Weaning of mechanical ventilation in neuro critical care

International audienceIn the intensive care unit (ICU), weaning from mechanical ventilation follows a step by step process that has been well established in the general ICU population. However, little data is available in brain injury patients, who are often intubated to protect airways and prevent central hypoventilation. In this narrative review, we describe the general principles of weaning and how these principles could be adapted to brain injury patients. We focus on three major issues regarding weaning from mechanic ventilation in brain injury patients: 1) sedation protocol, 2) weaning and extubation protocol and criteria, 3) criteria, timing and technique for tracheostomy

Managing respiratory muscle weakness during weaning from invasive ventilation

Weaning is a critical stage of an intensive care unit (ICU) stay, in which the respiratory muscles play a major role. Weakness of the respiratory muscles, which is associated with significant morbidity in the ICU, is not limited to atrophy and subsequent dysfunction of the diaphragm; the extradiaphragmatic inspiratory and expiratory muscles also play important parts. In addition to the well-established deleterious effect of mechanical ventilation on the respiratory muscles, other risk factors such as sepsis may be involved. Weakness of the respiratory muscles can be suspected visually in a patient with paradoxical movement of the abdominal compartment. Measurement of maximal inspiratory pressure is the simplest way to assess respiratory muscle function, but it does not specifically take the diaphragm into account. A cut-off value of −30 cmH2O could identify patients at risk for prolonged ventilatory weaning; however, ultrasound may be better for assessing respiratory muscle function in the ICU. Although diaphragm dysfunction has been associated with weaning failure, this diagnosis should not discourage clinicians from performing spontaneous breathing trials and considering extubation. Recent therapeutic developments aimed at preserving or restoring respiratory muscle function are promising

National survey of invasive procedural training for nephrology fellows and residents in France: from bedside mentoring to simulation-based teaching

International audienc

Dyspnea and the electromyographic activity of inspiratory muscles during weaning from mechanical ventilation

International audienceAbstract Rationale Dyspnea, a key symptom of acute respiratory failure, is not among the criteria for spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) failure. Here, we sought (1) to determine whether dyspnea is a reliable failure criterion for SBT failure; (2) to quantify the relationship between dyspnea and the respective electromyographic activity of the diaphragm (EMGdi), the parasternal (EMGpa) and the Alae nasi (EMGan). Methods Mechanically ventilated patients undergoing an SBT were included. Dyspnea intensity was measured by the Dyspnea-Visual Analogic Scale (Dyspnea-VAS) at the initiation and end of the SBT. During the 30-min SBT or until SBT failure, the EMGdi was continuously measured with a multi-electrode nasogastric catheter and the EMGan and EMGpa with surface electrodes. Results Thirty-one patients were included, SAPS 2 (median [interquartile range]) 53 (37‒74), mechanically ventilated for 6 (3‒10) days. Seventeen patients (45%) failed the SBT. The increase in Dyspnea-VAS along the SBT was higher in patients who failed (6 [4‒8] cm) than in those who passed (0 [0‒1] cm, p = 0.01). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for Dyspnea-VAS was 0.909 (0.786–1.032). The increase in Dyspnea-VAS was significantly correlated to the increase in EMGan (Rho = 0.42 [0.04‒0.70], p < 0.05), but not to the increase in EMGpa (Rho = − 0.121 [− 0.495 to − 0.290], p = 0.555) and EMGdi (Rho = − 0.26 [− 0.68 to 0.28], p = 0.289). Conclusion Dyspnea is a reliable criterion of SBT failure, suggesting that Dyspnea-VAS could be used as a monitoring tool of the SBT. In addition, dyspnea seems to be more closely related to the electromyographic activity of the Alae nasi than of the diaphragm

Low dose of morphine to relieve dyspnea in acute respiratory failure (OpiDys): protocol for a double-blind randomized controlled study

International audienceBackground Dyspnea is common and severe in intensive care unit (ICU) patients managed for acute respiratory failure. Dyspnea appears to be associated with impaired prognosis and neuropsychological sequels. Pain and dyspnea share many similarities and previous studies have shown the benefit of morphine on dyspnea in patients with end-stage onco-hematological disease and severe heart or respiratory disease. In these populations, morphine administration was safe. Here, we hypothesize that low-dose opioids may help to reduce dyspnea in patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. The primary objective of the trial is to determine whether the administration of low-dose titrated opioids, compared to placebo, in patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure with severe dyspnea decreases the mean 24-h intensity of dyspnea score. Methods In this single-center double-blind randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel arms, we plan to include 22 patients (aged 18–75 years) on spontaneous ventilation with either non-invasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy or standard oxygen therapy admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure with severe dyspnea. They will be assigned after randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive in experimental arm administration of low-dose titrated morphine hydrochloride for 24 h consisting in an intravenous titration relayed subcutaneously according to a predefined protocol, or a placebo (0.9% NaCl) administered according to the same protocol in the control arm. The primary endpoint is the mean 24-h dyspnea score assessed by a visual analog scale of dyspnea. Discussion To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the benefit of opioids on dyspnea in ICU patients admitted for acute respiratory failure. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04358133 . Registered on 24 April 2020

Proportional assist ventilation relieves clinically significant dyspnea in critically ill ventilated patients.

