Clinical review: Aggressive management and extracorporeal support for drug-induced cardiotoxicity

Poisoning may induce failure in multiple organs, leading to death. Supportive treatments and supplementation of failing organs are usually efficient. In contrast, the usefulness of cardiopulmonary bypass in drug-induced shock remains a matter of debate. The majority of deaths results from poisoning with membrane stabilising agents and calcium channel blockers. There is a need for more aggressive treatment in patients not responding to conventional treatments. The development of new antidotes is limited. In contrast, experimental studies support the hypothesis that cardiopulmonary bypass is life-saving. A review of the literature shows that cardiopulmonary bypass of the poisoned heart is feasible. The largest experience has resulted from the use of peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass. However, a literature review does not allow any conclusions regarding the efficiency and indications for this invasive method. Indeed, the majority of reports are single cases, with only one series of seven patients. Appealing results suggest that further studies are needed. Determination of prognostic factors predictive of refractoriness to conventional treatment for cardiotoxic poisonings is mandatory. These prognostic factors are specific for a toxicant or a class of toxicants. Knowledge of them will result in clarification of the indications for cardiopulmonary bypass in poisonings

Effect of different methods of cooling for targeted temperature management on outcome after cardiac arrest : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Although targeted temperature management (TTM) is recommended in comatose survivors after cardiac arrest (CA), the optimal method to deliver TTM remains unknown. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of different TTM methods on survival and neurological outcome after adult CA. Methods We searched on the MEDLINE/PubMed database until 22 February 2019 for comparative studies that evaluated at least two different TTM methods in CA patients. Data were extracted independently by two authors. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a modified Cochrane ROB tools for assessing the risk of bias of each study. The primary outcome was the occurrence of unfavorable neurological outcome (UO); secondary outcomes included overall mortality. Results Our search identified 6886 studies; 22 studies (n = 8027 patients) were included in the final analysis. When compared to surface cooling, core methods showed a lower probability of UO (OR 0.85 [95% CIs 0.75-0.96]; p = 0.008) but not mortality (OR 0.88 [95% CIs 0.62-1.25]; p = 0.21). No significant heterogeneity was observed among studies. However, these effects were observed in the analyses of non-RCTs. A significant lower probability of both UO and mortality were observed when invasive TTM methods were compared to non-invasive TTM methods and when temperature feedback devices (TFD) were compared to non-TFD methods. These results were significant particularly in non-RCTs. Conclusions Although existing literature is mostly based on retrospective or prospective studies, specific TTM methods (i.e., core, invasive, and with TFD) were associated with a lower probability of poor neurological outcome when compared to other methods in adult CA survivors (CRD42019111021).Peer reviewe

Ann Intensive Care

Unlike for septic shock, there are no specific international recommendations regarding the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) in critically ill patients. We present herein recommendations for the management of cardiogenic shock in adults, developed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system by an expert group of the French-Language Society of Intensive Care (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF)), with the participation the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR), the French Cardiology Society (SFC), the French Emergency Medicine Society (SFMU), and the French Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (SFCTCV). The recommendations cover 15 fields of application such as: epidemiology, myocardial infarction, monitoring, vasoactive drugs, prehospital care, cardiac arrest, mechanical assistance, general treatments, cardiac surgery, poisoning, cardiogenic shock complicating end-stage cardiac failure, post-shock treatment, various etiologies, and medical care pathway. The experts highlight the fact that CS is a rare disease, the management of which requires a multidisciplinary technical platform as well as specialized and experienced medical teams. In particular, each expert center must be able to provide, at the same site, skills in a variety of disciplines, including medical and interventional cardiology, anesthesia, thoracic and vascular surgery, intensive care, cardiac assistance, radiology including for interventional vascular procedures, and a circulatory support mobile unit

a retrospective multicenter study

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). Prof. Ignacio Martin-Loeches has been supported by SFI (Science Foundation Ireland), Grant number 20/COV/0038. The funders of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, writing of the report or deci sion to submit for publication.BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The aim of this ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter observational retrospective study is to assess the relationship between adjuvant corticosteroid use and the incidence of VAP. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort in 36 ICUs. Adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were consecutively included between February and May 2020. VAP diagnosis required strict definition with clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological confirmation. We assessed the association of VAP with corticosteroid treatment using univariate and multivariate cause-specific Cox's proportional hazard models with adjustment on pre-specified confounders. RESULTS: Among the 545 included patients, 191 (35%) received corticosteroids. The proportional hazard assumption for the effect of corticosteroids on the incidence of VAP could not be accepted, indicating that this effect varied during ICU stay. We found a non-significant lower risk of VAP for corticosteroid-treated patients during the first days in the ICU and an increased risk for longer ICU stay. By modeling the effect of corticosteroids with time-dependent coefficients, the association between corticosteroids and the incidence of VAP was not significant (overall effect p = 0.082), with time-dependent hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 0.47 (0.17-1.31) at day 2, 0.95 (0.63-1.42) at day 7, 1.48 (1.01-2.16) at day 14 and 1.94 (1.09-3.46) at day 21. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association was found between adjuvant corticosteroid treatment and the incidence of VAP, although a time-varying effect of corticosteroids was identified along the 28-day follow-up.publishersversionpublishe

