Differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes between COVID-19 and influenza in critically ill adult patients: A national database study.

OBJECTIVE: Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, influenza was the most frequent cause of viral respiratory pneumonia requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Few studies have compared the characteristics and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and influenza. METHODS: This was a French nationwide study comparing COVID-19 (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2021) and influenza patients (January 1, 2014-December 31, 2019) admitted to an ICU during pre-vaccination era. Primary outcome was in-hospital death. Secondary outcome was need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: 105,979 COVID-19 patients were compared to 18,763 influenza patients. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 were more likely to be men with more comorbidities. Patients with influenza required more invasive mechanical ventilation (47 vs. 34%, p < 0·001), vasopressors (40% vs. 27, p < 0·001) and renal-replacement therapy (22 vs. 7%, p < 0·001). Hospital mortality was 25% and 21% (p < 0·001) in patients with COVID-19 and influenza, respectively. In the subgroup of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay was significantly longer in patients with COVID-19 (18 [10-32] vs. 15 [8-26] days, p < 0·001). Adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and modified SAPS II score, in-hospital death was higher in COVID-19 patients (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.69; 95%CI=1.63-1.75) compared with influenza patients. COVID-19 was also associated with less invasive mechanical ventilation (aSHR=0.87; 95%CI=0.85-0.89) and a higher likelihood of death without invasive mechanical ventilation (aSHR=2.40; 95%CI=2.24-2.57). CONCLUSION: Despite younger age and lower SAPS II score, critically ill COVID-19 patients had a longer hospital stay and higher mortality than patients with influenza.

Trends in clinical characteristics and outcomes of all critically ill COVID-19 adult patients hospitalized in France between March 2020 and June 2021: a national database study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were mainly performed in the initial wave, but some small-scale data points to prognostic differences for patients in successive waves. We therefore aimed to study the impact of time on prognosis of ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients. METHOD: We performed a national retrospective cohort study, including all adult patients hospitalized in French ICUs from March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021, and identified three surge periods. Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and need for invasive mechanical ventilation, respectively. RESULTS: 105,979 critically ill ICU-admitted COVID-19 patients were allocated to the relevant three surge periods. In-hospital mortality for surges 1, 2, and 3 was, respectively, 24%, 27%, and 24%. Invasive mechanical ventilation was the highest level of respiratory support for 42%, 32%, and 31% (p < 0.001) over the whole period, with a decline in the use of vasopressors over time. Adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and modified Simplified Acute Physiology Score II at ICU admission, time period was associated with less invasive mechanical ventilation and a high risk of in-hospital death. Vaccination against COVID-19 was associated with a lower likelihood of invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [aSHR] = 0.64 [0.53-0.76]) and intra-hospital death (aSHR = 0.80, [0.68-0.95]). CONCLUSION: In this large database of ICU patients admitted for COVID-19, we observed a decline in invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and RRT use over time but a high risk of in-hospital death. Vaccination was identified as protective against the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation and in-hospital death.

Effects of PEEP on regional ventilation-perfusion mismatch in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

PURPOSE: In the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), decreasing Ventilation-Perfusion [Formula: see text] mismatch might enhance lung protection. We investigated the regional effects of higher Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) on [Formula: see text] mismatch and their correlation with recruitability. We aimed to verify whether PEEP improves regional [Formula: see text] mismatch, and to study the underlying mechanisms. METHODS: In fifteen patients with moderate and severe ARDS, two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were applied in random order. [Formula: see text] mismatch was assessed by Electrical Impedance Tomography at each PEEP. Percentage of ventilation and perfusion reaching different ranges of [Formula: see text] ratios were analyzed in 3 gravitational lung regions, leading to precise assessment of their distribution throughout different [Formula: see text] mismatch compartments. Recruitability between the two PEEP levels was measured by the recruitment-to-inflation ratio method. RESULTS: In the non-dependent region, at higher PEEP, ventilation reaching the normal [Formula: see text] compartment (p = 0.018) increased, while it decreased in the high [Formula: see text] one (p = 0.023). In the middle region, at PEEP 15 cmH2O, ventilation and perfusion to the low [Formula: see text] compartment decreased (p = 0.006 and p = 0.011) and perfusion to normal [Formula: see text] increased (p = 0.003). In the dependent lung, the percentage of blood flowing through the non-ventilated compartment decreased (p = 0.041). Regional [Formula: see text] mismatch improvement was correlated to lung recruitability and changes in regional tidal volume. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ARDS, higher PEEP optimizes the distribution of both ventilation (in the non-dependent areas) and perfusion (in the middle and dependent lung). Bedside measure of recruitability is associated with improved [Formula: see text] mismatch.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

Rationale: Whether patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-day mortality versus IMV only. Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO versus no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 < 80 or PaCO2 ⩾ 60 mm Hg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model on the basis of predefined variables. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability on Day 7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs. 83%; risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0-9%), which decreased during follow-up (survival on Day 90: 63% vs. 65%; risk difference, -2%; 95% confidence interval, -10 to 5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand and when initiated within the first 4 days of IMV and in patients who are profoundly hypoxemic. Conclusions: In an emulated trial on the basis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand.

