Lung Ultrasound score is a valid tool to assess regional and global lung aeration. Global Lung Ultrasound score variations should not be used for bedside assessment of positive end-expiratory pressure-induced recruitment.

Lung Ultrasound Score (LUSS) is a useful tool for lung aeration assessment but presents two theoretical limitations. First, standard LUSS is based on longitudinal scan and detection of number/coalescence of B lines. In the longitudinal scan pleura visualization is limited by intercostal space width. Moreover, coalescence of B lines to define severe loss of aeration is not suitable for non-homogeneous lung pathologies where focal coalescence is possible. We therefore compared longitudinal vs. transversal scan and also cLUSS (standard coalescence-based LUSS) vs. qLUSS (quantitative LUSS based on % of involved pleura). 38 ICU patients were examined in 12 thoracic areas in longitudinal and transversal scan. B lines (number, coalescence), subpleural consolidations (SP), pleural length and pleural involvement (> or ≤ 50 %) were assessed. cLUSS and qLUSS were computed in longitudinal and transversal scan. Transversal scan visualized wider (3.9 [IQR 3.8 - 3.9] vs 2.0 [1.6 - 2.5] cm, p< 0.0001) and more constant (variance 0.02 vs 0.34 cm, p < 0.0001) pleural length, more B lines (70 vs 59 % of scans, p < 0.0001), coalescence (39 vs 28 %, p < 0.0001) and SP (22 vs 14 %, p < 0.0001) compared to longitudinal scan. Pleural involvement > 50 % was observed in 17 % and coalescence in 33 % of cases. Focal coalescence accounted for 52 % of cases of coalescence. qLUSS-transv generated a different distribution of aeration scores compared to cLUSS-long (p < 0.0001). In unselected ICU patients, variability of pleural length in longitudinal scans is high and focal coalescence is frequent. Transversal scan and quantification of pleural involvement are simple measures to overcome these limitations of LUSS.

Table of contentsP001 - Sepsis impairs the capillary response within hypoxic capillaries and decreases erythrocyte oxygen-dependent ATP effluxR. M. Bateman, M. D. Sharpe, J. E. Jagger, C. G. EllisP002 - Lower serum immunoglobulin G2 level does not predispose to severe flu.J. Solé-Violán, M. López-Rodríguez, E. Herrera-Ramos, J. Ruíz-Hernández, L. Borderías, J. Horcajada, N. González-Quevedo, O. Rajas, M. Briones, F. Rodríguez de Castro, C. Rodríguez GallegoP003 - Brain protective effects of intravenous immunoglobulin through inhibition of complement activation and apoptosis in a rat model of sepsisF. Esen, G. Orhun, P. Ergin Ozcan, E. Senturk, C. Ugur Yilmaz, N. Orhan, N. Arican, M. Kaya, M. Kucukerden, M. Giris, U. Akcan, S. Bilgic Gazioglu, E. TuzunP004 - Adenosine a1 receptor dysfunction is associated with leukopenia: A possible mechanism for sepsis-induced leukopeniaR. Riff, O. Naamani, A. DouvdevaniP005 - Analysis of neutrophil by hyper spectral imaging - A preliminary reportR. Takegawa, H. Yoshida, T. Hirose, N. Yamamoto, H. Hagiya, M. Ojima, Y. Akeda, O. Tasaki, K. Tomono, T. ShimazuP006 - Chemiluminescent intensity assessed by eaa predicts the incidence of postoperative infectious complications following gastrointestinal surgeryS. Ono, T. Kubo, S. Suda, T. Ueno, T. IkedaP007 - Serial change of c1 inhibitor in patients with sepsis – A prospective observational studyT. Hirose, H. Ogura, H. Takahashi, M. Ojima, J. Kang, Y. Nakamura, T. Kojima, T. ShimazuP008 - Comparison of bacteremia and sepsis on sepsis related biomarkersT. Ikeda, S. Suda, Y. Izutani, T. Ueno, S. OnoP009 - The changes of procalcitonin levels in critical patients with abdominal septic shock during blood purificationT. Taniguchi, M. OP010 - Validation of a new sensitive point of care device for rapid measurement of procalcitoninC. Dinter, J. Lotz, B. Eilers, C. Wissmann, R. LottP011 - Infection biomarkers in primary care patients with acute respiratory tract infections – Comparison of procalcitonin and C-reactive proteinM. M. Meili, P. S. SchuetzP012 - Do we need a lower procalcitonin cut off?H. Hawa, M. Sharshir, M. Aburageila, N. SalahuddinP013 - The predictive role of C-reactive protein and procalcitonin biomarkers in central nervous system infections with extensively drug resistant bacteriaV. Chantziara, S. Georgiou, A. Tsimogianni, P. Alexandropoulos, A. Vassi, F. Lagiou, M. Valta, G. Micha, E. Chinou, G. MichaloudisP014 - Changes in endotoxin activity assay and procalcitonin levels after direct hemoperfusion with polymyxin-b immobilized fiberA. Kodaira, T. Ikeda, S. Ono, T. Ueno, S. Suda, Y. Izutani, H. ImaizumiP015 - Diagnostic usefullness of combination biomarkers on ICU admissionM. V. De la Torre-Prados, A. Garcia-De la Torre, A. Enguix-Armada, A. Puerto-Morlan, V. Perez-Valero, A. Garcia-AlcantaraP016 - Platelet function analysis utilising the PFA-100 does not predict infection, bacteraemia, sepsis or outcome in critically ill patientsN. Bolton, J. Dudziak, S. Bonney, A. Tridente, P. NeeP017 - Extracellular histone H3 levels are in...

