Alternatives to Invasive Ventilation in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Trends in management and outcomes of COVID patients admitted to a Swiss tertiary care hospital

Two successive COVID-19 flares occurred in Switzerland in spring and autumn 2020. During these periods, therapeutic strategies have been constantly adapted based on emerging evidence. We aimed to describe these adaptations and evaluate their association with patient outcomes in a cohort of COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital. Consecutive patients admitted to the Geneva Hospitals during two successive COVID-19 flares were included. Characteristics of patients admitted during these two periods were compared as well as therapeutic management including medications, respiratory support strategies and admission to the ICU and intermediate care unit (IMCU). A mutivariable model was computed to compare outcomes across the two successive waves adjusted for demographic characteristics, co-morbidities and severity at baseline. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU admission, Intermediate care (IMCU) admission, and length of hospital stay. A total of 2'983 patients were included. Of these, 165 patients (16.3%, n = 1014) died during the first wave and 314 (16.0%, n = 1969) during the second (p = 0.819). The proportion of patients admitted to the ICU was lower in second wave compared to first (7.4 vs. 13.9%, p < 0.001) but their mortality was increased (33.6% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001). Conversely, a greater proportion of patients was admitted to the IMCU in second wave compared to first (26.6% vs. 22.3%, p = 0.011). A third of patients received lopinavir (30.7%) or hydroxychloroquine (33.1%) during the first wave and none during second wave, while corticosteroids were mainly prescribed during second wave (58.1% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, a 25% reduction of mortality was observed during the second wave (HR 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.96). Among deceased patients, 82.3% (78.2% during first wave and 84.4% during second wave) died without beeing admitted to the ICU. The proportion of patients with therapeutic limitations regarding ICU admission increased during the second wave (48.6% vs. 38.7%, p < 0.001). Adaptation of therapeutic strategies including corticosteroids therapy and higher admission to the IMCU to receive non-invasive respiratory support was associated with a reduction of hospital mortality in multivariable analysis, ICU admission and LOS during the second wave of COVID-19 despite an increased number of admitted patients. More patients had medical decisions restraining ICU admission during the second wave which may reflect better patient selection or implicit triaging.

Characteristics and outcomes of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with cardiovascular diseases in the Amazonian region of Brazil: a retrospective cohort

The northern region of Brazil is already vulnerable to other infectious diseases and it was no different in COVID-19. However, cardiovascular diseases still lead the causes of death. Thus, the objective of this study is to identify the clinical predictors and outcome of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with and without CVD in this region of the Amazon. A retrospective cohort, referring to the notifications from January 1 to December 31, 2020, including cases confirmed by molecular testing. The study consisted of 9223 confirmed cases for COVID-19. Of these, 6011 (65.17%) did not have cardiovascular disease and 3212 (34.83%) had some cardiovascular disease. The significance of deaths was in the age group of < 1 to 59 CVD carriers (< 0.001). Predictor of mortality were invasive ventilation for patients with CVD, (OR 23,688 CI 18,180-30,866), followed by chronic kidney disease (OR 2442 CI 1568-3740), dyspnea (OR 2312 CI 1817-3941), respiratory distress (OR 1523 CI 1210-2919), cough (OR 1268 CI 1005-1599), Lower oxygen saturation 95% (OR 1281 CI 1039-1579), diabetes mellitus (OR 1267 CI 1050-1528) and age (OR 1051 CI 1044-1058). Carriers of CVD had a lower survival rate (< 0.0001). The order of the predictors of death differed among the non-carriers, as well as the high odds ratio in the predictors of CVD, only cough was an independent predictor. The age group under 59 years was associated with deaths. We also show the shorter survival in CVD carriers, as well as the higher cardiovascular morbidity rate than other studies in the literature.

