Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 78(7): 1757-1768, 2023 07 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232644

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To uncover clinical epidemiology, microbiological characteristics and outcome determinants of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSIs) in Turkish ICU patients. METHODS: The EUROBACT II was a prospective observational multicontinental cohort study. We performed a subanalysis of patients from 24 Turkish ICUs included in this study. Risk factors for mortality were identified using multivariable Cox frailty models. RESULTS: Of 547 patients, 58.7% were male with a median [IQR] age of 68 [55-78]. Most frequent sources of HA-BSIs were intravascular catheter [182, (33.3%)] and lower respiratory tract [175, (32.0%)]. Among isolated pathogens (n = 599), 67.1% were Gram-negative, 21.5% Gram-positive and 11.2% due to fungi. Carbapenem resistance was present in 90.4% of Acinetobacter spp., 53.1% of Klebsiella spp. and 48.8% of Pseudomonas spp. In monobacterial Gram-negative HA-BSIs (n = 329), SOFA score (aHR 1.20, 95% CI 1.14-1.27), carbapenem resistance (aHR 2.46, 95% CI 1.58-3.84), previous myocardial infarction (aHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.12-3.08), COVID-19 admission diagnosis (aHR 2.95, 95% CI 1.25-6.95) and not achieving source control (aHR 2.02, 95% CI 1.15-3.54) were associated with mortality. However, availability of clinical pharmacists (aHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.90) and source control (aHR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.77) were associated with survival. In monobacterial Gram-positive HA-BSIs (n = 93), SOFA score (aHR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17-1.43) and age (aHR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08) were associated with mortality, whereas source control (aHR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.87) was associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Considering high antimicrobial resistance rate, importance of source control and availability of clinical pharmacists, a multifaceted management programme should be adopted in Turkish ICUs.


Subject(s)
Bacteremia , COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Sepsis , Humans , Male , Female , Prospective Studies , Cohort Studies , Cross Infection/microbiology , Intensive Care Units , Risk Factors , Carbapenems , Hospitals , Bacteremia/drug therapy , Bacteremia/epidemiology , Bacteremia/microbiology
2.
J Clin Med ; 11(21)2022 Nov 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2099604

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Given the rapidly evolving pandemic of COVID-19 in 2020, authorities focused on the repurposing of available drugs to develop timely and cost-effective therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggested the potential utility of remdesivir in the framework of an early access program. REMDECO-19 is a multicenter national cohort study assessing the ability of remdesivir to improve the outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective real-life study that included all patients from the early access program of remdesivir in France. The primary endpoint was the clinical course evolution of critically ill and hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with remdesivir. Secondary endpoints were the SOFA score evolution within 29 days following the admission and mortality at 29 and 90 days. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were enrolled in 22 sites from January to April 2020. The median WHO and SOFA scores were respectively reduced by two and six points between days 1 and 29. Improvement in the WHO-CPS and the SOFA score were observed in 83.5% and 79.3% of patients, respectively, from day 10. However, there was no effect of remdesivir on the 90-day survival based on the control cohort for hospitalized COVID-19 patients with invasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: SOFA score appeared to be an attractive approach to assess remdesivir efficacy and stratify its utilization or not in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study brings a new clinical benchmark for therapeutic decision making and supports the use of remdesivir for some hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

3.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 319, 2022 10 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079528

