Impact of corticosteroids on the procoagulant profile of critically ill COVID-19 patients: a before-after study.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported an increased risk of thrombotic events in COVID-19 patients, but the pathophysiology of this procoagulant phenotype remains poorly understood. We hypothesized that corticosteroids may attenuate this procoagulant state through their anti-inflammatory effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexamethasone (DXM) on the coagulation profile of severely-ill COVID-19 patients METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational before/after bi-centric cohort study among ICU patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 and receiving therapeutic anticoagulation by unfractionated heparin (UFH). Before and after the standardized use of DXM, we compared inflammatory and coagulation profiles, as well as the kinetics of heparin requirement, adjusted for weight and anti-Xa activity. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were included, 35 in the no-DXM group, and 51 in the DXM group. At admission, CRP and fibrinogen levels were not different between groups, neither were UFH infusion rates. At day 3 after ICU admission, CRP (178 ± 94 mg/L vs 99± 68 mg/L, p<0.001) and fibrinogen (7.2 ± 1.4 g/L vs 6.1 ± 1.4 g/L, p=0.001) significantly decreased in the DXM group, but not in the no-DXM group. Over time, UFH infusion rates were lower in the DXM group (p<0.001) without any significant difference in plasma anti-Xa activity. CRP variations correlated with heparin dose variations between Day 0 and Day 3 (r=0.39, p=0.009). Finally, the incidence of venous thromboembolic events during in-ICU stay was significantly reduced in the DXM group (4 vs. 43%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill COVID-19 patients, dexamethasone use was associated with a decrease in both pro-inflammatory and procoagulant profile.

High-Dose Dexamethasone and Oxygen Support Strategies in Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe COVID-19 Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The COVIDICUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated. Objectives: To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNo2) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (o2SC). Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021. Interventions: Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to o2SC, CPAP, or HFNo2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.4 [59.3-73.1] years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among o2SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNo2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among o2 support groups (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (o2SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; o2SC vs HFNo2: HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.53-1.47]). Interactions between interventions were not significant. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of IMV requirement. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04344730; EudraCT: 2020-001457-43.

Evolution of Neuroimaging Findings in Severe COVID-19 Patients with Initial Neurological Impairment: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cerebral complications related to the COVID-19 were documented by brain MRIs during the acute phase. The purpose of the present study was to describe the evolution of these neuroimaging findings (MRI and FDG-PET/CT) and describe the neurocognitive outcomes of these patients. METHODS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak between 1 March and 31 May 2020, 112 consecutive COVID-19 patients with neurologic manifestations underwent a brain MRI at Strasbourg University hospitals. After recovery, during follow-up, of these 112 patients, 31 (initially hospitalized in intensive care units) underwent additional imaging studies (at least one brain MRI). RESULTS: Twenty-three men (74%) and eight women (26%) with a mean age of 61 years (range: 18-79) were included. Leptomeningeal enhancement, diffuse brain microhemorrhages, acute ischemic strokes, suspicion of cerebral vasculitis, and acute inflammatory demyelinating lesions were described on the initial brain MRIs. During follow-up, the evolution of the leptomeningeal enhancement was discordant, and the cerebral microhemorrhages were stable. We observed normalization of the vessel walls in all patients suspected of cerebral vasculitis. Four patients (13%) demonstrated new complications during follow-up (ischemic strokes, hypoglossal neuritis, marked increase in the white matter FLAIR hyperintensities with presumed vascular origin, and one suspected case of cerebral vasculitis). Concerning the grey matter volumetry, we observed a loss of volume of 3.2% during an average period of approximately five months. During follow-up, the more frequent FDG-PET/CT findings were hypometabolism in temporal and insular regions. CONCLUSION: A minority of initially severe COVID-19 patients demonstrated new complications on their brain MRIs during follow-up after recovery.

Abnormal liver tests and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease predict disease progression and outcome of patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious public health issue that became rapidly pandemic. Liver injury and comorbidities, including metabolic syndrome, are associated with severe forms of the disease. This study sought to investigate liver injury, clinical features, and risk factors in patients with mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. METHODS: We retrospectively included all consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 between February, 22 and May 15, 2020 at the emergency rooms of a French tertiary hospital. Medical history, symptoms, biological and imaging data were collected. RESULTS: Among the 1381 hospitalizations for COVID-19, 719 patients underwent liver tests on admission and 496 (68.9%) patients displayed abnormal liver tests. Aspartate aminotransferase was most commonly abnormal in 57% of cases, followed by gamma-glutamyl transferase, alanine aminotransferase, albumin, alkaline phosphatase, and total bilirubin in 56.5%, 35.9%, 18.4%, 11.4%, and 5.8%. The presence of hepatocellular type more than 2xULN was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization and a worse course of severe disease (odd ratio [OR] 5.599; 95%CI: 1.27-23.86; p = 0.021; OR 3.404; 95% CI: 2.12-5.47; p < 0.001, respectively). A higher NAFLD fibrosis score was associated with a higher risk of hospitalization (OR 1.754; 95%CI: 1.27-2.43, p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, patients with high fibrosis-4 index had a 3-fold greater risk of severe disease (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Abnormal liver tests are common in patients with COVID-19 and could predict the outcome. Patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and liver fibrosis are at higher risk of progressing to severe COVID-19.

