Anticoagulation strategy and safety in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a French retrospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with critical illness due to COVID-19 exhibit increased coagulability associated with a high risk of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE). Data on prophylactic anticoagulation for these patients are limited and conflicting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU admission was associated with better outcomes compared to standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. METHODS: We retrospectively included adults admitted with severe COVID-19 to any of 15 ICUs, in 2020 or 2021. We compared the groups given intermediate-dose vs. standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was all-cause day-90 mortality. Secondary outcomes were VTE (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis), ICU stay length, and adverse effects of anticoagulation. RESULTS: Of 1174 included patients (mean age, 63 years), 399 received standard-dose and 775 intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Of the 211 patients who died within 90 days, 86 (21%) received intermediate and 125 (16%) standard doses. After adjustment on early corticosteroid therapy and critical illness severity, there were no significant between-group differences in day-90 mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95%CI, 0.52-1.04; p = 0.09) or ICU stay length (HR, 0.93; 95%CI, 0.79-1.10; p = 0.38). Intermediate-dose anticoagulation was significantly associated with fewer VTE events (HR, 0.55; 95%CI, 0.38-0.80; p < 0.001). Bleeding events occurred in similar proportions of patients in the two groups (odds ratio, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.50-1.47; p = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality on day 90 did not differ between the groups given standard-dose and intermediate-dose prophylactic anticoagulation, despite a higher incidence of VTE in the standard-dose group.

Association of early dexamethasone therapy with mortality in critically Ill COVID-19 patients: a French multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone is recommended for COVID-19 patients who require oxygen therapy. However, its effectiveness in reducing mortality and intubation, and its safety, remain debated. We aimed to investigate whether dexamethasone reduces day-28 mortality in unselected patients with critical COVID-19. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to any of 13 French intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020. The primary objective was to determine whether early dexamethasone therapy was associated with day-28 mortality and the secondary objectives were to assess whether early dexamethasone decreased intubation requirements and to collect adverse events. RESULTS: Of 1058 included patients, 611 (57.75%) received early dexamethasone (early dexamethasone group), 358 (33.83%) did not receive any steroids (no steroids group), and 89 (8.41%) received late dexamethasone or other steroids. Day-28 mortality was similar between the early dexamethasone and the no steroids groups (15.06% and 14.25%, respectively; P = 0.59). Factors associated with day-28 mortality were older age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.06; 1.04-1.09; P < 0.001), worse SOFA score (aHR, 1.13; 1.06-1.20; P < 0.001), and immunocompromised status (aHR, 1.59; 1.01-2.50; P = 0.043). Early dexamethasone was associated with fewer intubations (48.55% vs. 61.49%, P < 0.001) and more ventilator-free days by day 28 (22 [2-28] vs. 17 [1-28] days, P = 0.003), compared to no steroids. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) was more common with early dexamethasone (HR, 1.29 [1.01-1.63], P = 0.04) than with no steroids, whereas no differences were noted for bloodstream infection, fungal infection, or gastrointestinal bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Early dexamethasone in critically ill COVID-19 patients was not associated with lower day-28 mortality. However, early dexamethasone was associated with lower intubation needs and more ventilator-free days by day 28. In patients treated with invasive mechanical ventilation, early dexamethasone was associated with a higher risk of VAP.

Multiple-site decontamination regimen decreases acquired infection incidence in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Among strategies that aimed to prevent acquired infections (AIs), selective decontamination regimens have been poorly studied in the COVID-19 setting. We assessed the impact of a multiple-site decontamination (MSD) regimen on the incidence of bloodstream infections (BSI) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in COVID-19 patients receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: We performed an ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective observational study in 15 ICUs in western France. In addition to standard-care (SC), 3 ICUs used MSD, a variant of selective digestive decontamination, which consists of the administration of topical antibiotics four times daily in the oropharynx and the gastric tube, chlorhexidine body wash and a 5-day nasal mupirocin course. AIs were compared between the 3 ICUs using MSD (MSD group) and the 12 ICUs using SC. RESULTS: During study period, 614 of 1158 COVID-19 patients admitted in our ICU were intubated for at least 48 h. Due to missing data in 153 patients, 461 patients were finally included of whom 89 received MSD. There were 34 AIs in the MSD group (2117 patient-days), as compared with 274 AIs in the SC group (8957 patient-days) (p < 0.001). MSD was independently associated with a lower risk of AI (IRR = 0.56 [0.38-0.83]; p = 0.004) (Table 2). When the same model was used for each site of infection, MSD remained independently associated with a lower risk of VAP (IRR = 0.52 [0.33-0.89]; p = 0.005) but not of BSI (IRR = 0.58, [0.25-1.34], p = 0.21). Hospital mortality was lower in the MSD group (16.9% vs 30.1%, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated COVID-19 patients, MSD was independently associated with lower AI incidence.

Early steroids and ventilator-associated pneumonia in COVID-19-related ARDS.