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. METHODS: We used data from the Eurobact II study, a prospective observational multicontinental cohort study on HABSI treated in ICU. For the current analysis, we selected centers that included both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients. We performed descriptive statistics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 in terms of patients' characteristics, source of infection and microorganism distribution. We studied the association between COVID-19 status and mortality using multivariable fragility Cox models. RESULTS: A total of 53 centers from 19 countries over the 5 continents were eligible. Overall, 829 patients (median age 65 years [IQR 55; 74]; male, n = 538 [64.9%]) were treated for a HABSI. Included patients comprised 252 (30.4%) COVID-19 and 577 (69.6%) non-COVID-19 patients. The time interval between hospital admission and HABSI was similar between both groups. Respiratory sources (40.1 vs. 26.0%, p < 0.0001) and primary HABSI (25.4% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.006) were more frequent in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients had more often enterococcal (20.5% vs. 9%) and Acinetobacter spp. (18.8% vs. 13.6%) HABSIs. Bacteremic COVID-19 patients had an increased mortality hazard ratio (HR) versus non-COVID-19 patients (HR 1.91, 95% CI 1.49-2.45). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that the epidemiology of HABSI differed between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Enterococcal HABSI predominated in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients with HABSI had elevated risk of mortality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.org number NCT03937245 . Registered 3 May 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Sepsis , Aged , Humans , Male , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units , Sepsis/epidemiology
4.
J Crit Care ; 71: 154050, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1819524

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive care units (ICU) introduced restrictions to in-person family visiting to safeguard patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey (March-July 2021) investigating ICU visiting practices before the pandemic, at peak COVID-19 ICU admissions, and at the time of survey response. We sought data on visiting policies and communication modes including use of virtual visiting (videoconferencing). RESULTS: We obtained 667 valid responses representing ICUs in all continents. Before the pandemic, 20% (106/525) had unrestricted visiting hours; 6% (30/525) did not allow in-person visiting. At peak, 84% (558/667) did not allow in-person visiting for patients with COVID-19; 66% for patients without COVID-19. This proportion had decreased to 55% (369/667) at time of survey reporting. A government mandate to restrict hospital visiting was reported by 53% (354/646). Most ICUs (55%, 353/615) used regular telephone updates; 50% (306/667) used telephone for formal meetings and discussions regarding prognosis or end-of-life. Virtual visiting was available in 63% (418/667) at time of survey. CONCLUSIONS: Highly restrictive visiting policies were introduced at the initial pandemic peaks, were subsequently liberalized, but without returning to pre-pandemic practices. Telephone became the primary communication mode in most ICUs, supplemented with virtual visits.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Visitors to Patients , Communication , Critical Care , Family , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Organizational Policy , Pandemics , Policy
5.
JAMA ; 327(11): 1042-1050, 2022 Mar 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1763144

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Persistent physical and mental disorders are frequent in survivors of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, data on these disorders among family members are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between patient hospitalization for COVID-19 ARDS vs ARDS from other causes and the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in family members. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study in 23 intensive care units (ICUs) in France (January 2020 to June 2020 with final follow-up ending in October 2020). ARDS survivors and family members (1 family member per patient) were enrolled. EXPOSURES: Family members of patients hospitalized for ARDS due to COVID-19 vs ARDS due to other causes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was family member symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge, measured by the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (score range, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]; presence of PTSD symptoms defined by score >22). Secondary outcomes were family member symptoms of anxiety and depression at 90 days assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (score range, 0 [best] to 42 [worst]; presence of anxiety or depression symptoms defined by subscale scores ≥7). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between COVID-19 status and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 602 family members and 307 patients prospectively enrolled, 517 (86%) family members (median [IQR] age, 51 [40-63] years; 72% women; 48% spouses; 26% bereaved because of the study patient's death; 303 [50%] family members of COVID-19 patients) and 273 (89%) patients (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-69] years; 34% women; 181 [59%] with COVID-19) completed the day-90 assessment. Compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS, family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS had a significantly higher prevalence of symptoms of PTSD (35% [103/293] vs 19% [40/211]; difference, 16% [95% CI, 8%-24%]; P < .001), symptoms of anxiety (41% [121/294] vs 34% [70/207]; difference, 8% [95% CI, 0%-16%]; P= .05), and symptoms of depression (31% [91/291] vs 18% [37/209]; difference, 13% [95% CI, 6%-21%]; P< .001). In multivariable models adjusting for age, sex, and level of social support, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk of PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.30 to 3.23]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among family members of patients hospitalized in the ICU with ARDS, COVID-19 disease, as compared with other causes of ARDS, was significantly associated with increased risk of symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04341519.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Family Health , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Adult , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Discharge , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology
6.
Ann Intensive Care ; 12(1): 24, 2022 Mar 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1741957