Inhaled amikacin versus placebo to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: the AMIKINHAL double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Academic, investigator-initiated, parallel two group arms, double-blind, multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial. Patients invasively ventilated more than 3 days will be randomised to receive 20 mg/kg inhaled amikacin daily for 3 days or inhaled placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride). Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia will be recorded based on a standardised diagnostic framework from randomisation to day 28 and adjudicated by a centralised blinded committee. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and amendments have been approved by the regional ethics review board and French competent authorities (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest I, No.2016-R29). All patients will be included after informed consent according to French law. Results will be disseminated in international scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2016-001054-17 and NCT03149640.

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.

Mental health and stress among ICU healthcare professionals in France according to intensity of the COVID-19 epidemic.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on mental health of professionals working in the intensive care unit (ICU) according to the intensity of the epidemic in France. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted in 77 French hospitals from April 22 to May 13 2020. All ICU frontline healthcare workers were eligible. The primary endpoint was the mental health, assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. Sources of stress during the crisis were assessed using the Perceived Stressors in Intensive Care Units (PS-ICU) scale. Epidemic intensity was defined as high or low for each region based on publicly available data from Santé Publique France. Effects were assessed using linear mixed models, moderation and mediation analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2643 health professionals participated; 64.36% in high-intensity zones. Professionals in areas with greater epidemic intensity were at higher risk of mental health issues (p < 0.001), and higher levels of overall perceived stress (p < 0.001), compared to low-intensity zones. Factors associated with higher overall perceived stress were female sex (B = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08-0.17), having a relative at risk of COVID-19 (B = 0.14; 95%-CI = 0.09-0.18) and working in high-intensity zones (B = 0.11; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.20). Perceived stress mediated the impact of the crisis context on mental health (B = 0.23, 95%-CI = 0.05, 0.41) and the impact of stress on mental health was moderated by positive thinking, b = - 0.32, 95% CI = - 0.54, - 0.11. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 negatively impacted the mental health of ICU professionals. Professionals working in zones where the epidemic was of high intensity were significantly more affected, with higher levels of perceived stress. This study is supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC-COVID 2020).

SARS-CoV-2 viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs in the emergency department does not predict COVID-19 severity and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to devastating repercussions on health care systems worldwide. This viral infection has a broad clinical spectrum (ranging from influenza-like disease, viral pneumonia, and hypoxemia to acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring prolonged intensive care unit stays). The prognostic impact of measuring viral load on nasopharyngeal swab specimens (by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR]) is yet to be elucidated. METHODS: Between March 3 and April 5, 2020, we conducted a retrospective study on a cohort of COVID-19 patients (mild or severe disease) who were hospitalized after presenting to the emergency department (ED) and had at least one positive nasopharyngeal swab during their hospital stay. We led our study at the University Hospitals of Strasbourg in the Greater East region of France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. RESULTS: We have collected samples from a cohort of 287 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who were included in our study. Nearly half of them (50.5%) presented a mild form of the disease, while the other half (49.5%) presented a severe form, requiring mechanical ventilation. Median (interquartile range) viral load on the initial upper respiratory swab at admission was 4.76 (3.29-6.06) log10 copies/reaction. When comparing survivors and nonsurvivors, this viral load measurement did not differ according to subgroups (p = 0.332). Additionally, we have found that respiratory viral load measurement was predictive of neither in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 1.31, p = 0.637) nor disease severity (AOR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.06, p = 0.167). CONCLUSION: Respiratory viral load measurement on the first nasopharyngeal swab (by RT-PCR) during initial ED management is neither a predictor of severity nor a predictor of mortality in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Host response to this viral infection along with the extent of preexisting comorbidities might be more foretelling of disease severity than the virus itself.

