ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Diet, Protein-Restricted , Adult , Critical Illness , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 may induce endovascular injury of pulmonary vessels and could be associated with increased risk of pulmonary embolism. The main objective was to compare the incidence of pulmonary embolism in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID-19 versus patients with pulmonary ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. METHODS: This is an observational controlled-cohort study performed at a single center of a university teaching hospital in France. The incidence of pulmonary embolism was prospectively assessed using computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 and compared to patients from a 3-year historical cohort of patients with pulmonary ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. In patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, CTPA was performed approximately 7 days after intubation or earlier in case of respiratory or hemodynamic worsening. RESULTS: CTPA was performed in 29 out of the 42 patients (69%) with ARDS related to COVID-19 and in 51 out of the 156 patients (33%) from the historical cohort of patients with pulmonary ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. Incidence of pulmonary embolism was 40% (17/42) in patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 and 3% (5/156) in the historical cohort (P=0.001). The proportion of patients with pulmonary embolism among all patients who had CTPA was 59% (17/29) in patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 and 10% (5/51) in the historical cohort (P=0.0001). After adjustment on the interval between ICU admission and computed tomography, COVID-19 remained independently associated with pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary embolism was particularly frequent in patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, thereby suggesting that CTPA should be systematically performed in these patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led authorities to evacuate via various travel modalities critically ill ventilated patients into less crowded units. However, it is not known if interhospital transport impacts COVID-19 patient's mortality in intensive care units (ICUs). A cohort from three French University Hospitals was analysed in ICUs between 15th of March and the 15th of April 2020. Patients admitted to ICU with positive COVID-19 test and mechanically ventilated were recruited. RESULTS: Among the 133 patients included in the study, 95 (71%) were male patients and median age was 63 years old (interquartile range: 54-71). Overall ICU mortality was 11%. Mode of transport included train (48 patients), ambulance (6 patients), and plane plus helicopter (14 patients). During their ICU stay, 7 (10%) transferred patients and 8 (12%) non-transferred patients died (p = 0.71). Median SAPS II score at admission was 33 (interquartile range: 25-46) for the transferred group and 35 (27-42) for non-transferred patients (p = 0.53). SOFA score at admission was 4 (3-6) for the transferred group versus 3 (2-5) for the non-transferred group (p = 0.25). In the transferred group, median PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P/F) value in the 24 h before departure was 197 mmHg (160-250) and remained 166 mmHg (125-222) in the first 24 h post arrival (p = 0.13). During the evacuation 46 (68%) and 21 (31%) of the patients, respectively, benefited from neuromuscular blocking agents and from vasopressors. Transferred and non-transferred patients had similar rate of nosocomial infections, 37/68 (54%) versus 34/65 (52%), respectively (p = 0.80). Median length of mechanical ventilation was significantly increased in the transferred group compared to the non-transferred group, 18 days (11-24) and 14 days (8-20), respectively (p = 0.007). Finally, ICU and hospital length of stay did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In France, inter-hospital evacuation of COVID-19 ventilated ICU patients did not appear to increase mortality and therefore could be proposed to manage ICU surges in the future.