Hospital trajectories and early predictors of clinical outcomes differ between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia

BACKGROUND

A comparison of pneumonias due to SARS-CoV-2 and influenza, in terms of clinical course and predictors of outcomes, might inform prognosis and resource management. We aimed to compare clinical course and outcome predictors in SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia using multi-state modelling and supervised machine learning on clinical data among hospitalised patients.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 (March-December 2020) or influenza (Jan 2015-March 2020) pneumonia had the composite of hospital mortality and hospice discharge as the primary outcome. Multi-state models compared differences in oxygenation/ventilatory utilisation between pneumonias longitudinally throughout hospitalisation. Differences in predictors of outcome were modelled using supervised machine learning classifiers.

FINDINGS

Among 2,529 hospitalisations with SARS-CoV-2 and 2,256 with influenza pneumonia, the primary outcome occurred in 21% and 9%, respectively. Multi-state models differentiated oxygen requirement progression between viruses, with SARS-CoV-2 manifesting rapidly-escalating early hypoxemia. Highly contributory classifier variables for the primary outcome differed substantially between viruses.

INTERPRETATION

SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia differ in presentation, hospital course, and outcome predictors. These pathogen-specific differential responses in viral pneumonias suggest distinct management approaches should be investigated.

FUNDING

This project was supported by NIH/NCATS UL1 TR002345, NIH/NCATS KL2 TR002346 (PGL), the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation grant 2015215 (PGL), NIH/NHLBI R35 HL140026 (CSC), and a Big Ideas Award from the BJC HealthCare and Washington University School of Medicine Healthcare Innovation Lab and NIH/NIGMS R35 GM142992 (PS).

Implementation of Early Rehabilitation in Severe COVID-19 Respiratory Failure

The purpose of this scoping review is to describe current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for early rehabilitation for individuals hospitalized in an intensive care unit with COVID-19 and examine practice patterns for implementation of mobility-related interventions.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, through April 1, 2022. Selected studies included individuals hospitalized with severe COVID-19 and provided objective criteria for clinical decision making for mobility interventions. A total of 1464 publications were assessed for eligibility and data extraction. The PRISMA-ScR Checklist and established guidelines for reporting for scoping reviews were followed.

Results

Twelve articles met inclusion criteria: 5 CPGs and 7 implementation articles. Objective clinical criteria and guidelines for implementation of early rehabilitation demonstrated variable agreement across systems. No significant adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Sixty percent (3/5) of CPGs restrict mobility for individuals requiring ventilatory support of more than 60% Fio₂ (fraction of inspired oxygen) and/or positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) greater than 10-cm H₂O (positive end-expiratory pressure). Preliminary evidence from implementation studies may suggest that some individuals with COVID-19 requiring enhanced ventilatory support outside of established parameters may be able to safely participate in mobility-related interventions, though further research is needed to determine safety and feasibility to guide clinical decision making.

A Brief Analysis of a New Device to Prevent Early Intubation in Hypoxemic Patients: An Observational Study

The need for mechanical ventilation is one of the main concerns related to the care of patients with COVID-19. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a bubble device for oxygen supplementation. This device was implemented for the selected patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia with persistent low oxygen saturation. Patients were selected in three major COVID-19 hospitals of Bahia state in Brazil from July to November 2020, where they remained with the device for seven days and were monitored for different factors, such as vital signs, oximetry evaluation, and arterial blood gasometry. Among the 51 patients included in the study, 68.63% successfully overcame hypoxemia without the necessity to be transferred to mechanical ventilation, whereas 31.37% required tracheal intubation (p value < 0.05). There was no difference of note on the analysis of the clinical data, chemistry, and hematological evaluation, with the exception of the SpO2 on follow-up days. Multivariate analysis revealed that the independent variable, male sex, SpO2, and non-inhaled mask, was associated with the necessity of requiring early mechanical ventilation. We concluded that this bubble device should be a prior step to be utilized before indication of mechanical ventilation in patients with persistent hypoxemia of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Patient traits shape health-care stakeholders' choices on how to best allocate life-saving care