Comparison of prognostic factors between bacteraemic and non-bacteraemic critically ill immunocompetent patients in community-acquired severe pneumococcal pneumonia: a STREPTOGENE sub-study.

BACKGROUND: The presence of bacteraemia in pneumococcal pneumonia in critically ill patients does not appear to be a strong independent prognostic factor in the existing literature. However, there may be a specific pattern of factors associated with mortality for ICU patients with bacteraemic pneumococcal community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We aimed to compare the factors associated with mortality, according to the presence of bacteraemia or not on admission, for patients hospitalised in intensive care for severe pneumococcal CAP. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from the prospective, observational, multicentre STREPTOGENE study in immunocompetent Caucasian adults admitted to intensive care in France between 2008 and 2012 for pneumococcal CAP. Patients were divided into two groups based on initial blood culture (positive vs. negative) for Streptococcus pneumoniae. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, which was compared between the two groups using odds ratios according to predefined variables to search for a prognostic interaction present in bacterial patients but not non-bacteraemic patients. Potential differences in the distribution of serotypes between the two groups were assessed. The prognostic consequences of the presence or not of initial bi-antibiotic therapy were assessed, specifically in bacteraemic patients. RESULTS: Among 614 included patients, 274 had a blood culture positive for S. pneumoniae at admission and 340 did not. The baseline difference between the groups was more frequent leukopaenia (26% vs. 14%, p = 0.0002) and less frequent pre-hospital antibiotic therapy (10% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.024) for the bacteraemic patients. Hospital mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.11). We did not observe any prognostic factors specific to the bacteraemic patient population, as the statistical comparison of the odds ratios, as an indication of the association between the predefined prognostic parameters and mortality, showed them to be similar for the two groups. Bacteraemic patients more often had invasive serotypes but less often serotypes associated with high case fatality rates (p = 0.003). The antibiotic regimens were similar for the two groups. There was no difference in mortality for patients in either group given a beta-lactam alone vs. a beta-lactam combined with a macrolide or fluoroquinolone. CONCLUSION: Bacteraemia had no influence on the mortality of immunocompetent Caucasian adults admitted to intensive care for severe pneumococcal CAP, regardless of the profile of the associated prognostic factors

Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs are present in ~4% of uninfected individuals over 70 years old and account for ~20% of COVID-19 deaths

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved.Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/ml; in plasma diluted 1:10) of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pneumonia but not in individuals with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega (100 pg/ml; in 1:10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients >80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1124 deceased patients (aged 20 days to 99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-beta. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected individuals from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of individuals carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals 80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-beta do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over 80s and total fatal COVID-19 cases.Peer reviewe

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

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

Etude des effets respiratoires de la buprénorphine et des benzodiazépines seuls et en association

La buprénorphine est responsable d'intoxications sévères et de décès, en cas de mésusage et de co-ingestion de benzodiazépines. Nous avons observé une diminution de la mortalité des intoxications par opitoïdes . Cependant, la détection de buprénorphine augmentait en aparallèle à celle de ses ventes. Dans une étude prospective, nous avons montré que le tableau toxique lié à la buprénorphine était semblable à celui de la méthadone ou de l'héroine, mais sans réponse clinique favorable à la maloxone. La co-ingestion de benzodiazépines était fréquente et le flumazénil améliorait l'état clinique. lLe mécanisme de toxicité de la buprénorphine est inconnu puisque seule la combinaison de doses IV élevées de buprénorphine et de benzodiazépines induit une dépression respiratoire chez le rat. Nous avons mis en évidence la forte toxicité et les effets respiratoires délétères de la norbuprénorphine. La Buprénorphine est capable de reverser et de protéger de ces effets, grâce à sa liaison forte aux récepteurs . Cependant, nous n'avons pas trouvé de majoration des effets de la buprénorphine en pléthysmographie aprés induction par laPARIS5-BU-Necker : Fermée (751152101) / SudocPARIS-BIUP (751062107) / SudocSudocFranceF