Longitudinal changes in compliance, oxygenation and ventilatory ratio in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Differences in physiology of ARDS have been described between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare initial values and longitudinal changes in respiratory system compliance (CRS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation. METHODS: 135 patients with COVID-19 ARDS from two centers were included in a physiological study; 767 non-COVID-19 ARDS from a clinical trial were used for the purpose of at least 1:2 matching. A propensity-matching was based on age, severity score, oxygenation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pulmonary cause of ARDS and allowed to include 112 COVID-19 and 198 non-COVID pulmonary ARDS. RESULTS: The two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher CRS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28-44] vs 32 [26-38] ml cmH2O-1, p = 0.037). At day 1, CRS was correlated with oxygenation only in non-COVID-19 patients; 61.6% and 68.2% of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS were still ventilated at day 7 (p = 0.241). Oxygenation became lower in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients at days 3 and 7, while CRS became similar. VR was lower at day 1 in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients but increased from day 1 to 7 only in COVID-19 patients. VR was higher at days 1, 3 and 7 in the COVID-19 patients ventilated using heat and moisture exchangers compared to heated humidifiers. After adjustment on PaO2/FiO2, PEEP and humidification device, CRS and VR were found not different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at day 7. Day-28 mortality did not differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients (25.9% and 23.7%, respectively, p = 0.666). CONCLUSIONS: For a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher CRS, dissociated from oxygenation. CRS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004.

Hydroxychloroquine in mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019: a placebo-controlled double blind trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine decreases the risk of adverse outcome in patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at high risk of worsening. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 patients with at least one of the following risk factors for worsening: need for supplemental oxygen, age ≥75 years, age between 60 and 74 years and presence of at least one co-morbidity. Severely ill patients requiring oxygen therapy >3 L/min or intensive care were excluded. Eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 800 mg hydroxychloroquine on day 0 followed by 400 mg per day for 8 days or a placebo. The primary end point was a composite of death or start of invasive mechanical ventilation within 14 days following randomization. Secondary end points included mortality and clinical evolution at days 14 and 28, and viral shedding at days 5 and 10. RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 250 patients were included because of a slowing down of the pandemic in France. The intention-to-treat population comprised 123 and 124 patients in the placebo and hydroxychloroquine groups, respectively. The median age was 77 years (interquartile range 58-86 years) and 151/250 (60.4%) patients required oxygen therapy. The primary end point occurred in 9/124 (7.3%) patients in the hydroxychloroquine group and 8/123 (6.5%) patients in the placebo group (relative risk 1.12; 95% CI 0.45-2.80). The rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests at days 5 and 10 were 72.8% (75/103) and 57.1% (52/91) in the hydroxychloroquine group, versus 73.0% (73/100) and 56.6% (47/83) in the placebo group, respectively. No difference was observed between the two groups in any of the other secondary end points. CONCLUSION: In this underpowered trial involving mainly older patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, patients treated with hydroxychloroquine did not experience better clinical or virological outcomes than those receiving the placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04325893 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04325893).

Characteristics, management, and prognosis of elderly patients with COVID-19 admitted in the ICU during the first wave: insights from the COVID-ICU study : Prognosis of COVID-19 elderly critically ill patients in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a heavy burden in terms of health care resources. Future decision-making policies require consistent data on the management and prognosis of the older patients (> 70 years old) with COVID-19 admitted in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: Characteristics, management, and prognosis of critically ill old patients (> 70 years) were extracted from the international prospective COVID-ICU database. A propensity score weighted-comparison evaluated the impact of intubation upon admission on Day-90 mortality. RESULTS: The analysis included 1199 (28% of the COVID-ICU cohort) patients (median [interquartile] age 74 [72-78] years). Fifty-three percent, 31%, and 16% were 70-74, 75-79, and over 80 years old, respectively. The most frequent comorbidities were chronic hypertension (62%), diabetes (30%), and chronic respiratory disease (25%). Median Clinical Frailty Scale was 3 (2-3). Upon admission, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 154 (105-222). 740 (62%) patients were intubated on Day-1 and eventually 938 (78%) during their ICU stay. Overall Day-90 mortality was 46% and reached 67% among the 193 patients over 80 years old. Mortality was higher in older patients, diabetics, and those with a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio upon admission, cardiovascular dysfunction, and a shorter time between first symptoms and ICU admission. In propensity analysis, early intubation at ICU admission was associated with a significantly higher Day-90 mortality (42% vs 28%; hazard ratio 1.68; 95% CI 1.24-2.27; p < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Patients over 70 years old represented more than a quarter of the COVID-19 population admitted in the participating ICUs during the first wave. Day-90 mortality was 46%, with dismal outcomes reported for patients older than 80 years or those intubated upon ICU admission.