During global pandemics, health-care decision makers often face critical shortages of life-saving medical equipment. How do medical stakeholders prioritize which patients are most deserving of scarce treatment? We report the results of three conjoint experiments conducted in the United States in 2020, testing for biases in US physicians', citizens' and elected politicians' preferences for scarce ventilator distribution. We found that all stakeholders prioritized younger patients and patients who had a higher probability of surviving with ventilator access. When patients' survivability was tied, physicians prioritized patients from racial/ethnic minorities (that is, Asian, Black and Hispanic patients) over all-else-equal white patients, religious minorities (that is, Muslim patients) over religious majority group members (that is, Catholic patients) and patients of lower socio-economic status over wealthier patients. The public also prioritized Black and Hispanic patients over white patients but were biased against religious minorities (that is, Atheist and Muslim patients) relative to religious majority group members. Elected politicians were also biased against Atheist patients. Our effects varied by political party-with Republican physicians, politicians and members of the public showing bias against religious minority patients and Democratic physicians showing preferential treatment of racial and religious minorities. Our results suggest that health-care stakeholders' personal biases impact decisions on who deserves life-saving medical equipment.

Ventilation‐induced epithelial injury drives biological onset of lung trauma in vitro and is mitigated with prophylactic anti‐inflammatory therapeutics

Mortality rates among patients suffering from acute respiratory failure remain perplexingly high despite the maintenance of blood oxygen homeostasis during ventilatory support. The biotrauma hypothesis advocates that mechanical forces from invasive ventilation trigger immunological mediators that spread systemically. Yet, how these forces elicit an immune response remains unclear. Here, a biomimetic in vitro three‐dimensional (3D) upper airways model allows to recapitulate lung injury and immune responses induced during invasive mechanical ventilation in neonates. Under such ventilatory support, flow‐induced stresses injure the bronchial epithelium of the intubated airways model and directly modulate epithelial cell inflammatory cytokine secretion associated with pulmonary injury. Fluorescence microscopy and biochemical analyses reveal site‐specific susceptibility to epithelial erosion in airways from jet‐flow impaction and are linked to increases in cell apoptosis and modulated secretions of cytokines IL‐6, ‐8, and ‐10. In an effort to mitigate the onset of biotrauma, prophylactic pharmacological treatment with Montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, reduces apoptosis and pro‐inflammatory signaling during invasive ventilation of the in vitro model. This 3D airway platform points to a previously overlooked origin of lung injury and showcases translational opportunities in preclinical pulmonary research toward protective therapies and improved protocols for patient care.

Review of Oxygenation with Nanobubbles: Possible Treatment for Hypoxic COVID-19 Patients

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, which has spread around the world, caused the death of many affected patients, partly because of the lack of oxygen arising from impaired respiration or blood circulation. Thus, maintaining an appropriate level of oxygen in the patients' blood by devising alternatives to ventilator systems is a top priority goal for clinicians. The present review highlights the ever-increasing application of nanobubbles (NBs), miniature gaseous vesicles, for the oxygenation of hypoxic patients. Oxygen-containing NBs can exert a range of beneficial physiologic and pharmacologic effects that include tissue oxygenation, as well as tissue repair mechanisms, antiinflammatory properties, and antibacterial activity. In this review, we provide a comprehensive survey of the application of oxygen-containing NBs, with a primary focus on the development of intravenous platforms. The multimodal functions of oxygen-carrying NBs, including antimicrobial, antiinflammatory, drug carrying, and the promotion of wound healing are discussed, including the benefits and challenges of using NBs as a treatment for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, particularly due to COVID-19.

Prone Positioning of Nonintubated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020.

SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION

Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

Potential impact of intervention strategies on COVID-19 transmission in Malawi: a mathematical modelling study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 mitigation strategies have been challenging to implement in resource-limited settings due to the potential for widespread disruption to social and economic well-being. Here we predict the clinical severity of COVID-19 in Malawi, quantifying the potential impact of intervention strategies and increases in health system capacity.

METHODS

The infection fatality ratios (IFR) were predicted by adjusting reported IFR for China, accounting for demography, the current prevalence of comorbidities and health system capacity. These estimates were input into an age-structured deterministic model, which simulated the epidemic trajectory with non-pharmaceutical interventions and increases in health system capacity.