Psychological effects of remote-only communication among reference persons of ICU patients during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, visits have been prohibited in most French ICUs. Psychological effects, for reference persons (RPs), of remote-only communication have been assessed. METHODS: All RPs of patients referred to ICU for COVID-19 were included. HADS, IES-R, and satisfaction were evaluated at admission, discharge/death, and 3 months. At 3 months, a psychologist provided a qualitative description of RPs' psychological distress. RESULTS: Eighty-eight RPs were included. Prevalence of anxiety and depression was 83% and 73% respectively. At 3 months, lower HADS decrease was associated with patient death/continued hospitalization, and/or sleeping disorders in RPs (p < 0.01). Ninety-nine percent RPs felt the patient was safe (9 [7; 10]/10 points, Likert-type scale), confident with caregivers (10 [9; 10]/10 points), and satisfied with information provided (10 [9; 10]/10 points). All RPs stressed the specific-type of "responsibility" associated with being an RP in a remote-only context, leading RPs to develop narrow diffusion strategies (67%) and restrict the array of contacted relatives to a very few and/or only contacting them rarely. 10 RPs (30%) related the situation to a prior traumatic experience. CONCLUSION: RPs experienced psychological distress and reported that being an RP in a remote-only communication context was a specific responsibility and qualified it as an overall negative experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04385121 . Registered 12 May 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ .

Higher anticoagulation targets and risk of thrombotic events in severe COVID-19 patients: bi-center cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Thromboprophylaxis of COVID-19 patients is a highly debated issue. We aimed to compare the occurrence of thrombotic/ischemic events in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) treated with either prophylactic or therapeutic dosage of heparin. All patients referred for COVID-19 ARDS in two intensive care units (ICUs) from two centers of a French tertiary hospital were included in our cohort study. Patients were compared according to their anticoagulant treatment to evaluate the risk/benefit of prophylactic anticoagulation versus therapeutic anticoagulation. Medical history, symptoms, biological data and imaging were prospectively collected. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-nine patients (73% men) were analyzed: 108 in prophylactic group and 71 in therapeutic group. Median age and SAPS II were 62 [IQR 51; 70] years and 47 [IQR 37; 63] points. ICU mortality rate was 17.3%. Fifty-seven patients developed clinically relevant thrombotic complications during their ICU stay, less frequently in therapeutic group (adjusted OR 0.38 [0.14-0.94], p = 0.04). The occurrences of pulmonary embolism (PE), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and ischemic stroke were significantly lower in the therapeutic group (respective adjusted OR for PE: 0.19 [0.03-0.81]; DVT: 0.13 [0.01-0.89], stroke: 0.06 [0-0.68], all p < 0.05). The occurrence of bleeding complications was not significantly different between groups, neither were ICU length of stay or mortality rate. D-dimer levels were significantly lower during ICU stay, and aPTT ratio was more prolonged in the therapeutic group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Increasing the anticoagulation of severe COVID-19 patients to a therapeutic level might decrease thrombotic complications without increasing their bleeding risk.

Prognostic Value of Troponin Elevation in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients.

(1) Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) penetrates the respiratory epithelium through angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) binding. Myocardial and endothelial expression of ACE2 could account for the growing body of reported evidence of myocardial injury in severe forms of Human Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to provide insight into the impact of troponin (hsTnI) elevation on SARS-CoV-2 outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of hospitalized adult patients with the SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to a university hospital in France. The observation period ended at hospital discharge. (3) Results: During the study period, 772 adult, symptomatic COVID-19 patients were hospitalized for more than 24 h in our institution, of whom 375 had a hsTnI measurement and were included in this analysis. The median age was 66 (55-74) years, and there were 67% of men. Overall, 205 (55%) patients were placed under mechanical ventilation and 90 (24%) died. A rise in hsTnI was noted in 34% of the cohort, whereas only three patients had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and one case of myocarditis. Death occurred more frequently in patients with hsTnI elevation (HR 3.95, 95% CI 2.69-5.71). In the multivariate regression model, a rise in hsTnI was independently associated with mortality (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.49-6.65) as well as age ≥ 65 years old (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.45-7.18) and CRP ≥ 100 mg/L (OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.12-13.98). After performing a sensitivity analysis for the missing values of hsTnI, troponin elevation remained independently and significantly associated with death (OR 3.84, 95% CI 1.78-8.28). (4) Conclusion: Our study showed a four-fold increased risk of death in the case of a rise in hsTnI, underlining the prognostic value of troponin assessment in the COVID-19 context.

Outcomes of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients Previously Treated with Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors.

(1) Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) penetrates respiratory epithelium through angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 binding, raising concerns about the potentially harmful effects of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) on Human Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) evolution. This study aimed to provide insight into the impact of RASi on SARS-CoV-2 outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of hospitalized adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to a university hospital in France. The observation period ended at hospital discharge. (3) Results: During the study period, 943 COVID-19 patients were admitted to our institution, of whom 772 were included in this analysis. Among them, 431 (55.8%) had previously known hypertension. The median age was 68 (56-79) years. Overall, 220 (28.5%) patients were placed under mechanical ventilation and 173 (22.4%) died. According to previous exposure to RASi, we defined two groups, namely, "RASi" (n = 282) and "RASi-free" (n = 490). Severe pneumonia (defined as leading to death and/or requiring intubation, high-flow nasal oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and/or oxygen flow at a rate of ≥5 L/min) and death occurred more frequently in RASi-treated patients (64% versus 53% and 29% versus 19%, respectively). However, in a propensity score-matched cohort derived from the overall population, neither death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.50), p = 0.76) nor severe pneumonia (HR 1.03 (95%CI 0.73-1.44), p = 0.85) were associated with RASi therapy. (4) Conclusion: Our study showed no correlation between previous RASi treatment and death or severe COVID-19 pneumonia after adjustment for confounders.

