Assessment of a massive open online course (MOOC) incorporating interactive simulation videos on residents’ knowledge retention regarding mechanical ventilation

International audienceBackground: Understanding respiratory physiology and mechanical ventilation is a challenge for healthcare workers, particularly, medical residents. A team of French-speaking experts developed an innovative MOOC incorporating interactive simulation-based videos and serious games aiming at improving knowledge and skills in mechanical ventilation. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term knowledge retention regarding key concepts presented in this MOOC. Methods: French residents registered for the MOOC 2020’s winter session were invited to participate in a two-step study. The first step consisted in evaluating students’ pre-course knowledge of respiratory physiology and mechanical ventilation fusing a 20 five-item multiple choice questions test with a total score ranging from 0 to 100. For the second step, the same students answered the same test (after shuffling the questions) six months after the completion of the course. We assessed the impact of this MOOC on the students’ knowledge retention by comparing pre-course and post-course scores. Result: Of the 102 residents who agreed to participate in the study, 80 completed the course and their mean ± SD pre-course score was 76.0 ± 8.0. Fifty-one respondents also completed the second and their post-course score was significantly higher than the baseline one (83.1 ± 7.3 vs. 77.5 ± 7.6, p < 0.001). Scores of the first and second rounds did not differ upon comparing respondents’ background specialty or number of years of residency. For the vast majority of individual questions (96%), the success rate was higher at the post-course than at the pre-course assessment. Conclusion: An innovative MOOC incorporating simulation-based videos was effective in teaching medical residents basic mechanical ventilation knowledge and skills, especially in the field of respiratory physiology and ventilatory modes. We observed effective long-term knowledge retention with a higher score at the post-course assessment six months after the completion of the course compared with the pre-course score

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