Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-Day mortality vs IMV only Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand, and when initiated within the first 4 days of MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

La ventilation non invasive des décompensations respiratoires aigües au centre hospitalier de la côte basque (succès et échecs - analyse descriptive)

BORDEAUX2-BU Santé (330632101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Conséquences neuromusculaires de l'alcoolisme chronique chez les patients hospitalisés en réanimation

BREST-BU Médecine-Odontologie (290192102) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Anesthésie pour endoscopie trachéobronchique thérapeutique (Alfentanil versus Remifentanil : étude randomisée prospective sur 39 patients)

BREST-BU Médecine-Odontologie (290192102) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Association between mortality and highly antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia

International audienceAbstract Data on the relationship between antimicrobial resistance and mortality remain scarce, and this relationship needs to be investigated in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to compare the ICU mortality rates between patients with ICU-acquired pneumonia due to highly antimicrobial-resistant (HAMR) bacteria and those with ICU-acquired pneumonia due to non-HAMR bacteria. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using the French National Surveillance Network for Healthcare Associated Infection in ICUs (“REA-Raisin”) database, gathering data from 200 ICUs from January 2007 to December 2016. We assessed all adult patients who were hospitalized for at least 48 h and presented with ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, or A. baumannii . The association between pneumonia caused by HAMR bacteria and ICU mortality was analyzed using the whole sample and using a 1:2 matched sample. Among the 18,497 patients with at least one documented case of ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, or A. baumannii , 3081 (16.4%) had HAMR bacteria. The HAMR group was associated with increased ICU mortality (40.3% vs. 30%, odds ratio (OR) 95%, CI 1.57 [1.45–1.70], P < 0.001). This association was confirmed in the matched sample (3006 HAMR and 5640 non-HAMR, OR 95%, CI 1.39 [1.27–1.52], P < 0.001) and after adjusting for confounding factors (OR ranged from 1.34 to 1.39, all P < 0.001). Our findings suggest that ICU-acquired pneumonia due to HAMR bacteria is associated with an increased ICU mortality rate, ICU length of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration

Association between mortality and highly antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia

AbstractData on the relationship between antimicrobial resistance and mortality remain scarce, and this relationship needs to be investigated in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to compare the ICU mortality rates between patients with ICU-acquired pneumonia due to highly antimicrobial-resistant (HAMR) bacteria and those with ICU-acquired pneumonia due to non-HAMR bacteria. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using the French National Surveillance Network for Healthcare Associated Infection in ICUs (“REA-Raisin”) database, gathering data from 200 ICUs from January 2007 to December 2016. We assessed all adult patients who were hospitalized for at least 48 h and presented with ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, or A. baumannii. The association between pneumonia caused by HAMR bacteria and ICU mortality was analyzed using the whole sample and using a 1:2 matched sample. Among the 18,497 patients with at least one documented case of ICU-acquired pneumonia caused by S. aureus, Enterobacteriaceae, P. aeruginosa, or A. baumannii, 3081 (16.4%) had HAMR bacteria. The HAMR group was associated with increased ICU mortality (40.3% vs. 30%, odds ratio (OR) 95%, CI 1.57 [1.45–1.70], P &lt; 0.001). This association was confirmed in the matched sample (3006 HAMR and 5640 non-HAMR, OR 95%, CI 1.39 [1.27–1.52], P &lt; 0.001) and after adjusting for confounding factors (OR ranged from 1.34 to 1.39, all P &lt; 0.001). Our findings suggest that ICU-acquired pneumonia due to HAMR bacteria is associated with an increased ICU mortality rate, ICU length of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration.</jats:p

Benefits and risks of noninvasive oxygenation strategy in COVID-19: a multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals

Abstract Rational To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Methods Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P &lt; 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P &lt; 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36–0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78–3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79–4.21, P &lt; 0.001). Conclusion In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed. </jats:sec

Limitation of life-sustaining therapies in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a descriptive epidemiological investigation from the COVID-ICU study

International audienceAbstract Background Limitations of life-sustaining therapies (LST) practices are frequent and vary among intensive care units (ICUs). However, scarce data were available during the COVID-19 pandemic when ICUs were under intense pressure. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, cumulative incidence, timing, modalities, and factors associated with LST decisions in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods We did an ancillary analysis of the European multicentre COVID-ICU study, which collected data from 163 ICUs in France, Belgium and Switzerland. ICU load, a parameter reflecting stress on ICU capacities, was calculated at the patient level using daily ICU bed occupancy data from official country epidemiological reports. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to assess the association of variables with LST limitation decisions. Results Among 4671 severe COVID-19 patients admitted from February 25 to May 4, 2020, the prevalence of in-ICU LST limitations was 14.5%, with a nearly six-fold variability between centres. Overall 28-day cumulative incidence of LST limitations was 12.4%, which occurred at a median of 8 days (3–21). Median ICU load at the patient level was 126%. Age, clinical frailty scale score, and respiratory severity were associated with LST limitations, while ICU load was not. In-ICU death occurred in 74% and 95% of patients, respectively, after LST withholding and withdrawal, while median survival time was 3 days (1–11) after LST limitations. Conclusions In this study, LST limitations frequently preceded death, with a major impact on time of death. In contrast to ICU load, older age, frailty, and the severity of respiratory failure during the first 24 h were the main factors associated with decisions of LST limitations

Impact of intensive prone position therapy on outcomes in intubated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19

International audienceAbstract Background Previous retrospective research has shown that maintaining prone positioning (PP) for an average of 40 h is associated with an increase of survival rates in intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study aims to determine whether a cumulative PP duration of more than 32 h during the first 2 days of intensive care unit (ICU) admission is associated with increased survival compared to a cumulative PP duration of 32 h or less. Methods This study is an ancillary analysis from a previous large international observational study involving intubated patients placed in PP in the first 48 h of ICU admission in 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Given that PP is recommended for a 16-h daily duration, intensive PP was defined as a cumulated duration of more than 32 h during the first 48 h, whereas standard PP was defined as a duration equal to or less than 32 h. Patients were followed-up for 90 days. The primary outcome was mortality at day 60. An Inverse Probability Censoring Weighting (IPCW) Cox model including a target emulation trial method was used to analyze the data. Results Out of 2137 intubated patients, 753 were placed in PP during the first 48 h of ICU admission. The intensive PP group ( n = 79) had a median PP duration of 36 h, while standard PP group ( n = 674) had a median of 16 h during the first 48 h. Sixty-day mortality rate in the intensive PP group was 39.2% compared to 38.7% in the standard PP group ( p = 0.93). Twenty-eight-day and 90-day mortality as well as the ventilator-free days until day 28 were similar in both groups. After IPCW, there was no significant difference in mortality at day 60 between the two-study groups (HR 0.95 [0.52–1.74], p = 0.87 and HR 1.1 [0.77–1.57], p = 0.61 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively). Conclusions This secondary analysis of a large multicenter European cohort of intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 found that intensive PP during the first 48 h did not provide a survival benefit compared to standard PP

Early prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19: a propensity score analysis from the multicentric cohort COVID-ICU network—the ProneCOVID study

Abstract Background Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19. Methods All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score. Results Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay and 491 (23%) during the first 24 h following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio &gt; 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% versus 39.3% in the early PP group (p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies was more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96–1.68], p = 0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998–1.412], p = 0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively). Conclusions In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, our data failed to show a survival benefit associated with early PP started within 24 h after ICU admission compared to PP after day-1 for all COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of their severity. </jats:sec