Does the ICU Requirement Score allow the poisoned patient to be safely managed without admission to the intensive care unit? - a validation cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Intensive care unit (ICU) Requirement Score (IRS) has been defined as identifying poisoned patients on hospital admission who do not require ICU referral, in an effort to reduce health expenses. However, this score has been poorly validated. We aimed to evaluate the IRS in a large cohort of poisoned patients. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study. IRS was calculated using clinical parameters obtained on admission including age, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, Glasgow coma score, intoxication type, co-morbidities (i.e., arrhythmia, cirrhosis, and respiratory insufficiency), and the combination of the intoxication with another reason for ICU admission. We evaluated the ability of IRS < 6 determined on admission to predict the lack of need for ICU treatment, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and/or renal replacement therapy in the first 24 h post-admission and/or death during the hospital stay. This score was compared to the usual prognostic scores, i.e., SAPS II and III, SOFA score, and PSS. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, 2,514 poisoned patients were admitted, 1,011 excluded as requiring ICU treatment on admission, and 1,503 included. Among these patients, 232 met the endpoint whereas only 23/510 patients with IRS < 6 (4.5%) presented the endpoint and one patient died. The area under the curve of the IRS ROC curve was 0.736 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.702-0.770). The negative predictive value of IRS < 6 was 95% (95% CI, 93-97), sensitivity 89% (95% CI, 85-93), specificity 38% (95% CI, 36-41), and positive predictive value 21% (95% CI, 18-24). IRS performance was similar to those of the other tested scores, which are however not readily available on admission. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate the excellent negative predictive value of the IRS, allowing the exclusion of ICU requirements for poisoned patients with IRS < 6. IRS usefulness should be confirmed based on a prospective multicenter cohort study before extensive routine use.

Effects of Standard-Dose Prophylactic, High-Dose Prophylactic, and Therapeutic Anticoagulation in Patients With Hypoxemic COVID-19 Pneumonia: The ANTICOVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: 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-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882.

Back to the future of viruses: a case of triple coinfection caused by respiratory syncytial virus, human coronavirus OC43, and rhinovirus.

We present the case of an 81-year-old man, who was immunocompetent, who was admitted to the hospital with symptoms of fever and dyspnea suspected to be caused by COVID-19. Further examination revealed a triple coinfection, as determined by multiplex polymerase chain reaction testing, caused by the respiratory syncytial virus, human coronavirus OC43, and rhinovirus. Upon auscultation, diffuse wheezing without crackles was detected. After ruling out the possibility of acute heart failure with pulmonary edema, the patient was treated with nebulization of terbutaline for a period of 72 hours. This case serves to demonstrate the potential dangers of lifting barrier measures, such as mandatory face masks in high-risk areas, during the fall-winter season. In addition, it highlights the challenges that may arise in the post-COVID-19 era because reliance on flu vaccinations alone may not be sufficient.

Antibiotic Consumption and Bacterial Resistance Rates in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study During the 3 First Surges.

In our hospital, during COVID-19 pandemic, overall consumption of antibiotics increased during the three first surges, mainly due to ICU prescription However, antibiotic consumption decreased in the Infectious Diseases Department. Rates of ESBL Enterobacterales remained stable.

Continuous positive airway pressure for respiratory support during COVID-19 pandemic: a frugal approach from bench to bedside.

BACKGROUND: We describe a frugal approach (focusing on needs, performance, and costs) to manage a massive influx of COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) using the Boussignac valve protected by a filter ("Filter Frugal CPAP", FF-CPAP) in and out the ICU. METHODS: (1) A bench study measured the impact of two filters with different mechanical properties on CPAP performances, and pressures were also measured in patients. (2) Non-ICU healthcare staff working in COVID-19 intermediate care units were trained with a video tutorial posted on a massive open online course. (3) A clinical study assessed the feasibility and safety of using FF-CPAP to maintain oxygenation and manage patients out of the ICU during a massive outbreak. RESULTS: Bench assessments showed that adding a filter did not affect the effective pressure delivered to the patient. The resistive load induced by the filter variably increased the simulated patient's work of breathing (6-34%) needed to sustain the tidal volume, depending on the filter's resistance, respiratory mechanics and basal inspiratory effort. In patients, FF-CPAP achieved pressures similar to those obtained on the bench. The massive training tool provided precious information on the use of Boussignac FF-CPAP on COVID-19 patients. Then 85 COVID-19 patients with ICU admission criteria over a 1-month period were studied upon FF-CPAP initiation for AHRF. FF-CPAP significantly decreased respiratory rate and increased SpO2. Thirty-six (43%) patients presented with respiratory indications for intubation prior to FF-CPAP initiation, and 13 (36%) of them improved without intubation. Overall, 31 patients (36%) improved with FF-CPAP alone and 17 patients (20%) did not require ICU admission. Patients with a respiratory rate > 32 breaths/min upon FF-CPAP initiation had a higher cumulative probability of intubation (p < 0.001 by log-rank test). CONCLUSION: Adding a filter to the Boussignac valve does not affect the delivered pressure but may variably increase the resistive load depending on the filter used. Clinical assessment suggests that FF-CPAP is a frugal solution to provide a ventilatory support and improve oxygenation to numerous patients suffering from AHRF in the context of a massive outbreak.