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The clinical impact and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) have been scarcely investigated in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Patients admitted over an 18-month period in two intensive care units (ICU) of a university-affiliated hospital and meeting the Berlin criteria for ARDS were retrospectively included. The association between VAP and the probability of death at day 90 (primary endpoint) was appraised through a Cox proportional hazards model handling VAP as a delay entry variable. Secondary endpoints included (i) potential changes in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and SOFA score values around VAP (linear mixed modelling), and (ii) mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, numbers of ventilator- and vasopressor-free days at day 28, and length of stay (LOS) in patients with and without VAP (median or absolute risk difference calculation). Subgroup analyses were performed in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS and those with ARDS from other causes. RESULTS: Among the 336 included patients (101 with COVID-19 and 235 with other ARDS), 176 (52.4%) experienced a first VAP. VAP induced a transient and moderate decline in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio without increase in SOFA score values. VAP was associated with less ventilator-free days (median difference and 95% CI, - 19 [- 20; - 13.5] days) and vasopressor-free days (- 5 [- 9; - 2] days) at day 28, and longer ICU (+ 13 [+ 9; + 15] days) and hospital (+ 11.5 [+ 7.5; + 17.5] days) LOS. These effects were observed in both subgroups. Overall day-90 mortality rates were 35.8% and 30.0% in patients with and without VAP, respectively (P = 0.30). In the whole cohort, VAP (adjusted HR 3.16, 95% CI 2.04-4.89, P < 0.0001), the SAPS-2 value at admission, chronic renal disease and an admission for cardiac arrest predicted death at day 90, while the COVID-19 status had no independent impact. When analysed separately, VAP predicted death in non-COVID-19 patients (aHR 3.43, 95% CI 2.11-5.58, P < 0.0001) but not in those with COVID-19 (aHR 1.19, 95% CI 0.32-4.49, P = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: VAP is an independent predictor of 90-day mortality in ARDS patients. This condition exerts a limited impact on oxygenation but correlates with extended MV duration, vasoactive support, and LOS.

7.
Curr Opin Infect Dis ; 34(6): 718-727, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506882

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused multiple challenges to ICUs, including an increased rate of secondary infections, mostly caused by Gram-negative micro-organisms. Worrying trends of resistance acquisition complicate this picture. We provide a review of the latest evidence to guide management of patients with septic shock because of Gram-negative bacteria. RECENT FINDINGS: New laboratory techniques to detect pathogens and specific resistance patterns from the initial culture are available. Those may assist decreasing the time to adequate antimicrobial therapy and avoid unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic overuse. New antimicrobials, including ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations, such as ceftolozane-tazobactam, imipenem-relebactam or meropenem-vaborbactam and cephalosporins, such as cefiderocol targeted to specific pathogens and resistance patterns are available for use in the clinical setting. Optimization of antibiotic dosing and delivery should follow pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles and wherever available therapeutic drug monitoring. Management of sepsis has brought capillary refill time back to the spotlight along with more reasoned fluid resuscitation and a moderate approach to timing of dialysis initiation. SUMMARY: Novel rapid diagnostic tests and antimicrobials specifically targeted to Gram-negative pathogens are available and should be used within the principles of antimicrobial stewardship including de-escalation and short duration of antimicrobial therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections , Shock, Septic , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Cephalosporins , Diagnostic Tests, Routine , Gram-Negative Bacteria , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/drug therapy , Humans , Microbial Sensitivity Tests , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Shock, Septic/drug therapy
8.
BMJ Open ; 11(9): e048591, 2021 09 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1495462

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Academic, investigator-initiated, parallel two group arms, double-blind, multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial. Patients invasively ventilated more than 3 days will be randomised to receive 20 mg/kg inhaled amikacin daily for 3 days or inhaled placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride). Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia will be recorded based on a standardised diagnostic framework from randomisation to day 28 and adjudicated by a centralised blinded committee. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and amendments have been approved by the regional ethics review board and French competent authorities (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest I, No.2016-R29). All patients will be included after informed consent according to French law. Results will be disseminated in international scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2016-001054-17 and NCT03149640.


