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/)

Influence of the low-emission asphalt LEA® composition on total organic compounds emissions using the factorial experimental design approach

In the sustainable development context, road companies have adopted an approach which aims at accelerating convergence between environmental requirements and development of energy-saving materials called warm and half-warm asphalt mixes. This study, realised in the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC) within the framework of a partnership between EIFFAGE Travaux Publics and LCPC aimed at determining the influence of the mix composition on the environmental properties of the half-warm mix asphalts LEA® (acronym of low-emission and low-energy asphalt) produced at 95°C compared to the corresponding hot mix asphalt acting as a reference. By means of the factorial experiment design approach, this study highlights the influence of the bitumen chemical nature, the additive origin and the water content on fumes generated during the manufacturing stage

Etude en laboratoire des performances mécaniques des enrobés à la mousse de bitume utilisant des granulats tièdes

Pour répondre à des critères environnementaux devenus de plus en plus stricts, de nouvelles technologies d'enrobage à des températures inférieures à 100 °C, appelées « semi-tièdes », sont apparues sur le marché des matériaux bitumineux routiers. L'influence des paramètres de mélange, tels que la température et la teneur en eau initiale des granulats, sur la qualité du mélange obtenu et les propriétés mécaniques des enrobés tièdes à la mousse de bitume a été déterminée. Les propriétés de ces enrobés ont été comparées à celles des enrobés de référence : enrobés à froid traditionnels à la mousse et enrobés à chaud. L'existence d'une humidité optimale pour les granulats a été notamment mise en évidence. Les enrobés semi-tièdes à la mousse de bitume, fabriqués à 70 et 90 °C, présentent des propriétés mécaniques satisfaisantes, intermédiaires entre celles des enrobés à froid et des enrobés à chaud de référence

Inhaled amikacin versus placebo to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: the AMIKINHAL double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol

International audienceIntroduction: Pre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.Methods and analysis: Academic, investigator-initiated, parallel two group arms, double-blind, multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial. Patients invasively ventilated more than 3 days will be randomised to receive 20 mg/kg inhaled amikacin daily for 3 days or inhaled placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride). Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia will be recorded based on a standardised diagnostic framework from randomisation to day 28 and adjudicated by a centralised blinded committee.Ethics and dissemination: The protocol and amendments have been approved by the regional ethics review board and French competent authorities (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest I, No.2016-R29). All patients will be included after informed consent according to French law. Results will be disseminated in international scientific journals.Trial registration numbers: EudraCT 2016-001054-17 and NCT03149640

Inhaled Amikacin to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

International audienceBackground: Whether preventive inhaled antibiotics may reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia is unclear.Methods: In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial, we assigned critically ill adults who had been undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours to receive inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of ideal body weight once daily or to receive placebo for 3 days. The primary outcome was a first episode of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed.Results: A total of 850 patients underwent randomization, and 847 were included in the analyses (417 assigned to the amikacin group and 430 to the placebo group). All three daily nebulizations were received by 337 patients (81%) in the amikacin group and 355 patients (83%) in the placebo group. At 28 days, ventilator-associated pneumonia had developed in 62 patients (15%) in the amikacin group and in 95 patients (22%) in the placebo group (difference in restricted mean survival time to ventilator-associated pneumonia, 1.5 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 2.5; P = 0.004). An infection-related ventilator-associated complication occurred in 74 patients (18%) in the amikacin group and in 111 patients (26%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89). Trial-related serious adverse effects were seen in 7 patients (1.7%) in the amikacin group and in 4 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group.Conclusions: Among patients who had undergone mechanical ventilation for at least 3 days, a subsequent 3-day course of inhaled amikacin reduced the burden of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; AMIKINHAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03149640; EUDRA Clinical Trials number, 2016-001054-17.)

Clinical phenotype and outcomes of pneumococcal versus meningococcal purpura fulminans: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

International audienceNo abstract availabl

Prone Positioning During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients With Severe ARDS

International audienceImportance Prone positioning may improve outcomes in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it is unknown whether prone positioning improves clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS who are undergoing venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) compared with supine positioning. Objective To test whether prone positioning vs supine positioning decreases the time to successful ECMO weaning in patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO. Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial of patients with severe ARDS undergoing VV-ECMO for less than 48 hours at 14 intensive care units (ICUs) in France between March 3, 2021, and December 7, 2021. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 to prone positioning (at least 4 sessions of 16 hours) (n = 86) or to supine positioning (n = 84). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was time to successful ECMO weaning within 60 days following randomization. Secondary outcomes included ECMO and mechanical ventilation–free days, ICU and hospital length of stay, skin pressure injury, serious adverse events, and all-cause mortality at 90-day follow-up. Results Among 170 randomized patients (median age, 51 [IQR, 43-59] years; n = 60 women [35%]), median respiratory system compliance was 15.0 (IQR, 10.7-20.6) mL/cm H 2 O; 159 patients (94%) had COVID-19–related ARDS; and 164 (96%) were in prone position before ECMO initiation. Within 60 days of enrollment, 38 of 86 patients (44%) had successful ECMO weaning in the prone ECMO group compared with 37 of 84 (44%) in the supine ECMO group (risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, −14.9% to 15.2%]; subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.75]; P = .64). Within 90 days, no significant difference was observed in ECMO duration (28 vs 32 days; difference, −4.9 [95% CI, −11.2 to 1.5] days; P = .13), ICU length of stay, or 90-day mortality (51% vs 48%; risk difference, 2.4% [95% CI, −13.9% to 18.6%]; P = .62). No serious adverse events were reported during the prone position procedure. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO, prone positioning compared with supine positioning did not significantly reduce time to successful weaning of ECMO. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0460755

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

International audienc

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

International audienceAbstract 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 < 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 < 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 < 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