Lung ultrasound gained a leading position in the last year as an imaging technique for the assessment and management of patients with acute respiratory failure. In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), its role may be of further importance because it is performed bedside and may limit chest X-ray and the need for transport to radiology for computed tomography (CT) scan. Since February 21, we progressively turned into a coronavirus-dedicated intensive care unit and applied an ultrasound-based approach to avoid traditional imaging and limit contamination as much as possible. We performed a complete daily examination with lung ultrasound score computation and systematic search of complications (pneumothorax, ventilator-associated pneumonia); on-duty physicians were free to perform CT or chest X-ray when deemed indicated. We compared conventional imaging exams performed in the first 4 wk of the COVID-19 epidemic with those in the same time frame in 2019: there were 84 patients in 2020 and 112 in 2019; 64 and 22 (76.2% vs. 19.6%, p < 0.001) had acute respiratory failure, respectively, of which 55 (85.9%) were COVID-19 in 2020. When COVID-19 patients in 2020 were compared with acute respiratory failure patients in 2019, the median number of chest X-rays was 1.0 (1.0À2.0) versus 3.0 (1.0À4.0) (p = 0.0098); 2 patients 2 (3.6%) versus 7 patients (31.8%) had undergone at least one thoracic CT scan (p = 0.001). A self-imposed ultrasound-based approach reduces the number of chest X-rays and thoracic CT scans in COVID-19 patients compared with patients with standard acute respiratory failure, thus reducing the number of health care providers exposed to possible contamination and sparing personal protective equipment.

IF 12.015Lettre à l'éditeur ("Intensive Care Medicine", 2017)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00134-017-4941-

Transpulmonary pressure, that is the difference between airway pressure (Paw) and pleural pressure, is considered one of the most important parameters to know in order to set a safe mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients but also in critically ill obese patients, in abdominal pathologies or in pathologies affecting the chest wall itself. Transpulmonary pressure should rely on the assessment of intrathoracic pleural pressure. Esophageal pressure (Pes) is considered the best surrogate of pleural pressure in critically ill patients, but concerns about its reliability exist. The aim of this article is to describe the technique of Pes measurement in mechanically ventilated patients: the catheter insertion, the proper balloon placement and filling, the validation test and specific procedures to remove the main artifacts will be discussed.

No abstract

Background Whether respiratory efforts and their timing can be reliably detected during pressure support ventilation using standard ventilator waveforms is unclear. This would give the opportunity to assess and improve patient–ventilator interaction without the need of special equipment. Methods In 16 patients under invasive pressure support ventilation, flow and pressure waveforms were obtained from proximal sensors and analyzed by three trained physicians and one resident to assess patient’s spontaneous activity. A systematic method (the waveform method) based on explicit rules was adopted. Esophageal pressure tracings were analyzed independently and used as reference. Breaths were classified as assisted or auto-triggered, double-triggered or ineffective. For assisted breaths, trigger delay, early and late cycling (minor asynchronies) were diagnosed. The percentage of breaths with major asynchronies (asynchrony index) and total asynchrony time were computed. Results Out of 4426 analyzed breaths, 94.1% (70.4–99.4) were assisted, 0.0% (0.0–0.2) auto-triggered and 5.8% (0.4–29.6) ineffective. Asynchrony index was 5.9% (0.6–29.6). Total asynchrony time represented 22.4% (16.3–30.1) of recording time and was mainly due to minor asynchronies. Applying the waveform method resulted in an inter-operator agreement of 0.99 (0.98–0.99); 99.5% of efforts were detected on waveforms and agreement with the reference in detecting major asynchronies was 0.99 (0.98–0.99). Timing of respiratory efforts was accurately detected on waveforms: AUC for trigger delay, cycling delay and early cycling was 0.865 (0.853–0.876), 0.903 (0.892–0.914) and 0.983 (0.970–0.991), respectively. Conclusions Ventilator waveforms can be used alone to reliably assess patient’s spontaneous activity and patient–ventilator interaction provided that a systematic method is adopted.