FINDINGS

The predicted population-level IFR in Malawi, adjusted for age and comorbidity prevalence, is lower than that estimated for China (0.26%, 95% uncertainty interval (UI) 0.12%-0.69%, compared with 0.60%, 95% CI 0.4% to 1.3% in China); however, the health system constraints increase the predicted IFR to 0.83%, 95% UI 0.49%-1.39%. The interventions implemented in January 2021 could potentially avert 54 400 deaths (95% UI 26 900-97 300) over the course of the epidemic compared with an unmitigated outbreak. Enhanced shielding of people aged ≥60 years could avert 40 200 further deaths (95% UI 25 300-69 700) and halve intensive care unit admissions at the peak of the outbreak. A novel therapeutic agent which reduces mortality by 0.65 and 0.8 for severe and critical cases, respectively, in combination with increasing hospital capacity, could reduce projected mortality to 2.5 deaths per 1000 population (95% UI 1.9-3.6).

CONCLUSION

We find the interventions currently used in Malawi are unlikely to effectively prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission but will have a significant impact on mortality. Increases in health system capacity and the introduction of novel therapeutics are likely to further reduce the projected numbers of deaths.

Non-invasive ventilation versus mechanical ventilation in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19

Purpose

Limited mechanical ventilators (MV) during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hypoxemic patients, which has not been studied well. We aimed to assess the association of NIV versus MV with mortality and morbidity during respiratory intervention among hypoxemic patients admitted with COVID-19.

Methods

We performed a retrospective multi-center cohort study across 5 hospitals during March–April 2020. Outcomes included mortality, severe COVID-19-related symptoms, time to discharge, and final oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the conclusion of the respiratory intervention. Multivariable regression of outcomes was conducted in all hypoxemic participants, 4 subgroups, and propensity-matched analysis.

Results

Of 2381 participants with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2, 688 were included in the study who were hypoxemic upon initiation of respiratory intervention. During the study period, 299 participants died (43%), 163 were admitted to the ICU (24%), and 121 experienced severe COVID-19-related symptoms (18%). Participants on MV had increased mortality than those on NIV (128/154 [83%] versus 171/534 [32%], OR = 30, 95% CI 16–60) with a mean survival of 6 versus 15 days, respectively. The MV group experienced more severe COVID-19-related symptoms [55/154 (36%) versus 66/534 (12%), OR = 4.3, 95% CI 2.7–6.8], longer time to discharge (mean 17 versus 7.1 days), and lower final SpO2 (92 versus 94%). Across all subgroups and propensity-matched analysis, MV was associated with a greater OR of death than NIV.

Conclusions

NIV was associated with lower respiratory intervention mortality and morbidity than MV. However, findings may be liable to unmeasured confounding and further study from randomized controlled trials is needed to definitively determine the role of NIV in hypoxemic patients with COVID-19.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01633-6.

Reducing the use of empiric antibiotic therapy in COVID-19 on hospital admission

BACKGROUND

Empiric antibiotics for community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) are often prescribed to patients with COVID-19, despite a low reported incidence of co-infections. Stewardship interventions targeted at facilitating appropriate antibiotic prescribing for CABP among COVID-19 patients are needed. We developed a guideline for antibiotic initiation and discontinuation for CABP in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of this intervention on the duration of empiric CABP antibiotic therapy among patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted between 3/1/2020 to 4/25/2020 with COVID-19 pneumonia, who were initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on antibiotics > 48 h following admission or if another source of infection was identified. The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic therapy (DOT) prior to the guideline (March 1 to March27, 2020) and after guideline implementation (March 28 to April 25, 2020). We also evaluated the clinical outcomes (mortality, readmissions, length of stay) among those initiated on empiric CABP antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 506 patients with COVID-19 were evaluated, 102 pre-intervention and 404 post-intervention. Prior to the intervention, 74.5% (n = 76) of patients with COVID-19 received empiric antibiotics compared to only 42% of patients post-intervention (n = 170), p < 0.001. The median DOT in the post-intervention group was 1.3 days shorter (p < 0.001) than the pre-intervention group, and antibiotics directed at atypical bacteria DOT was reduced by 2.8 days (p < 0.001). More patients in the post-intervention group were initiated on antibiotics based on criteria consistent with our guideline (68% versus 87%, p = 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Following the implementation of a guideline outlining recommendations for initiating and discontinuing antibiotics for CABP among COVID-19 inpatients, we observed a reduction in antibiotic prescribing and DOT. The guideline also resulted in a significant increase in the rate of guideline-congruent empiric antibiotic initiation.

