a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid cohort

Funding: This study was supported in part by a grant from the French government through the «Programme Investissement d’Avenir» (I-SITE ULNE) managed by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (coVAPid project). The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpreta tion, writing of the report, or decision to submit for publication.BACKGROUND: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at higher risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). No study has evaluated the relationship between VAP and mortality in this population, or compared this relationship between SARS-CoV-2 patients and other populations. The main objective of our study was to determine the relationship between VAP and mortality in SARS-CoV-2 patients. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort. VAP was diagnosed using clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological criteria. Univariable and multivariable marginal Cox's regression models, with cause-specific hazard for duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, were used to compare outcomes between study groups. Extubation, and ICU discharge alive were considered as events of interest, and mortality as competing event. FINDINGS: Of 1576 included patients, 568 were SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, 482 influenza pneumonia, and 526 no evidence of viral infection at ICU admission. VAP was associated with significantly higher risk for 28-day mortality in SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16-2.47), p = 0.006), and influenza groups (1.75 (1.03-3.02), p = 0.045), but not in the no viral infection group (1.07 (0.64-1.78), p = 0.79). VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of mechanical ventilation in the SARS-CoV-2 group, but not in the influenza or no viral infection groups. VAP was associated with significantly longer duration of ICU stay in the 3 study groups. No significant difference was found in heterogeneity of outcomes related to VAP between the 3 groups, suggesting that the impact of VAP on mortality was not different between study groups. INTERPRETATION: VAP was associated with significantly increased 28-day mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 patients. However, SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, as compared to influenza pneumonia or no viral infection, did not significantly modify the relationship between VAP and 28-day mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693.publishersversionpublishe

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/)

Early Identification and Diagnostic Approach in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition defined by the acute onset of severe hypoxemia with bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, in the absence of a predominant cardiac involvement. Whereas the current Berlin definition was proposed in 2012 and mainly focused on intubated patients under invasive mechanical ventilation, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a more comprehensive definition of ARDS including patients treated with noninvasive oxygenation strategies, especially high-flow nasal oxygen therapy, and fulfilling all other diagnostic criteria. Early identification of ARDS in patients breathing spontaneously may allow assessment of earlier initiation of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. In the same way, accurate identification of the ARDS etiology is obviously of paramount importance for early initiation of adequate treatment. The precise underlying etiological diagnostic (bacterial, viral, fungal, immune, malignant, drug-induced, etc.) as well as the diagnostic approach have been understudied in the literature. To date, no clinical practice guidelines have recommended structured diagnostic work-up in ARDS patients. In addition to lung-protective ventilation with the aim of preventing worsening lung injury, specific treatment of the underlying cause has a central role to improve outcomes. In this review, we discuss early identification of ARDS in non-intubated patients breathing spontaneously and propose a structured diagnosis work-up

Continuous enteral nutrition compared with a maximal gastric vacuity strategy at the time of extubation in the intensive care unit: protocol for a non-inferiority cluster randomised trial (the Ambroisie Project)

Introduction Fasting is frequently imposed to patients before extubation in the intensive care unit based on scheduled surgery guidelines. This practice has never been evaluated among critically ill patients and may delay extubation, increase nursing workload and reduce caloric intake. We are hypothesising that continuous enteral nutrition until extubation represents a safe alternative compared with fasting prior to extubation in the intensive care unit.Methods and analysis Adult patients ventilated more than 48 hours and receiving pre-pyloric enteral nutrition for more than 24 hours are included in this open-label cluster randomised parallel group non-inferiority trial. The participating centres are randomised allocated to continued enteral nutrition until extubation or 6-hour fasting (with concomitant gastric suctioning when feasible) prior to extubation. The primary outcome is extubation failure (ie, reintubation within 7 days following extubation).Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the national ethics review board (comité de protection, des personnes Sud Mediterranée III No 2017.10.02 bis) and patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03335345)

Is immunosuppression status a risk factor for noninvasive ventilation failure in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure? A post hoc matched analysis

Abstract Background Recent European/American guidelines recommend noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as a first-line therapy to manage acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients. By contrast, NIV may have deleterious effects in nonimmunocompromised patients and experts have been unable to offer a recommendation. Immunocompromised patients have particularly high mortality rates when they require intubation. However, it is not clear whether immunosuppression status is a risk factor for NIV failure. We assessed the impact of immunosuppression status on NIV failure in a post hoc analysis pooling two studies including patients with de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with NIV. Patients with hypercapnia, acute exacerbation of chronic lung disease, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, or with do-not-intubate order were excluded. Results Among the 208 patients included in the analysis, 71 (34%) were immunocompromised. They had higher severity scores upon ICU admission, higher pressure-support levels, and minute ventilation under NIV, and were more likely to have bilateral lung infiltrates than nonimmunocompromised patients. Intubation and in-ICU mortality rates were higher in immunocompromised than in nonimmunocompromised patients: 61% vs. 43% (p = 0.02) and 38% vs. 15% (p < 0.001), respectively. After adjustment or using a propensity score-matched analysis, immunosuppression was not associated with intubation, whereas it remained independently associated with ICU mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.64 (95% CI 1.24–5.67, p = 0.01). Conclusions Immunosuppression status may directly influence mortality but does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of intubation in patients with de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with NIV. Studies in this specific population are needed