Subject(s)
Amikacin , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated , Administration, Inhalation , Amikacin/administration & dosage , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
9.
Chest ; 160(3): 944-955, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275208

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Working in the ICU during the first COVID-19 wave was associated with high levels of mental health disorders. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the mental health symptoms in health care providers (HCPs) facing the second wave? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study (October 30-December 1, 2020) was conducted in 16 ICUs during the second wave in France. HCPs completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (for post-traumatic stress disorder), and the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: Of 1,203 HCPs, 845 responded (70%) (66% nursing staff, 32% medical staff, 2% other professionals); 487 (57.6%) had treated more than 10 new patients with COVID-19 in the previous week. Insomnia affected 320 (37.9%), and 7.7% were taking a psychotropic drug daily. Symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and burnout were reported in 60.0% (95% CI, 56.6%-63.3%), 36.1% (95% CI, 32.9%-39.5%), 28.4% (95% CI, 25.4%-31.6%), and 45.1% (95% CI, 41.7%-48.5%) of respondents, respectively. Independent predictors of such symptoms included respondent characteristics (sex, profession, experience, personality traits), work organization (ability to rest and to care for family), and self-perceptions (fear of becoming infected or of infecting family and friends, feeling pressure related to the surge, intention to leave the ICU, lassitude, working conditions, feeling they had a high-risk profession, and "missing the clapping"). The number of patients with COVID-19 treated in the first wave or over the last week was not associated with symptoms of mental health disorders. INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of symptoms of mental health disorders is high in ICU HCPs managing the second COVID-19 surge. The highest tiers of hospital management urgently need to provide psychological support, peer-support groups, and a communication structure that ensure the well-being of HCPs.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Critical Care , Depression/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Health , Physicians/psychology , Adult , Anxiety/etiology , Burnout, Professional/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/etiology , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prevalence
10.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 202(10): 1388-1398, 2020 11 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-737623

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Frontline healthcare providers (HCPs) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic are at high risk of mental morbidity.Objectives: To assess the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation in HCPs.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in 21 ICUs in France between April 20, 2020, and May 21, 2020. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Peritraumatic Dissociative Experience Questionnaire were used. Factors independently associated with reported symptoms of mental health disorders were identified.Measurements and Main Results: The response rate was 67%, with 1,058 respondents (median age 33 yr; 71% women; 68% nursing staff). The prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation was 50.4%, 30.4%, and 32%, respectively, with the highest rates in nurses. By multivariable analysis, male sex was independently associated with lower prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and peritraumatic dissociation (odds ratio of 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.79], 0.57 [95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.82], and 0.49 [95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.72], respectively). HCPs working in non-university-affiliated hospitals and nursing assistants were at high risk of symptoms of anxiety and peritraumatic dissociation. Importantly, we identified the following six modifiable determinants of symptoms of mental health disorders: fear of being infected, inability to rest, inability to care for family, struggling with difficult emotions, regret about the restrictions in visitation policies, and witnessing hasty end-of-life decisions.Conclusions: HCPs experience high levels of psychological burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals, ICU directors, and ICU staff must devise strategies to overcome the modifiable determinants of adverse mental illness symptoms.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Depression/epidemiology , Health Personnel/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Stress Disorders, Traumatic/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/psychology , Critical Care/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , France , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/psychology , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL