14 research outputs found
Effect of left atrial compliance on pulmonary artery pressure: a case report
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, with secondary atrial pressure elevation, is a well-known concept. On the contrary, effect of left atrial compliance on pulmonary pressure is rarely considered. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the echocardiographic case of a 9-year-old child who presented severe rheumatic mitral valve regurgitation with a giant left atrium, in contrast to a normal artery pulmonary pressure, testifying of the high left atrial compliance. CONCLUSION: Left atrial compliance is an important determinant of symptoms and pulmonary artery pressure in mitral valve disease
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/)
Defining refractory myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock: An ongoing elusive challenge
International audienc
Cumulative Radiation Exposure in Covid-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit
International audienc
Comparison of Circulating Immune Cells Profiles and Kinetics Between Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Bacterial Sepsis*
International audienceObjectives: Although clinical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 has been extensively described, immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 remains yet not fully understood. Similarities with bacterial sepsis were observed; however, few studies specifically addressed differences of immune response between both conditions. Here, we report a longitudinal analysis of the immune response in coronavirus disease 2019 patients, its correlation with outcome, and comparison between severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients and septic patients.Design: Longitudinal, retrospective observational study.Setting: Tertiary-care hospital during the first 2020 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in France.Patients: All successive patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection admitted to the emergency department, medical ward, and ICU with at least one available immunophenotyping performed during hospital stay.Measurements and main results: Between March and April 2020, 247 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were included and compared with a historical cohort of 108 severe septic patients. Nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n = 153) presented normal or slightly altered immune profiles. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 94) immune profile differed from sepsis. Coronavirus disease 2019 exhibited profound and prolonged lymphopenia (mostly on CD3, CD4, CD8, and NK cells), neutrophilia, and human leukocyte antigen D receptor expression on CD14+ monocytes down-regulation. Surprisingly, coronavirus disease 2019 patients presented a unique profile of B cells expansion, basophilia, and eosinophilia. Lymphopenia, human leukocyte antigen D receptor expression on CD14+ monocytes down-regulation, and neutrophilia were associated with a worsened outcome, whereas basophilia and eosinophilia were associated with survival. Circulating immune cell kinetics differed between severe coronavirus disease 2019 and sepsis, lack of correction of immune alterations in coronavirus disease 2019 patients during the first 2 weeks of ICU admission was associated with death and nosocomial infections.Conclusions: Circulating immune cells profile differs between mild and severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with a unique immune profile as compared with sepsis. Several immune features are associated with outcome. Thus, immune monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 might be of help for patient management
Combination of Mycological Criteria: a Better Surrogate to Identify COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis Patients and Evaluate Prognosis?
International audienceDiagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) remains unclear especially in nonimmunocompromised patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate seven mycological criteria and their combination in a large homogenous cohort of patients. All successive patients (n = 176) hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and who clinically worsened despite appropriate standard of care were included over a 1-year period. Direct examination, culture, Aspergillus quantitative PCR (Af-qPCR), and galactomannan testing were performed on all respiratory samples (n = 350). Serum galactomannan, β-d-glucan, and plasma Af-qPCR were also assessed. The criteria were analyzed alone or in combination in relation to mortality rate. Mortality was significantly different in patients with 0, ≤2, and ≥3 positive criteria (log rank test, P = 0.04) with death rate of 43.1, 58.1, and 76.4%, respectively. Direct examination, plasma qPCR, and serum galactomannan were associated with a 100% mortality rate. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) galactomannan and positive respiratory sample culture were often found as isolated markers (28.1 and 34.1%) and poorly repeatable when a second sample was obtained. Aspergillus DNA was detected in 13.1% of samples (46 of 350) with significantly lower quantitative cycle (Cq) when associated with at least one other criterion (30.2 versus 35.8) (P < 0.001). A combination of markers and/or blood biomarkers and/or direct respiratory sample examination seems more likely to identify patients with CAPA. Af-qPCR may help identifying false-positive results of BAL galactomannan testing and culture on respiratory samples while quantifying fungal burden accurately
Combination of Mycological Criteria: a Better Surrogate to Identify COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis Patients and Evaluate Prognosis?
International audienceDiagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) remains unclear especially in nonimmunocompromised patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate seven mycological criteria and their combination in a large homogenous cohort of patients. All successive patients (n = 176) hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and who clinically worsened despite appropriate standard of care were included over a 1-year period. Direct examination, culture, Aspergillus quantitative PCR (Af-qPCR), and galactomannan testing were performed on all respiratory samples (n = 350). Serum galactomannan, β-d-glucan, and plasma Af-qPCR were also assessed. The criteria were analyzed alone or in combination in relation to mortality rate. Mortality was significantly different in patients with 0, ≤2, and ≥3 positive criteria (log rank test, P = 0.04) with death rate of 43.1, 58.1, and 76.4%, respectively. Direct examination, plasma qPCR, and serum galactomannan were associated with a 100% mortality rate. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) galactomannan and positive respiratory sample culture were often found as isolated markers (28.1 and 34.1%) and poorly repeatable when a second sample was obtained. Aspergillus DNA was detected in 13.1% of samples (46 of 350) with significantly lower quantitative cycle (Cq) when associated with at least one other criterion (30.2 versus 35.8) (P < 0.001). A combination of markers and/or blood biomarkers and/or direct respiratory sample examination seems more likely to identify patients with CAPA. Af-qPCR may help identifying false-positive results of BAL galactomannan testing and culture on respiratory samples while quantifying fungal burden accurately
Comparison of Circulating Immune Cells Profiles and Kinetics Between Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Bacterial Sepsis
International audienceObjectives: Although clinical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 has been extensively described, immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 remains yet not fully understood. Similarities with bacterial sepsis were observed; however, few studies specifically addressed differences of immune response between both conditions. Here, we report a longitudinal analysis of the immune response in coronavirus disease 2019 patients, its correlation with outcome, and comparison between severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients and septic patients.Design: Longitudinal, retrospective observational study.Setting: Tertiary-care hospital during the first 2020 coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak in France.Patients: All successive patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection admitted to the emergency department, medical ward, and ICU with at least one available immunophenotyping performed during hospital stay.Measurements and main results: Between March and April 2020, 247 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were included and compared with a historical cohort of 108 severe septic patients. Nonsevere coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n = 153) presented normal or slightly altered immune profiles. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (n = 94) immune profile differed from sepsis. Coronavirus disease 2019 exhibited profound and prolonged lymphopenia (mostly on CD3, CD4, CD8, and NK cells), neutrophilia, and human leukocyte antigen D receptor expression on CD14+ monocytes down-regulation. Surprisingly, coronavirus disease 2019 patients presented a unique profile of B cells expansion, basophilia, and eosinophilia. Lymphopenia, human leukocyte antigen D receptor expression on CD14+ monocytes down-regulation, and neutrophilia were associated with a worsened outcome, whereas basophilia and eosinophilia were associated with survival. Circulating immune cell kinetics differed between severe coronavirus disease 2019 and sepsis, lack of correction of immune alterations in coronavirus disease 2019 patients during the first 2 weeks of ICU admission was associated with death and nosocomial infections.Conclusions: Circulating immune cells profile differs between mild and severe coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Severe coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with a unique immune profile as compared with sepsis. Several immune features are associated with outcome. Thus, immune monitoring of coronavirus disease 2019 might be of help for patient management
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
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