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/)

ICU-acquired weakness, diaphragm dysfunction and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients

International audienceBackground: Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness and diaphragm dysfunction are frequent conditions, both associated with poor prognosis in critically ill patients. While it is well established that ICU-acquired weakness severely impairs long-term prognosis, the association of diaphragm dysfunction with this outcome has never been reported. This study investigated whether diaphragm dysfunction is associated with negative long-term outcomes and whether the coexistence of diaphragm dysfunction and ICU-acquired weakness has a particular association with 2-year survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).Methods: This study is an ancillary study derived from an observational cohort study. Patients under mechanical ventilation were enrolled at the time of their first spontaneous breathing trial. Diaphragm dysfunction was defined by tracheal pressure generated by phrenic nerve stimulation < 11 cmH2O and ICU-acquired weakness was defined by Medical Research Council (MRC) score < 48. HRQOL was evaluated with the SF-36 questionnaire.Results: Sixty-nine of the 76 patients enrolled in the original study were included in the survival analysis and 40 were interviewed. Overall 2-year survival was 67% (46/69): 64% (29/45) in patients with diaphragm dysfunction, 71% (17/24) in patients without diaphragm dysfunction, 46% (11/24) in patients with ICU-acquired weakness and 76% (34/45) in patients without ICU-acquired weakness. Patients with concomitant diaphragm dysfunction and ICU-acquired weakness had a poorer outcome with a 2-year survival rate of 36% (5/14) compared to patients without diaphragm function and ICU-acquired weakness [79% (11/14) (p < 0.01)]. Health-related quality of life was not influenced by the presence of ICU-acquired weakness, diaphragm dysfunction or their coexistence.Conclusions: ICU-acquired weakness but not diaphragm dysfunction was associated with a poor 2-year survival of critically ill patients

Necrotizing soft tissue infections in critically ill neutropenic patients: a French multicentre retrospective cohort study

Abstract Background Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are rare life-threatening bacterial infections. Few data are available regarding neutropenic patients with NSTIs. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics and management of neutropenic patients with NSTIs in intensive care units (ICUs). We conducted a retrospective multicentre cohort study in 18 ICUs between 2011 and 2021. Patients admitted with NSTIs and concomitant neutropenia at diagnosis were included and compared to non-neutropenic patients with NSTIs. The relationship between therapeutic interventions and outcomes was assessed using Cox regression and propensity score matching. Results 76 neutropenic patients were included and compared to 165 non-neutropenic patients. Neutropenic patients were younger (54 ± 14 vs 60 ± 13 years, p = 0.002) and had less lower limb (44.7% vs 70.9%, p < 0.001) and more abdomino-perineal NSTIs (43.4% vs 18.8%, p < 0.001). Enterobacterales and non-fermenting gram-negative bacteria were the most frequently isolated microorganisms in neutropenic patients. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in neutropenic than in non-neutropenic patients (57.9% vs 28.5%, p < 0.001). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality in univariable Cox (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.43 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.23–0.82], p = 0.010) and multivariable Cox (adjusted HR = 0.46 95% CI [0.22–0.94], p = 0.033) analyses and after overlap propensity score weighting (odds ratio = 0.25 95% CI [0.09; 0.68], p = 0.006). Conclusions Critically ill neutropenic patients with NSTIs present different clinical and microbiological characteristics and are associated with a higher hospital mortality than non-neutropenic patients. G-CSF administration was associated with hospital survival

Protocol for fever control using external cooling in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: SEPSISCOOL II randomised controlled trial

Introduction Fever treatment is commonly applied in patients with sepsis but its impact on survival remains undetermined. Patients with respiratory and haemodynamic failure are at the highest risk for not tolerating the metabolic cost of fever. However, fever can help to control infection. Treating fever with paracetamol has been shown to be less effective than cooling. In the SEPSISCOOL pilot study, active fever control by external cooling improved organ failure recovery and early survival. The main objective of this confirmatory trial is to assess whether fever control at normothermia can improve the evolution of organ failure and mortality at day 60 of febrile patients with septic shock. This study will compare two strategies within the first 48 hours of septic shock: treatment of fever with cooling or no treatment of fever.Methods and analysis SEPSISCOOL II is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, adaptive, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, superiority trial in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with febrile septic shock. After stratification based on the acute respiratory distress syndrome status, patients will be randomised between two arms: (1) cooling and (2) no cooling. The primary endpoint is mortality at day 60 after randomisation. The secondary endpoints include the evolution of organ failure, early mortality and tolerance. The target sample size is 820 patients.Ethics and dissemination The study is funded by the French health ministry and was approved by the ethics committee CPP Nord Ouest II (Amiens, France). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT04494074

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

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis

International audienc

Predicting 90-day survival of patients with COVID-19: Survival of Severely Ill COVID (SOSIC) scores

International audienceBackground Predicting outcomes of critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients with coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is a major challenge to avoid futile, and prolonged ICU stays. Methods The objective was to develop predictive survival models for patients with COVID-19 after 1-to-2 weeks in ICU. Based on the COVID–ICU cohort, which prospectively collected characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Machine learning was used to develop dynamic, clinically useful models able to predict 90-day mortality using ICU data collected on day (D) 1, D7 or D14. Results Survival of Severely Ill COVID (SOSIC)-1, SOSIC-7, and SOSIC-14 scores were constructed with 4244, 2877, and 1349 patients, respectively, randomly assigned to development or test datasets. The three models selected 15 ICU-entry variables recorded on D1, D7, or D14. Cardiovascular, renal, and pulmonary functions on prediction D7 or D14 were among the most heavily weighted inputs for both models. For the test dataset, SOSIC-7’s area under the ROC curve was slightly higher (0.80 [0.74–0.86]) than those for SOSIC-1 (0.76 [0.71–0.81]) and SOSIC-14 (0.76 [0.68–0.83]). Similarly, SOSIC-1 and SOSIC-7 had excellent calibration curves, with similar Brier scores for the three models. Conclusion The SOSIC scores showed that entering 15 to 27 baseline and dynamic clinical parameters into an automatable XGBoost algorithm can potentially accurately predict the likely 90-day mortality post-ICU admission (sosic.shinyapps.io/shiny). Although external SOSIC-score validation is still needed, it is an additional tool to strengthen decisions about life-sustaining treatments and informing family members of likely prognosis

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