outcomes were quality of glottis visualization, time until successful intubation, and risk of oropharyngeal complications.Results. Twenty-four trials (1866 patients) met inclusion criteria. With alternative intubation devices, the risk of intubation failure was lower compared with Macintosh laryngoscopy [risk ratio (RR) 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.80]. Meta-analyses could be performed for five intubation devices (Airtraq, Airwayscope, C-Mac, Glidescope, and McGrath). The Airtraq was associated with a statistically significant reduction of the risk of intubation failure at the first attempt (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.06–0.33), a higher rate of Cormack–Lehane grade 1 (RR 2.98; 95% CI 1.94–4.56), a reduction of time until successful intubation (weighted mean difference −10.1 s; 95% CI −3.2 to −17.0), and a reduction of oropharyngeal complications (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.06–0.93). Other devices were associated with improved glottis visualization but no statistically significant differences in intubation failure or time to intubation compared with conventional laryngoscopy.Conclusions. In situations where the spine is immobilized, the Airtraq device reduces the risk of intubation failure. There is a lack of evidence for the usefulness of other intubation devices.