Efficacy of almitrine as a rescue therapy for refractory hypoxemia in COVID and non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome. A retrospective monocenter study.

BACKGROUND: Almitrine, a drug enhancing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, has been proposed as a rescue therapy for refractory hypoxemia in Covid related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (C-ARDS). We aimed at investigating the response to almitrine depending on the cause of ARDS (Covid vs Non Covid). METHODS: Monocenter retrospective study from 2014 to 2021. All patients diagnosed with moderate to severe ARDS and treated with almitrine as rescue therapy for refractory hypoxemia were studied. Factor independently associated with oxygenation response to almitrine infusion were determined. RESULTS: 60 patients with ARDS and treated with almitrine were analyzed, 36 (60%) due to SARS-CoV2 infection and 24 (40%) due to other causes. Baseline PaO2/FiO2 was 78 [61-101] mmHg, 76% had at least one prone positioning before the start of almitrine infusion. Median PaO2/FiO2 increased by +38 [7-142] mmHg (+61% [10-151]) after almitrine infusion. PaO2/FiO2 increased by +134 [12-186] mmHg in non-Covid ARDS (NC-ARDS) and by +19 [8-87] mmHg in C-ARDS. The increase in PaO2/FiO2 was lower in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS (p=0.013). In multivariable analysis, C-ARDS, non-invasive ventilation and concomitant use of norepinephrine were independently associated with a decreased oxygenation response to almitrine infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports a highly variable response to almitrine infusion in ARDS patients with refractory hypoxemia. Independent factors associated with a reduced oxygenation response to almitrine infusion were: Covid ARDS, concomitant use of norepinephrine, and non-invasive ventilatory strategy.

Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide, it also induced urgent mobilisation of research teams to develop treatments preventing or curing the disease and its consequences. It has, therefore, challenged critical care research to rapidly focus on specific fields while forcing critical care physicians to make difficult ethical decisions. This narrative review aims to summarise critical care research -from organisation to research fields- in this pandemic setting and to highlight opportunities to improve research efficiency in the future, based on what is learned from COVID-19. This pressure on research revealed, i.e., (i) the need to harmonise regulatory processes between countries, allowing simplified organisation of international research networks to improve their efficiency in answering large-scale questions; (ii) the importance of developing translational research from which therapeutic innovations can emerge; (iii) the need for improved triage and predictive scores to rationalise admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, key areas for future critical care research and better pandemic preparedness are artificial intelligence applied to healthcare, characterisation of long-term symptoms, and ethical considerations. Such collaborative research efforts should involve groups from both high and low-to-middle income countries to propose worldwide solutions. As a conclusion, stress tests on healthcare organisations should be viewed as opportunities to design new research frameworks and strategies. Worldwide availability of research networks ready to operate is essential to be prepared for next pandemics. Importantly, researchers and physicians should prioritise realistic and ethical goals for both clinical care and research.

Comparison of Circulating Immune Cells Profiles and Kinetics Between Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Bacterial Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: 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.

Admission decisions to intensive care units in the context of the major COVID-19 outbreak: local guidance from the COVID-19 Paris-region area.

SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global pandemic unprecedented in size, spread, severity, and mortality. The influx of patients with severe or life-threatening disease means that in some cases, the available medical resources are not sufficient to meet the needs of all patients. Hence, healthcare providers may be forced to make difficult choices about which patients should be referred to the ICU. This document is intended to provide conceptual support to all healthcare teams currently engaged in the frontline management of the COVID-19 pandemic. It aims to assist physicians in the decision-making process for ICU admission and to help them provide uninterrupted and high-quality care.