The role of acute hypercapnia on mortality and short-term physiology in patients mechanically ventilated for ARDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis

International audiencePurpose: Hypercapnia is frequent during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but its effects on morbidity and mortality are still controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore clinical consequences of acute hypercapnia in adult patients ventilated for ARDS. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library via the OVID platform for studies published from 1946 to 2021. “Permissive hypercapnia” defined hypercapnia in studies where the group with hypercapnia was ventilated with a protective ventilation (PV) strategy (lower VT targeting 6 ml/kg predicted body weight) while the group without hypercapnia was managed with a non-protective ventilation (NPV); “imposed hypercapnia” defined hypercapnia in studies where hypercapnic and non-hypercapnic patients were managed with a similar ventilation strategy. Results: Twenty-nine studies (10,101 patients) were included. Permissive hypercapnia, imposed hypercapnia under PV, and imposed hypercapnia under NPV were reported in 8, 21 and 1 study, respectively. Studies testing permissive hypercapnia reported lower mortality in hypercapnic patients receiving PV as compared to non-hypercapnic patients receiving NPV: OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07–0.89]. By contrast, studies reporting imposed hypercapnia under PV reported increased mortality in hypercapnic patients receiving PV as compared to non-hypercapnic patients also receiving PV: OR = 1.54, 95% CI [1.15–2.07]. There was a significant interaction between the mechanism of hypercapnia and the effect on mortality. Conclusions: Clinical effects of hypercapnia are conflicting depending on its mechanism. Permissive hypercapnia was associated with improved mortality contrary to imposed hypercapnia under PV, suggesting a major role of PV strategy on the outcome

Potential of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Performed on Protected Telescope Catheter Samples for Early Adaptation of Antimicrobial Therapy in ARDS Patients

Background: Diagnosis of co/superinfection in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is challenging. The FilmArray Pneumonia plus Panel (bioMérieux, France), a new rapid multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction (mPCR), has never been assessed on a blinded protected telescope catheter (PTC) samples, a very common diagnostic tool in patients under mechanical ventilation. We evaluated the performance of mPCR on PTC samples compared with conventional culture and its impact on antibiotic stewardship. Methods: Observational study in two intensive care units, conducted between March and July 2020, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. Results: We performed 125 mPCR on blinded PTC samples of 95 ARDS patients, including 73 (77%) SARS-CoV-2 cases and 28 (29%) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Respiratory samples were drawn from mechanically ventilated patients either just after intubation (n = 48; 38%) or later for suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (n = 77; 62%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of mPCR were 93% (95% CI 84–100), 99% (95% CI 99–100), 68% (95% CI 54–83), and 100% (95% CI 100–100), respectively. The overall coefficient of agreement between mPCR and standard culture was 0.80 (95% CI 0.68–0.89). Intensivists changed empirical antimicrobial therapy in only 14% (18/125) of cases. No new antibiotic was initiated in more than half of the CAP/HAP pneumonia-suspected cases (n = 29; 60%) and in more than one-third of those suspected to have VAP without affecting or delaying their antimicrobial therapy. Conclusions: Rapid mPCR was feasible on blinded PTC with good sensitivity and specificity. New antibiotics were not initiated in more than half of patients and more than one-third of VAP-suspected cases. Further studies are needed to assess mPCR potential in improving antibiotic stewardship

Acute Kidney Injury in Critically-Ill COVID-19 Patients

Purpose: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with COVID-19, however, its mechanism is still controversial, particularly in ICU settings. Urinary proteinuria profile could be a non-invasive tool of interest to scrutinize the pathophysiological process underlying AKI in COVID-19 patients. Material and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study between March 2020 and April 2020. All patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and without end-stage kidney disease requiring renal replacement therapy before ICU admission were included. Our objectives were to assess the incidence and risk factors for AKI and to describe its clinical and biological characteristics, particularly its urinary protein profile. Results: Seventy patients were included; 87% needed mechanical ventilation and 61% needed vasopressor during their ICU stay; 64.3% of patients developed AKI and half of them needed dialysis. Total and tubular proteinuria on day 1 were higher in patients with AKI, whereas glomerular proteinuria was similar in both groups. The main risk factor for AKI was shock at admission (OR = 5.47 (1.74–17.2), p < 0.01). Mortality on day 28 was higher in AKI (23/45, 51.1%) than in no-AKI patients (1/25, 4%), p < 0.001. Risk factors for 28-days mortality were AKI with need for renal replacement therapy, non-renal SOFA score and history of congestive heart failure. Conclusions: AKI is common in COVID-19 patients hospitalized in ICU; it seems to be related to tubular lesions rather than glomerular injury and is related to shock at ICU admission

Procalcitonin to Reduce Antibiotic Exposure during Acute Chest Syndrome in Adult Patients with Sickle-Cell Disease

Acute chest syndrome (ACS) is a major complication of sickle-cell disease. Bacterial infection is one cause of ACS, so current guidelines recommend the routine use of antibiotics. We performed a prospective before–after study in medical wards and an intensive-care unit (ICU). During the control phase, clinicians were blinded to procalcitonin concentration results. We built an algorithm using the obtained measurements to hasten antibiotic cessation after three days of treatment if bacterial infection was not documented, and procalcitonin concentrations were all <0.5 μg/L. During the intervention period, the procalcitonin algorithm was suggested to physicians as a guide for antibiotic therapy. The primary endpoint was the number of days alive without antibiotics at Day 21. One-hundred patients were analyzed (103 ACS episodes, 60 in intervention phase). Possible or proven lung infection was diagnosed during 13% of all ACS episodes. The number of days alive without antibiotics at Day 21 was higher during the intervention phase: 15 [14–18] vs. 13 [13,14] days (p = 0.001). More patients had a short (≤3 days) antibiotic course during intervention phase: 31% vs 9% (p = 0.01). There was neither infection relapse nor pulmonary superinfection in the entire cohort. A procalcitonin-guided strategy to prescribe antibiotics in patients with ACS may reduce antibiotic exposure with no apparent adverse outcomes

Comparison of standard prophylactic, intermediate prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: protocol for the ANTICOVID multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial

International audienceIntroduction COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. Methods and analysis This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04808882

Comparison of standard prophylactic, intermediate prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with severe COVID-19: protocol for the ANTICOVID multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled trial

International audienceINTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces venous, arterial and microvascular thrombosis, involving several pathophysiological processes. In patients with severe COVID-19 without macrovascular thrombosis, escalating into high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) or therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) could be beneficial in limiting the extension of microvascular thrombosis and forestalling the evolution of lung and multiorgan microcirculatory dysfunction. In the absence of data from randomised trials, clinical practice varies widely. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a French multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial to compare the efficacy and safety of three anticoagulation strategies in patients with COVID-19. Patients with oxygen-treated COVID-19 showing no pulmonary artery thrombosis on computed tomography with pulmonary angiogram will be randomised to receive either low-dose PA, HD-PA or TA for 14 days. Patients attaining the extremes of weight and those with severe renal failure will not be included. We will recruit 353 patients. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1:1 basis, and stratified by centre, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, D-dimer levels and body mass index. The primary endpoint is a hierarchical criterion at day 28 including all-cause mortality, followed by the time to clinical improvement defined as the time from randomisation to an improvement of at least two points on the ordinal clinical scale. Secondary outcomes include thrombotic and major bleeding events at day 28, individual components of the primary endpoint, number of oxygen-free, ventilator-free and vasopressor-free days at day 28, D-dimer and sepsis-induced coagulopathy score at day 7, intensive care unit and hospital stay at day 28 and day 90, and all-cause death and quality of life at day 90. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by an ethical committee (Ethics Committee, Ile de France VII, Paris, France; reference 2020-A03531-38). Patients will be included after obtaining their signed informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04808882

Characteristics and risk factors for poor outcome in patients with systemic vasculitis involving the gastrointestinal tract

International audienc

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