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.

Reliability and limits of transport-ventilators to safely ventilate severe patients in special surge situations.

BACKGROUND: Intensive Care Units (ICU) have sometimes been overwhelmed by the surge of COVID-19 patients. Extending ICU capacity can be limited by the lack of air and oxygen pressure sources available. Transport ventilators requiring only one O2 source may be used in such places. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performances of four transport ventilators and an ICU ventilator in simulated severe respiratory conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two pneumatic transport ventilators, (Oxylog 3000, Draeger; Osiris 3, Air Liquide Medical Systems), two turbine transport ventilators (Elisee 350, ResMed; Monnal T60, Air Liquide Medical Systems) and an ICU ventilator (Engström Carestation-GE Healthcare) were evaluated on a Michigan test lung. We tested each ventilator with different set volumes (Vtset = 350, 450, 550 ml) and compliances (20 or 50 ml/cmH2O) and a resistance of 15 cmH2O/l/s based on values described in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Volume error (percentage of Vtset) with P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and trigger delay during assist-control ventilation simulating spontaneous breathing activity with P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and 8 cmH2O were measured. RESULTS: Grouping all conditions, the volume error was 2.9 ± 2.2% for Engström Carestation; 3.6 ± 3.9% for Osiris 3; 2.5 ± 2.1% for Oxylog 3000; 5.4 ± 2.7% for Monnal T60 and 8.8 ± 4.8% for Elisee 350. Grouping all conditions (P0.1 of 4 cmH2O and 8 cmH2O), trigger delay was 50 ± 11 ms, 71 ± 8 ms, 132 ± 22 ms, 60 ± 12 and 67 ± 6 ms for Engström Carestation, Osiris 3, Oxylog 3000, Monnal T60 and Elisee 350, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In surge situations such as COVID-19 pandemic, transport ventilators may be used to accurately control delivered volumes in locations, where only oxygen pressure supply is available. Performances regarding triggering function are acceptable for three out of the four transport ventilators tested.

Recruitability and effect of PEEP in SARS-Cov-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of patients with a SARS-Cov-2-associated respiratory failure develop an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It has been recently suggested that SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS may differ from usual non-SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS by higher respiratory system compliance (CRS), lower potential for recruitment with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) contrasting with severe shunt fraction. The purpose of the study was to systematically assess respiratory mechanics and recruitability in SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS. METHODS: Gas exchanges, CRS and hemodynamics were assessed at 2 levels of PEEP (15 cmH2O and 5 cmH2O) within 36 h (day1) and from 4 to 6 days (day 5) after intubation. The recruited volume was computed as the difference between the volume expired from PEEP 15 to 5 cmH2O and the volume predicted by compliance at PEEP 5 cmH2O (or above airway opening pressure). The recruitment-to-inflation (R/I) ratio (i.e. the ratio between the recruited lung compliance and CRS at PEEP 5 cmH2O) was used to assess lung recruitability. A R/I ratio value higher than or equal to 0.5 was used to define highly recruitable patients. RESULTS: The R/I ratio was calculated in 25 of the 26 enrolled patients at day 1 and in 15 patients at day 5. At day 1, 16 (64%) were considered as highly recruitable (R/I ratio median [interquartile range] 0.7 [0.55-0.94]) and 9 (36%) were considered as poorly recruitable (R/I ratio 0.41 [0.31-0.48]). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio at PEEP 15 cmH2O was higher compared to PEEP 5 cmH2O only in highly recruitable patients (173 [139-236] vs 135 [89-167] mmHg; p < 0.01). Neither PaO2/FiO2 or CRS measured at PEEP 15 cmH2O or at PEEP 5 cmH2O nor changes in PaO2/FiO2 or CRS in response to PEEP changes allowed to identify highly or poorly recruitable patients. CONCLUSION: In this series of 25 patients with SARS-Cov-2 associated ARDS, 64% were considered as highly recruitable and only 36% as poorly recruitable based on the R/I ratio performed on the day of intubation. This observation suggests that a systematic R/I ratio assessment may help to guide initial PEEP titration to limit harmful effect of unnecessary high PEEP in the context of Covid-19 crisis.