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/)

Effectiveness and efficiency of tele-expertise for improving access to retinopathy screening among 351 neonates in a secondary care center: An observational, controlled before-after study.

In France, secondary care hospitals encounter difficulties to adhere to retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening guidelines. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of a tele-expertise program for ROP screening in neonatal intensive care units without on-site ophthalmologists. We evaluated the impact of a tele-expertise program funded by the Paris Region Health Authority in a secondary care center general hospital of the Paris Region (CHSF), where there was previously no on-site ophthalmologist. We performed an observational, controlled before-after study, with a university tertiary care center with on-site ophthalmologists (Port-Royal) as the control group. Recruitment and data collection for both periods took place from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 31 2012, and from 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2015. The primary endpoint was the percentage of compliance with screening guidelines, secondary endpoints included pain scores and costs. Over the two periods, at total of 351 infants were recruited in the CHSF. Implementation of the tele-expertise resulted in an absolute +57.3% increase in the proportion of examinations realized in accordance with guidelines (3.8% during the "before" period and 61.1% during the "after" period, p<0.001). As compared with the control group, the proportion of infants appropriately screened improved (57.5% versus 43.1%, p = 0.002); median pain score on the acute pain rating scale for neonates during examination was significantly higher (median score 5.5/10, range [2.5-5.7] versus 2.0/10, range [1.0-3.1], p = 0.002). Screening rates in the control group remained unchanged. The average cost per examination increased from €337 in the "before" period to €353 in the "after period" in the tele-expertise group. The implementation of tele-expertise for ROP screening in the CHSF medical center resulted in a major improvement of access to care with a small cost increase. The issue of pain control during examination with tele-expertise should be further addressed

Cost of cancer diagnosis using next-generation sequencing targeted gene panels in routine practice: a nationwide French study

International audienceIt is currently unclear if next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies can be implemented in the diagnosis setting at an affordable cost. The aim of this study was to measure the total cost of performing NGS in clinical practice in France, in both germline and somatic cancer genetics.The study was performed on 15 French representative cancer molecular genetics laboratories performing NGS panels' tests. The production cost was estimated using a micro-costing method with resources consumed collected in situ in each laboratory from a healthcare provider perspective. In addition, we used a top-down methodology for specific post-sequencing steps including bioinformatics, technical validation, and biological validation. Additional non-specific costs were also included. Costs were detailed per step of the process (from the pre-analytical phase to delivery of results), and per cost driver (consumables, staff, equipment, maintenance, overheads). Sensitivity analyses were performed.The mean total cost of NGS for targeted gene panels was estimated to 607€ (±207) in somatic genetics and 550€ (±140) in germline oncogenetic analysis. Consumables were the highest cost driver of the sequencing process. The sensitivity analysis showed that a 25% reduction of consumables resulted in a 15% decrease in total NGS cost in somatic genetics, and 13% in germline analysis. Additional costs accounted for 30-32% of the total NGS costs.Beyond cost assessment considerations, the diffusion of NGS technologies will raise questions about their efficiency when compared to more targeted approaches, and their added value in a context of routine diagnosis

Diagnostic value comparison between methods cell line DNA analysis.

<p>°PNA Peptide nucleic acid; *PNA was used with taqman probes or with allele specific PCR.</p

Costs per item and total costs per test per technique and laboratory.

<p>Costs per item and total costs per test per technique and laboratory.</p

Global error rate for FFPE samples callings.

<p>Global error rate for FFPE samples callings.</p

Sensitivity analysis; Minimum, maximum and base case costs per test per technique and laboratory.

<p>Bleu diamonds rare base case costs.</p

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

Characteristics, management, and prognosis of elderly patients with COVID-19 admitted in the ICU during the first wave: insights from the COVID-ICU study

International audienceBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic is a heavy burden in terms of health care resources. Future decision-making policies require consistent data on the management and prognosis of the older patients (&gt; 70 years old) with COVID-19 admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Characteristics, management, and prognosis of critically ill old patients (&gt; 70 years) were extracted from the international prospective COVID-ICU database. A propensity score weighted-comparison evaluated the impact of intubation upon admission on Day-90 mortality. Results: The analysis included 1199 (28% of the COVID-ICU cohort) patients (median [interquartile] age 74 [72–78] years). Fifty-three percent, 31%, and 16% were 70–74, 75–79, and over 80 years old, respectively. The most frequent comorbidities were chronic hypertension (62%), diabetes (30%), and chronic respiratory disease (25%). Median Clinical Frailty Scale was 3 (2–3). Upon admission, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 154 (105–222). 740 (62%) patients were intubated on Day-1 and eventually 938 (78%) during their ICU stay. Overall Day-90 mortality was 46% and reached 67% among the 193 patients over 80 years old. Mortality was higher in older patients, diabetics, and those with a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio upon admission, cardiovascular dysfunction, and a shorter time between first symptoms and ICU admission. In propensity analysis, early intubation at ICU admission was associated with a significantly higher Day-90 mortality (42% vs 28%; hazard ratio 1.68; 95% CI 1.24–2.27; p &lt; 0·001). Conclusion: Patients over 70 years old represented more than a quarter of the COVID-19 population admitted in the participating ICUs during the first wave. Day-90 mortality was 46%, with dismal outcomes reported for patients older than 80 years or those intubated upon ICU admission