The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH 2 O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH 2 O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH 2 O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH 2 O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.

Background Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.

We report the identification of a human 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose 2,6-bisphosphatase gene (PFKFB3) isolated from a human fetal brain cDNA library. The gene was localized to 10p15→p14 by fluorescence in situ hybridization. The entire cDNA (4,322 bp) codes for a polypeptide of 520 amino acid residues (molecular weight, 59.571 kDa). Structural analysis showed the presence of a kinase domain located at the amino terminus and a bisphosphatase domain at the carboxy terminus, characteristic of previously described 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose 2,6-bisphosphatase isozymes. In addition, a phosphorylation site for cAMP-dependent protein kinase was found at the carboxy terminus. Northern blot analysis showed the presence of a unique 4.8-kb mRNA expressed in the different tissues studied. In mammalian COS-1 cells, this cDNA drives the expression of an active isozyme. Taken together, these results identify the presence of a gene coding for a human 6-phosphofructo-2-kinase/fructose 2,6-bisphosphatase isozyme which is ubiquitously expressed.

Background: Hypoxemia is the most frequent complication of fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FB) in children. Guidelines recommend oxygen supplementation and conventional nasal prongs (NC) are used for this purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the use of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) in children undergoing FB result in a lower incidence of hypoxemia than standard oxygen administration.Methods: Patients aged 1 month-16 years undergoing elective FB were included in a prospective randomized controlled, nonblinded, single-center clinical trial and randomly assigned to receive oxygen via NC or HFNC. Patients' baseline characteristics were recorded pre-bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was oxygen desaturation during the procedure defined as saturation less than 94%.Results: An intention to treat analysis for 53 patients receiving NC and 51 receiving HFNC, showed HFNC patients were less likely to have hypoxemia than were NC patients (p = .011), with an absolute risk reduction of 0.27 (95% confidence interval[CI]: 0.08-0.45) and a number needed to treat of 3.75 (95% CI: 2.22-12.04).Moderate hypoxemia (SpO 2 ≥ 90% and <94%, and <60 s) was observed significantly less often with HFNC than with NC (p = .012). Severe hypoxemia (SpO 2 < 90% and >30 s) was not different between groups. Patients undergoing bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) presented fewer desaturations with HFNC (p = .0003).