Background Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. Methods Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups. Results Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p = 0.016). Conclusion In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk.

Background: The current COVID-19 pandemic highlights the challenges air ambulance services are facing when transporting highly infectious patients for several hours in enclosed spaces. This overview provides an example of a standard operating procedure (SOP) for infection prevention measures in HEMS missions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, we describe different methods used by several organizations in Europe and the experience of the Swiss air rescue organization Rega in transporting these patients. Possible benefits of the use of small patient isolation units (PIU) are discussed, including the fact that accompanying medical personnel do not need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during the transport but can still maintain full access to the patient. Rega has developed and patented its own PIU. This device allows spontaneously breathing or mechanically ventilated patients to be transported in pressurized jet cabins, small helicopters and ambulance vehicles, without the need to change between transport units. This PIU is unique, as it remains air-tight even when there is a sudden loss of cabin pressure. Conclusion: A wide variety of means are being used for the aeromedical transport of infectious patients. These involve isolating either the patient or the medical crew. One benefit of PIUs is that the means of transport can be easily changed without contaminating the surroundings and while still allowing access to the patient.

Protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and associated clinical sequelae requires well-coordinated metabolic and immune responses that limit viral spread and promote recovery of damaged systems. However, the role of the gut microbiota in regulating these responses has not been thoroughly investigated. In order to identify mechanisms underpinning microbiota interactions with host immune and metabolic systems that influence coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, we performed a multi-omics analysis on hospitalized COVID-19 patients and compared those with the most severe outcome (i.e. death, n = 41) to those with severe non-fatal disease (n = 89), or mild/moderate disease (n = 42), that recovered. A distinct subset of 8 cytokines (e.g. TSLP) and 140 metabolites (e.g. quinolinate) in sera identified those with a fatal outcome to infection. In addition, elevated levels of multiple pathobionts and lower levels of protective or anti-inflammatory microbes were observed in the fecal microbiome of those with the poorest clinical outcomes. Weighted gene correlation network analysis (WGCNA) identified modules that associated severity-associated cytokines with tryptophan metabolism, coagulation-linked fibrinopeptides, and bile acids with multiple pathobionts, such as Enterococcus . In contrast, less severe clinical outcomes are associated with clusters of anti-inflammatory microbes such as Bifidobacterium or Ruminococcus , short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and IL-17A. Our study uncovered distinct mechanistic modules that link host and microbiome processes with fatal outcomes to SARS-CoV-2 infection. These features may be useful to identify at risk individuals, but also highlight a role for the microbiome in modifying hyperinflammatory responses to SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious agents.

Background COVID-19, the pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, is challenging healthcare systems worldwide. Little is known about problems faced by emergency medical services—particularly helicopter services—caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. We aimed to describe the issues faced by air ambulance services in Europe as they transport potential COVID-19 patients. Methods Nine different HEMS providers in seven different countries across Europe were invited to share their experiences and to report their data regarding the care, transport, and safety measures in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 missions. Six air ambulance providers in six countries agreed and reported their data regarding development of special procedures and safety instructions in preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic. Four providers agreed to provide mission related data. Three hundred eighty-five COVID-19-related missions were analysed, including 119 primary transport missions and 266 interfacility transport missions. Results All providers had developed special procedures and safety instructions in preparation for COVID-19. Ground transport was the preferred mode of transport in primary missions, whereas air transport was preferred for interfacility transport. In some countries the transport of COVID-19 patients by regular air ambulance services was avoided. Patients in interfacility transport missions had a significantly higher median (range) NACA Score 4 (2-5) compared with 3 (1-7), needed significantly more medical interventions, were significantly younger (59.6 ± 16 vs 65 ± 21 years), and were significantly more often male (73% vs 60.5%). Conclusions All participating air ambulance providers were prepared for COVID-19. Safe care and transport of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients is achievable. Most patients on primary missions were transported by ground. These patients were less sick than interfacility transport patients, for whom air transport was the preferred method.