Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Contains fulltext : 218568.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 >/= 0.60 during hyperoxemia). RESULTS: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Consultation Post-Réanimation : un outil désormais indispensable en 2022

Suivre, sous la forme d’une consultation organisée, un patient et ses proches après un séjour en réanimation est une idée qui se précise depuis quelques années. L’identification de pathologies spécifiques survenant après la réanimation, comme le syndrome post-réanimation chez les patients survivants et son pendant chez les proches, est à l’origine de la mise en place d’organisations de dépistage et de suivi au sein desquelles la Consultation Post Réanimation (CPR) est désormais incontournable. Si elle contribue à la réhabilitation après la réanimation, une CPR est également importante dans un objectif d’amélioration de la qualité des soins en réanimation. Elle doit ainsi constituer le moment d’un véritable retour d’expérience dont les enseignements sont susceptibles de faire évoluer les prise en charge et les réflexions centrées sur le projet de soin des patients. Ainsi, tous les aspects et tous les acteurs (patients, proches et professionnels) d’un parcours en réanimation sont impactés par la CPR, de la période pré-réanimation à l‘après réanimation en passant par le séjour lui-même. L’intégration d’une CPR, idéalement pluri professionnelle et multidisciplinaire, au sein des activités de réanimation est probablement l’un des enjeux actuels de notre spécialité.</jats:p

What are the ethical aspects surrounding intensive care unit admission in patients with cancer?

International audienceImprovements in living conditions and increasing life expectancy have combined to result in ever older patients being admitted to hospital. In parallel, the increasing incidence of cancer, along with the improved efficacy of anti-cancer therapies has led to greater needs for intensive care among cancer patients. The objectives underpinning the management of cancer patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are to achieve a return to a clinical status that would allow the patient to be either, transferred back to the original unit, or discharged from the hospital with an acceptable quality of life, and where warranted, pursuit of cancer therapy. The relevance of ICU admission should be assessed systematically for patients with active cancer. The decision needs to be made taking into account the expected benefit for the patient, the life-support therapies that are possible with discussion about a care project, and also considering the future quality of life and the short and long-term prognosis. Anticipating the question of potential ICU admission should help protect the patient against both inappropriate refusal of intensive care, and inappropriate admission to the ICU that might only lead to unreasonable therapeutic obstinacy. The intensive care physician has a major role to play in helping the cancer patient to develop an appropriate and flexible healthcare project. Anticipating the question of ICU admission in advance, as well as a close alliance between the oncologist and the intensive care physician are the two keys to the success of a healthcare project focused on the patient

The concept of a surrogate is ill adapted to intensive care: Criteria for recognizing a reference person

IF 2.445International audiencePurpose: In the intensive care unit (ICU), caregivers may find it difficult to identify a suitable person in the patient's entourage to serve as a reference when there is no official surrogate.Methods: We developed a 12-item questionnaire to identify factors potentially important for caregivers when identifying a reference person. Each criterion was evaluated as regards its importance for the role of reference. Responses were on a scale of 0 (not important) to 10 (extremely important). We recorded respondent's age, job title, and number of years' ICU experience. The questionnaire was distributed to all health care professionals in 2 French ICUs.Results: Among 144 staff, 128 were contacted; 99 completed the questionnaire (77% response rate; 20 physicians [ 11 residents], 51 nurses, 28 nurse's aides). Items classed as most important attributes for a reference person were knowledge of patient's wishes and values, emotional attachment, adequate understanding of the clinical history, and designation as a surrogate before admission. There were no significant differences according to respondent's age, job title, or experience.Conclusion: Caregivers identify a reference person based on criteria such as knowledge of the patient's wishes, emotional bond with the patient, an adequate understanding of the clinical history, and designation as surrogate before admission. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Severe serotonin syndrome caused by an interaction between an antidepressant and a cough syrup

International audienc