International audienceIntroduction: Dyspnea is common and often severe symptom in mechanically ventilated patients. Proportional assist ventilation (PAV) is an assist ventilatory mode that adjusts the level of assistance to the activity of respiratory muscles. We hypothesized that PAV reduce dyspnea compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV).Patients and methods: Mechanically ventilated patients with clinically significant dyspnea were included. Dyspnea intensity was assessed by the Dyspnea-Visual Analog Scale (D-VAS) and the Intensive Care-Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (IC-RDOS) at inclusion (PSV-Baseline), after personalization of ventilator settings in order to minimize dyspnea (PSV-Personalization), and after switch to PAV. Respiratory drive was assessed by record of electromyographic activity of inspiratory muscles, the proportion of asynchrony was analyzed.Results: Thirty-four patients were included (73% males, median age of 66 [57-77] years). The D-VAS score was lower with PSV-Personalization (37 mm [20‒55]) and PAV (31 mm [14‒45]) than with PSV-Baseline (62 mm [28‒76]) (p < 0.05). The IC-RDOS score was lower with PAV (4.2 [2.4‒4.7]) and PSV-Personalization (4.4 [2.4‒4.9]) than with PSV-Baseline (4.8 [4.1‒6.5]) (p < 0.05). The electromyographic activity of parasternal intercostal muscles was lower with PAV and PSV-Personalization than with PSV-Baseline. The asynchrony index was lower with PAV (0% [0‒0.55]) than with PSV-Baseline and PSV-Personalization (0.68% [0‒2.28] and 0.60% [0.31‒1.41], respectively) (p < 0.05).Conclusion: In mechanically ventilated patients exhibiting clinically significant dyspnea with PSV, personalization of PSV settings and PAV results in not different decreased dyspnea and activity of muscles to a similar degree, even though PAV was able to reduce asynchrony more effectively

Nephrosclerosis in young patients with malignant hypertension

International audienceBackground: Nephrosclerosis is one of the histopathological consequences of severe or malignant hypertension (MH), some of the pathophysiology of which has been extrapolated from essential polygenetic arterial hypertension. Despite our recent description of unsuspected ciliopathies with MH, causes of MH in young patients with severe renal impairment are poorly understood. Methods: To refine and better describe the MH phenotype, we studied clinical and prognostic factors in young patients receiving a kidney biopsy following their first episode of MH. Patients were identified retrospectively and prospectively from eight centres over a 35-year period (1985-2020). Keywords were used to retrospectively enrol patients irrespective of lesions found on renal biopsy. Results: A total of 114 patients were included, 77 (67%) of whom were men, average age 34 years, 35% Caucasian and 34% African origin. An isolated clinical diagnosis of severe nephrosclerosis was suggested in only 52% of cases, with 24% primary glomerulopathies. Only 7% of patients had normal renal function at diagnosis, 25% required emergency dialysis and 21% were eventually transplanted. Mortality was 1% at the last follow-up. Independent prognostic factors significantly associated with renal prognosis (6-month dialysis) and predictive of end-stage renal disease were serum creatinine on admission {odds ratio [OR] 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34-1.96], P 30% [OR 10.70 (95% CI 1.53-112.03), P =. 03]. Astonishingly, the presence of any thrombotic microangiopathy lesion on renal biopsy was an independent, protective factor [OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.02-0.60), P =. 01]. The histopathological hallmark of nephrosclerosis was found alone in only 52% of study patients, regardless of ethnicity. Conclusions: This suggests that kidney biopsy might be beneficial in young patients with MH

Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis

International audienceBackground: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients.Methods: The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7.Results: Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7.Conclusion: In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients

Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis

International audienceAbstract Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients. Methods The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7. Results Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively ( p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7. Conclusion In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context

Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial

International audienceIMPORTANCE Given the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative. OBJECTIVES To determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS The ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis-114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death). RESULTS Among the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95%CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7%[95%CI, 45.2%to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95%CI, 43.4%to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95%CI, 41.7%to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5%[95%CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95%CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2%thrombosis, 2.6%bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5%thrombosis, 3.6%bleeding, 11.8%death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7%death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2] and -14.7 [95%CI -6.2 to -23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, -13.5; 95%CI -2.6 to -24.3). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PAnor TAuse improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemicCOVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis