Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Effect of dexamethasone on complications or all cause mortality after major non-cardiac surgery: multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial

International audienceAbstract Objective To assess the effect of dexamethasone on complications or all cause mortality after major non-cardiac surgery. Design Phase III, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Setting 34 centres in France, December 2017 to March 2019. Participants 1222 adults (>50 years) requiring major non-cardiac surgery with an expected duration of more than 90 minutes. The anticipated time frame for recruitment was 24 months. Interventions Participants were randomised to receive either dexamethasone (0.2 mg/kg immediately after the surgical procedure, and on day 1) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified on the two prespecified criteria of cancer and thoracic procedure. Main outcomes measures The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative complications or all cause mortality within 14 days after surgery, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (at least one treatment administered). Results Of the 1222 participants who underwent randomisation, 1184 (96.9%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 14 days after surgery, 101 of 595 participants (17.0%) in the dexamethasone group and 117 of 589 (19.9%) in the placebo group had complications or died (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.08; P=0.15). In the stratum of participants who underwent non-thoracic surgery (n=1038), the primary outcome occurred in 69 of 520 participants (13.3%) in the dexamethasone group and 93 of 518 (18%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 0.50 to 0.99). Adverse events were reported in 288 of 613 participants (47.0%) in the dexamethasone group and 296 of 609 (48.6%) in the placebo group (P=0.46). Conclusions Dexamethasone was not found to significantly reduce the incidence of complications and death in patients 14 days after major non-cardiac surgery. The 95% confidence interval for the main result was, however, wide and suggests the possibility of important clinical effectiveness. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03218553

IMPact of the COVID-19 epidemic on the moRTAlity of kidney transplant recipients and candidates in a French Nationwide registry sTudy (IMPORTANT)

International audienceEnd stage kidney disease increase the risk of COVID-19 related death but how the kidney replacement strategy should be adapted during the pandemic is unknown. Chronic hemodialysis makes social distancing difficult to achieve. Alternatively, kidney transplantation could increase the severity of COVID-19 due to therapeutic immunosuppression and contribute to saturation of intensive care units. For these reasons, kidney transplantation was suspended in France during the first epidemic wave. Here, we retrospectively evaluated this strategy by comparing the overall and COVID-19 related mortality in kidney transplant recipients and candidates over the last three years. Cross-interrogation of two national registries for the period 1 March and 1 June 2020, identified 275 deaths among the 42812 kidney transplant recipients and 144 deaths among the 16210 candidates. This represents an excess of deaths for both populations, as compared with the same period the two previous years (mean of two previous years: 253 in recipients and 112 in candidates). This difference was integrally explained by COVID-19, which accounted for 44% (122) and 42% (60) of the deaths in recipients and candidates, respectively. Taking into account the size of the two populations and the geographical heterogeneity of virus circulation, we found that the excess of risk of death due to COVID-19 was similar for recipients and candidates in high viral risk area but four-fold higher for candidates in the low viral risk area. Thus, in case of a second epidemic wave, kidney transplantation should be suspended in high viral risk areas but maintained outside those areas, both to reduce the excess of deaths of candidates and avoid wasting precious resources

Clinical phenotype and outcomes of pneumococcal versus meningococcal purpura fulminans: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

International audienceNo abstract availabl

Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: Secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Background: The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Results: Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p &lt; 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p &lt; 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Conclusions: Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Paediatric COVID-19 mortality: a database analysis of the impact of health resource disparity

Background The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric populations varied between high-income countries (HICs) versus low-income to middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to investigate differences in paediatric clinical outcomes and identify factors contributing to disparity between countries.Methods The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database was queried to include children under 19 years of age admitted to hospital from January 2020 to April 2021 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Univariate and multivariable analysis of contributing factors for mortality were assessed by country group (HICs vs LMICs) as defined by the World Bank criteria.Results A total of 12 860 children (3819 from 21 HICs and 9041 from 15 LMICs) participated in this study. Of these, 8961 were laboratory-confirmed and 3899 suspected COVID-19 cases. About 52% of LMICs children were black, and more than 40% were infants and adolescent. Overall in-hospital mortality rate (95% CI) was 3.3% [=(3.0% to 3.6%), higher in LMICs than HICs (4.0% (3.6% to 4.4%) and 1.7% (1.3% to 2.1%), respectively). There were significant differences between country income groups in intervention profile, with higher use of antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, prone positioning, high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs. Out of the 439 mechanically ventilated children, mortality occurred in 106 (24.1%) subjects, which was higher in LMICs than HICs (89 (43.6%) vs 17 (7.2%) respectively). Pre-existing infectious comorbidities (tuberculosis and HIV) and some complications (bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and myocarditis) were significantly higher in LMICs compared with HICs. On multivariable analysis, LMIC as country income group was associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 4.73 (3.16 to 7.10)).Conclusion Mortality and morbidities were higher in LMICs than HICs, and it may be attributable to differences in patient demographics, complications and access to supportive and treatment modalities

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

Association of Country Income Level With the Characteristics and Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients Hospitalized With Acute Kidney Injury and COVID-19

Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) has been identified as one of the most common and significant problems in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. However, studies examining the relationship between COVID-19 and AKI in low- and low-middle income countries (LLMIC) are lacking. Given that AKI is known to carry a higher mortality rate in these countries, it is important to understand differences in this population. Methods: This prospective, observational study examines the AKI incidence and characteristics of 32,210 patients with COVID-19 from 49 countries across all income levels who were admitted to an intensive care unit during their hospital stay. Results: Among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, AKI incidence was highest in patients in LLMIC, followed by patients in upper-middle income countries (UMIC) and high-income countries (HIC) (53%, 38%, and 30%, respectively), whereas dialysis rates were lowest among patients with AKI from LLMIC and highest among those from HIC (27% vs. 45%). Patients with AKI in LLMIC had the largest proportion of community-acquired AKI (CA-AKI) and highest rate of in-hospital death (79% vs. 54% in HIC and 66% in UMIC). The association between AKI, being from LLMIC and in-hospital death persisted even after adjusting for disease severity. Conclusions: AKI is a particularly devastating complication of COVID-19 among patients from poorer nations where the gaps in accessibility and quality of healthcare delivery have a major impact on patient outcomes