RATIONALE: Early corticosteroid treatment is used to treat COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Infection is a well-documented adverse effect of corticosteroid therapy. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether early corticosteroid therapy to treat COVID-19 ARDS was associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: We retrospectively included adults with COVID-19-ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) for ≥ 48 h at any of 15 intensive care units in 2020. We divided the patients into two groups based on whether they did or did not receive corticosteroids within 24 h. The primary outcome was VAP incidence, with death and extubation as competing events. Secondary outcomes were day 90-mortality, MV duration, other organ dysfunctions, and VAP characteristics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 670 patients (mean age, 65 years), 369 did and 301 did not receive early corticosteroids. The cumulative VAP incidence was higher with early corticosteroids (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.29; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.05-1.58; P = 0.016). Antibiotic resistance of VAP bacteria was not different between the two groups (odds ratio 0.94, 95% CI 0.58-1.53; P = 0.81). 90-day mortality was 30.9% with and 24.3% without early corticosteroids, a nonsignificant difference after adjustment on age, SOFA score, and VAP occurrence (aHR 1.15; 95% CI 0.83-1.60; P = 0.411). VAP was associated with higher 90-day mortality (aHR 1.86; 95% CI 1.33-2.61; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Early corticosteroid treatment was associated with VAP in patients with COVID-19-ARDS. Although VAP was associated with higher 90-day mortality, early corticosteroid treatment was not. Longitudinal randomized controlled trials of early corticosteroids in COVID-19-ARDS requiring MV are warranted.

Influence of socioeconomic status on functional recovery after ARDS caused by SARS-CoV-2: a multicentre, observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Prognosis of patients with COVID-19 depends on the severity of the pulmonary affection. The most severe cases may progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with a risk of long-term repercussions on respiratory function and neuromuscular outcomes. The functional repercussions of severe forms of COVID-19 may have a major impact on quality of life, and impair the ability to return to work or exercise. Social inequalities in healthcare may influence prognosis, with socially vulnerable individuals more likely to develop severe forms of disease. We describe here the protocol for a prospective, multicentre study that aims to investigate the influence of social vulnerability on functional recovery in patients who were hospitalised in intensive care for ARDS caused by COVID-19. This study will also include an embedded qualitative study that aims to describe facilitators and barriers to compliance with rehabilitation, describe patients' health practices and identify social representations of health, disease and care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The "Functional Recovery From Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Due to COVID-19: Influence of Socio-Economic Status" (RECOVIDS) study is a mixed-methods, observational, multicentre cohort study performed during the routine follow-up of post-intensive care unit (ICU) functional recovery after ARDS. All patients admitted to a participating ICU for PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection and who underwent chest CT scan at the initial phase AND who received respiratory support (mechanical or not) or high-flow nasal oxygen, AND had ARDS diagnosed by the Berlin criteria will be eligible. The primary outcome is the presence of lung sequelae at 6 months after ICU discharge, defined either by alterations on pulmonary function tests, oxygen desaturation during a standardised 6 min walk test or fibrosis-like pulmonary findings on chest CT. Patients will be considered to be socially disadvantaged if they have an "Evaluation de la Précarité et des Inégalités de santé dans les Centres d'Examen de Santé" (EPICES) score ≥30.17 at inclusion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol and the informed consent form were approved by an independent ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Méditerranée II) on 10 July 2020 (2020-A02014-35). All patients will provide informed consent before participation. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04556513.

Impact of early low-calorie low-protein versus standard-calorie standard-protein feeding on outcomes of ventilated adults with shock: design and conduct of a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

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.

High flow nasal cannula oxygenation in COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a safe way to avoid endotracheal intubation?

BACKGROUNDS: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an alternative therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This study aimed first to describe outcomes of patients suffering from COVID-19-related ARDS treated with HFNC; secondly to evaluate safety of HFNC (patients and healthcare workers) and compare patients according to respiratory outcome. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was conducted in French general hospital intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were included if receiving HFNC for hypoxemia (saturation pulse oxygen (SpO2) <92% under oxygen ⩾6 L/min) associated with ARDS and positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Main clinical characteristics and outcomes are described in patients: (a) with do not intubate order (HFNC-DNIO); (b) who did not need intubation (HFNC-only); and (c) eventually intubated (HFNC-intubation). Medians are presented with (1st-3rd) interquartile range. RESULTS: From 26 February to 30 June 2020, 46 patients of median age 75 (70-79) years were included. In the HFNC-DNIO group (n = 11), partial arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2)/inhaled fraction of oxygen (FiO2) ratio median worst PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 109 (102-172) and hospital mortality was 54.5%. Except the HFNC-DNIO patients (n = 35), 20 patients (57%) were eventually intubated (HFNC-intubation group) and 15 were only treated by HFNC (HFNC-only). HFNC-intubation patients presented higher worst respiratory rates per minute in ICU [37 (34-41) versus 33 (24-34) min, p < 0.05] and worsened ICU admission PaO2/FiO2 ratios [121 (103-169) versus 191 (162-219), p < 0.001] compared with HFNC-only patients. Hospital mortality was 35% (n = 7/20) in HFNC-intubation group, 0% in HFNC-only group with a global mortality of these two groups of 20% (n = 7/35). Among tests performed in healthcare workers, 1/12 PCR in symptomatic healthcare workers and 1.8% serologies in asymptomatic healthcare workers were positive. After review of each case, COVID-19 was likely to be acquired outside hospital. CONCLUSIONS: HFNC seems to be useful for COVID-19-related ARDS and safe for healthcare workers. ARDS severity with PaO2/FiO2 <150 associated with respiratory rate >35/min could be regarded as a predictor of intubation.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.