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/)

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

Standard dosing of amikacin and gentamicin in critically ill patients results in variable and subtherapeutic concentrations

Low peak plasma concentrations (C-max) of amikacin and gentamicin are reported in intensive care unit( ICU) patients after administration of the first dose. The present study aimed to describe the proportion of ICU patients in whom an adequate C-max was achieved throughout the course of therapy. Septic ICU patients with an indication for intravenous amikacin or gentamicin were eligible for inclusion in this single-centre observational study. The first and subsequent doses and the corresponding C-max values were recorded. The target C-max was >= 60 mg/L for amikacin and >= 30 mg/L for gentamicin. Amikacin and gentamicin plasma concentrations were available in 66 and 24 patients, respectively (59 +/- 17 years; 79 +/- 19 kg; height 169 +/- 12 cm; SAPS II score 46 +/- 19). Pulmonary, abdominal and urinary tract infections were diagnosed in 64 patients. Culture-positive infection was confirmed in 65 patients (72%). A target first C-max was achieved in 17/90 patients (19%). For amikacin, the target C-max was achieved in 16/66 patients (24%) after the initial dose. In the 50 remaining patients, a change in dosing was performed in 14 patients, leading adequate peak plasma level in 2 patients. For gentamicin, the targeted C-max was achieved in only 1/24 patient (4%) after the initial dose and was never achieved after the third dose. In conclusion, standard dosing of amikacin or gentamicin led to adequate C-max in only 19% of patients. Subtherapeutic C-max were not significantly corrected after subsequent doses. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. and the International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved

Early Identification of Patients at Risk for Difficult Intubation in the Intensive Care Unit. Development and Validation of the MACOCHA Score in a Multicenter Cohort Study AT A GLANCE COMMENTARY Scientific Knowledge on the Subject

International audienceRationale: Difficult intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a challenging issue. Objectives: To develop and validate a simplified score for identifying patients with difficult intubation in the ICU and to report related complications. Methods: Data collected in a prospective multicenter study from 1,000 consecutive intubations from 42 ICUs were used to develop a simplified score of difficult intubation, which was then validated externally in 400 consecutive intubation procedures from 18 other ICUs and internally by bootstrap on 1,000 iterations. Measurements and Main Results: In multivariate analysis, the main pre-dictors of difficult intubation (incidence ¼ 11.3%) were related to patient (Mallampati score III or IV, obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, reduced mobility of cervical spine, limited mouth opening); pathology (severe hypoxia, coma); and operator (nonanesthesiologist). From the b parameter, a seven-item simplified score (MACOCHA score) was built, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.94). In the validation cohort (prevalence of difficult intuba-tion ¼ 8%), the AUC was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.76-0.96), with a sensitivity of 73%, a specificity of 89%, a negative predictive value of 98%, and apositive predictivevalue of 36%. After internal validation bybootstrap, the AUC was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.93). Severe life-threatening events (severe hypoxia, collapse, cardiac arrest, or death) occurred in 38% of the 1,000 cases. Patients with difficult intubation (n ¼ 113) had significantly higher severe life-threatening complications than those who had a nondifficult intubation (51% vs. 36%; P , 0.0001). Conclusions: Difficult intubation in the ICU is strongly associated with severe life-threatening complications. A simple score including seven clinical items discriminates difficult and nondifficult intuba-tion in the ICU. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01532063)

Non-invasive ventilation alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone after extubation in COPD patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

International audienceAbstract Background Several randomized clinical trials have shown that non-invasive ventilation (NIV) applied immediately after extubation may prevent reintubation in patients at high-risk of extubation failure. However, most of studies included patients with chronic respiratory disorders as well as patients without underlying respiratory disease. To date, no study has shown decreased risk of reintubation with prophylactic NIV after extubation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We hypothesized that prophylactic NIV after extubation may decrease the risk of reintubation in COPD patients as compared with high-flow nasal oxygen. We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis of COPD patients included in a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing prophylactic use of NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone immediately after extubation. Results Among the 651 patients included in the original study, 150 (23%) had underlying COPD including 86 patients treated with NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen and 64 patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen alone . The reintubation rate was 13% (11 out of 86 patients) with NIV and 27% (17 out of 64 patients) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference, − 14% (95% CI − 27% to − 1%); p = 0.03]. Whereas reintubation rates were significantly lower with NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone at 72 h and until ICU discharge, mortality in ICU did not differ between groups: 6% (5/86) with NIV vs. 9% (6/64) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference − 4% (95% CI − 14% to 5%); p = 0.40]. Conclusions In COPD patients, prophylactic NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the trial registration number NCT03121482 (20 April 2017

Beneficial Effects of Non-Invasive Ventilation After Extubation in Obese or Overweight Patients : A Post-Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

International audienc

Non-invasive ventilation alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone after extubation in COPD patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Several randomized clinical trials have shown that non-invasive ventilation (NIV) applied immediately after extubation may prevent reintubation in patients at high-risk of extubation failure. However, most of studies included patients with chronic respiratory disorders as well as patients without underlying respiratory disease. To date, no study has shown decreased risk of reintubation with prophylactic NIV after extubation among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We hypothesized that prophylactic NIV after extubation may decrease the risk of reintubation in COPD patients as compared with high-flow nasal oxygen. We performed a post hoc subgroup analysis of COPD patients included in a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing prophylactic use of NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen versus high-flow nasal oxygen alone immediately after extubation. Results Among the 651 patients included in the original study, 150 (23%) had underlying COPD including 86 patients treated with NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen and 64 patients treated with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. The reintubation rate was 13% (11 out of 86 patients) with NIV and 27% (17 out of 64 patients) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference, − 14% (95% CI − 27% to − 1%); p = 0.03]. Whereas reintubation rates were significantly lower with NIV than with high-flow nasal oxygen alone at 72 h and until ICU discharge, mortality in ICU did not differ between groups: 6% (5/86) with NIV vs. 9% (6/64) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone [difference − 4% (95% CI − 14% to 5%); p = 0.40]. Conclusions In COPD patients, prophylactic NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen significantly decreased the risk of reintubation compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the trial registration number NCT03121482 (20 April 2017) </jats:sec

Spontaneous-Breathing Trials with Pressure-Support Ventilation or a T-Piece

International audienceBackground: Spontaneous-breathing trials can be performed with the use of either pressure-support ventilation (PSV) or a T-piece. Whether PSV trials may result in a shorter time to tracheal extubation than T-piece trials, without resulting in a higher risk of reintubation, among patients who have a high risk of extubation failure is unknown.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who had a high risk of extubation failure (i.e., were &gt;65 years of age or had an underlying chronic cardiac or respiratory disease) to undergo spontaneous-breathing trials performed with the use of either PSV (with a pressure-support level of 8 cm of water and no positive end-expiratory pressure) or a T-piece. The primary outcome was the total time without exposure to invasive ventilation (reported as the number of ventilator-free days) at day 28 after the initial spontaneous-breathing trial. Secondary outcomes included extubation within 24 hours and extubation within 7 days after the initial spontaneous-breathing trial, as well as reintubation within 7 days after extubation.Results: A total of 969 patients (484 in the PSV group and 485 in the T-piece group) were included in the analysis. At day 28, the median number of ventilator-free days was 27 (interquartile range, 24 to 27) in the PSV group and 27 (interquartile range, 23 to 27) in the T-piece group (difference, 0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1; P = 0.31). Extubation was performed within 24 hours in 376 patients (77.7%) in the PSV group and in 350 patients (72.2%) in the T-piece group (difference, 5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.01 to 10.9), and extubation was performed within 7 days in 473 patients (97.7%) and 458 patients (94.4%), respectively (difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.9). Reintubation was performed in 72 of 481 patients (14.9%) in the PSV group and in 65 of 477 patients (13.6%) in the T-piece group (difference, 1.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.1 to 5.8). Cardiac or respiratory arrest was a reason for reintubation in 9 patients (3 in the PSV group and 6 in the T-piece group).Conclusions: Among patients who had a high risk of extubation failure, spontaneous-breathing trials performed with PSV did not result in significantly more ventilator-free days at day 28 than spontaneous-breathing trials performed with a T-piece. (Supported by the French Ministry of Health; TIP-EX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04227639.)

Spontaneous-Breathing Trials with Pressure-Support Ventilation or a T-Piece

International audienceBackground: Spontaneous-breathing trials can be performed with the use of either pressure-support ventilation (PSV) or a T-piece. Whether PSV trials may result in a shorter time to tracheal extubation than T-piece trials, without resulting in a higher risk of reintubation, among patients who have a high risk of extubation failure is unknown.Methods: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who had a high risk of extubation failure (i.e., were &gt;65 years of age or had an underlying chronic cardiac or respiratory disease) to undergo spontaneous-breathing trials performed with the use of either PSV (with a pressure-support level of 8 cm of water and no positive end-expiratory pressure) or a T-piece. The primary outcome was the total time without exposure to invasive ventilation (reported as the number of ventilator-free days) at day 28 after the initial spontaneous-breathing trial. Secondary outcomes included extubation within 24 hours and extubation within 7 days after the initial spontaneous-breathing trial, as well as reintubation within 7 days after extubation.Results: A total of 969 patients (484 in the PSV group and 485 in the T-piece group) were included in the analysis. At day 28, the median number of ventilator-free days was 27 (interquartile range, 24 to 27) in the PSV group and 27 (interquartile range, 23 to 27) in the T-piece group (difference, 0 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.5 to 1; P = 0.31). Extubation was performed within 24 hours in 376 patients (77.7%) in the PSV group and in 350 patients (72.2%) in the T-piece group (difference, 5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.01 to 10.9), and extubation was performed within 7 days in 473 patients (97.7%) and 458 patients (94.4%), respectively (difference, 3.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.8 to 5.9). Reintubation was performed in 72 of 481 patients (14.9%) in the PSV group and in 65 of 477 patients (13.6%) in the T-piece group (difference, 1.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.1 to 5.8). Cardiac or respiratory arrest was a reason for reintubation in 9 patients (3 in the PSV group and 6 in the T-piece group).Conclusions: Among patients who had a high risk of extubation failure, spontaneous-breathing trials performed with PSV did not result in significantly more ventilator-free days at day 28 than spontaneous-breathing trials performed with a T-piece. (Supported by the French Ministry of Health; TIP-EX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04227639.)

High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy alone or with non-invasive ventilation during the weaning period after extubation in ICU: the prospective randomised controlled HIGH-WEAN protocol

IntroductionRecent practice guidelines suggest applying non-invasive ventilation (NIV) to prevent postextubation respiratory failure in patients at high risk of extubation failure in intensive care unit (ICU). However, such prophylactic NIV has been only a conditional recommendation given the low certainty of evidence. Likewise, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy has been shown to reduce reintubation rates as compared with standard oxygen and to be as efficient as NIV in patients at high risk. Whereas HFNC may be considered as an optimal therapy during the postextubation period, HFNC associated with NIV could be an additional means of preventing postextubation respiratory failure. We are hypothesising that treatment associating NIV with HFNC between NIV sessions may be more effective than HFNC alone and may reduce the reintubation rate in patients at high risk.Methods and analysisThis study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFNC alone or with NIV sessions during the postextubation period in patients at high risk of extubation failure in the ICU. Six hundred patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups according to the strategy of oxygenation after extubation. The primary outcome is the reintubation rate within the 7 days following planned extubation. Secondary outcomes include the number of patients who meet the criteria for moderate/severe respiratory failure, ICU length of stay and mortality up to day 90.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03121482.</jats:sec