The Considerations and Controversies in Using High-Flow Nasal Oxygen with Self-Prone Positioning in SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 Disease

Evidence exists for the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) in the general critical care population for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. There is discord between guidelines for hypoxemia management in COVID-19. Both noninvasive management and intubation present risk to patients and staff and potentially overwhelm hospital mechanical ventilator capacity. The use of HFNO has been particularly controversial in the UK, with oxygen infrastructure failure. We discuss our experience of managing COVID-19 with HFNO and awake self-prone positioning. We focus upon the less-usual case of an eighteen-year-old female to illustrate the type of patient where HFNO may be used when perhaps earlier intubation once was. It is important to consider the wider implications of intubation. We have used HFNO as a bridge to intubation or as definitive management. As we await clinical trial evidence, HFNO with self-prone positioning has a role in COVID-19 for certain patients. Response parameters must be set and reviewed, oxygen infrastructure considered, and potential staff droplet exposure minimised.

Pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome

COVID-19 has involved numerous countries across the globe and the disease burden, susceptible age group; mortality rate has been variable depending on the demographical profile, economic status, and health care infrastructure. In the current clinical environment, COVID-19 is one of the most important clinical differential diagnoses in patients presenting with respiratory symptoms. The optimal mechanical ventilation strategy for these patients has been a constant topic of discussion and very importantly so, since a great majority of these patients require invasive mechanical ventilation and often for an extended period of time. In this report we highlight our experience with a COVID-19 patient who most likely suffered barotrauma either as a result of traumatic endotracheal intubation or primarily due to COVID-19 itself. We also aim to highlight the current literature available to suggest the management strategy for these patients for a favorable outcome. The cases described are diverse in terms of age variance and other comorbidities. According to the literature, certain patients, with COVID-19 disease and spontaneous pneumothorax were noted to be managed conservatively and oxygen supplementation with nasal cannula sufficed. Decision regarding need and escalation to invasive mechanical ventilation should be taken early in the disease to avoid complications such as patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) and barotrauma sequelae such as pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum Recent systematic review further supports the fact that the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in certain patients with COVID-19 pneumonia may give a false sense of security and clinical stabilization but has no overall benefit to avoid intubation. While invasive mechanical ventilation may be associated with higher rates of barotrauma, this should not mean that intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation should be delayed. This becomes an important consideration when non-intensivists or personnel with less experience provide care for this vulnerable patient population who may rely too heavily on NIV to avoid intubation and mechanical ventilation.

BD, Salazar Gutierrez G, Gómez González JF, Echeverry Piedrahita DR, Galvis JC, Aguirre-Flórez M. Mechanical ventilation in SARS-CoV-2 patients: state of art

COVID-19-associated infection leads to a pathology of yet unknown clinical behavior, confronting the clinician with various challenges. An extensive search was conducted based on review articles on SARS-CoV-2 infection and studies including mechanical ventilation management strategies in order to complete this narrative review. Evidenced-based treatment for SARS-CoV2 infection is still in the works. We have some tools from our knowledge from past experiences indicating that a step-wise management approach should be used, without neglecting other joint therapeutic measures for improved clinical outcomes of a condition with a high mortality. The current recommendations indicate that patients with severe acute respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 should be managed with protective mechanical ventilation measures. No strong evidence is yet available on the individualization of mechanical ventilation therapy according to phenotypes.

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in a Time of COVID-19

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a serious illness with significant morbidity and mortality, characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure most commonly due to pneumonia, sepsis, and aspiration. Early and accurate diagnosis of ARDS depends upon clinical suspicion and chest imaging. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an important novel cause of ARDS with a distinct time course, imaging and laboratory features from the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection to hypoxemic respiratory failure, which may allow diagnosis and management prior to or at earlier stages of ARDS. Treatment of ARDS remains largely supportive, and consists of incremental respiratory support (high flow nasal oxygen, non-invasive respiratory support, and invasive mechanical ventilation), and avoidance of iatrogenic complications, all of which improve clinical outcomes. COVID-19-associated ARDS is largely similar to other causes of ARDS with respect to pathology and respiratory physiology, and as such, COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure should typically be managed as other patients with ARDS. Non-invasive respiratory support may be beneficial in avoiding intubation in COVID-19 respiratory failure including mild ARDS, especially under conditions of resource constraints or to avoid overwhelming critical care resources. Compared to other causes of ARDS, medical therapies may improve outcomes in COVID-19-associated ARDS, such as dexamethasone and remdesivir. Future improved clinical outcomes in ARDS of all causes depends upon individual patient physiological and biological endotyping in order to improve accuracy and timeliness of diagnosis as well as optimal targeting of future therapies in the right patient at the right time in their disease.

Red blood cell exchange for SARS-CoV-2: A Gemini of therapeutic opportunities

As of now, therapeutic strategies for the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) are limited and much focus has been placed on social distancing techniques to “flatten the curve”. Initial treatment efforts including ventilation and hydroxychloroquine garnered significant controversy and today, SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks are still occurring throughout the world. Needless to say, new therapeutic strategies are needed to combat this unprecedented pandemic. Nature Reviews Immunology recently published an article hypothesizing the pathogenesis of TAM (Tyro3, Axl, and Mer) receptor signaling in COVID-19. In it they expressed that hypercoagulation and immune hyper-reaction could occur secondary to decreased Protein S (PROS1). And hypoxia has been recently discovered to significantly decrease expression of PROS1. Regarding the cause of hypoxia in COVID-19; NIH funded research utilizing state-of-the-art topologies has recently demonstrated significant metabolomic, proteomic, and lipidomic structural aberrations in hemoglobin (Hb) secondary to infection with SARS-CoV-2. In this setting, Hb may be incapacitated and unable to respond to environmental variations, compromising RBCs and oxygen delivery to tissues. The use of red blood cell exchange would target hypoxia at its source; representing a Gemini of therapeutic opportunities.

Photodynamic and sonodynamic therapy of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19

•COVID-19 is largely localized in lungs. •SARS-CoV-2 binds to the heme groups in hemoglobin that leads to severe hypoxia. •Porphyrin-based photosensitizers (PS) act as a ‘decoy’ in which the SARS-CoV-2 virions would attach to PS molecules. •Photoactivation capable of destroying the bonded SARS-CoV-2 virions.

Effect of COVID-19 on the Organs

The COVID-19 pandemic that first became apparent in Wuhan, China, is now infecting millions all over the world. This is a review of COVID-19's extensive effects on virtually all the organs. It causes inflammation, endotheliitis, vasoconstriction, hypercoagulability, and edema. Lymphocytopenia, elevated D-dimer, elevated fibrin degradation products (FDPs), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) are observed. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT), venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism (PE), systemic and pulmonary arterial thrombosis and embolism, ischemic stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI) are reported. In the heart it can cause acute coronary syndrome, congestive heart failure, myocarditis, and arrhythmias. Kidney injury is usually secondary to systemic abnormalities. Stroke occurs even in young patients. Delirium and seizures are common. Anosmia and impaired sense of taste are reported. Psychological problems are common among patients as well as providers. Stool may contain virus. Lactate dehydrogenase may be elevated. Various skin manifestations including patchy erythematous rash are reported.