Delirium and encephalopathy in severe COVID-19: a cohort analysis of ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Neurotropism of SARS-CoV-2 and its neurological manifestations have now been confirmed. We aimed at describing delirium and neurological symptoms of COVID-19 in ICU patients. METHODS: We conducted a bicentric cohort study in two French ICUs of Strasbourg University Hospital. All the 150 patients referred for acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 between March 3 and May 5, 2020, were included at their admission. Ten patients (6.7%) were excluded because they remained under neuromuscular blockers during their entire ICU stay. Neurological examination, including CAM-ICU, and cerebrospinal fluid analysis, electroencephalography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were performed in some of the patients with delirium and/or abnormal neurological examination. The primary endpoint was to describe the incidence of delirium and/or abnormal neurological examination. The secondary endpoints were to describe the characteristics of delirium, to compare the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay in patients with and without delirium and/or abnormal neurological symptoms. RESULTS: The 140 patients were aged in median of 62 [IQR 52; 70] years old, with a median SAPSII of 49 [IQR 37; 64] points. Neurological examination was normal in 22 patients (15.7%). One hundred eighteen patients (84.3%) developed a delirium with a combination of acute attention, awareness, and cognition disturbances. Eighty-eight patients (69.3%) presented an unexpected state of agitation despite high infusion rates of sedative treatments and neuroleptics, and 89 (63.6%) patients had corticospinal tract signs. Brain MRI performed in 28 patients demonstrated enhancement of subarachnoid spaces in 17/28 patients (60.7%), intraparenchymal, predominantly white matter abnormalities in 8 patients, and perfusion abnormalities in 17/26 patients (65.4%). The 42 electroencephalograms mostly revealed unspecific abnormalities or diffuse, especially bifrontal, slow activity. Cerebrospinal fluid examination revealed inflammatory disturbances in 18/28 patients, including oligoclonal bands with mirror pattern and elevated IL-6. The CSF RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 was positive in one patient. The delirium/neurological symptoms in COVID-19 patients were responsible for longer mechanical ventilation compared to the patients without delirium/neurological symptoms. Delirium/neurological symptoms could be secondary to systemic inflammatory reaction to SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Delirium/neurological symptoms in COVID-19 patients are a major issue in ICUs, especially in the context of insufficient human and material resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

Neurologic and neuroimaging findings in patients with COVID-19: A retrospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe neuroimaging findings and to report the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with neurologic manifestations. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study (11 hospitals), we included 64 patients with confirmed COVID-19 with neurologic manifestations who underwent a brain MRI. RESULTS: The cohort included 43 men (67%) and 21 women (33%); their median age was 66 (range 20-92) years. Thirty-six (56%) brain MRIs were considered abnormal, possibly related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Ischemic strokes (27%), leptomeningeal enhancement (17%), and encephalitis (13%) were the most frequent neuroimaging findings. Confusion (53%) was the most common neurologic manifestation, followed by impaired consciousness (39%), presence of clinical signs of corticospinal tract involvement (31%), agitation (31%), and headache (16%). The profile of patients experiencing ischemic stroke was different from that of other patients with abnormal brain imaging: the former less frequently had acute respiratory distress syndrome (p = 0.006) and more frequently had corticospinal tract signs (p = 0.02). Patients with encephalitis were younger (p = 0.007), whereas agitation was more frequent for patients with leptomeningeal enhancement (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 may develop a wide range of neurologic symptoms, which can be associated with severe and fatal complications such as ischemic stroke or encephalitis. In terms of meningoencephalitis involvement, even if a direct effect of the virus cannot be excluded, the pathophysiology seems to involve an immune or inflammatory process given the presence of signs of inflammation in both CSF and neuroimaging but the lack of virus in CSF. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04368390.

High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Little evidence of increased thrombotic risk is available in COVID-19 patients. Our purpose was to assess thrombotic risk in severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: All patients referred to 4 intensive care units (ICUs) from two centers of a French tertiary hospital for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 between March 3rd and 31st 2020 were included. Medical history, symptoms, biological data and imaging were prospectively collected. Propensity score matching was performed to analyze the occurrence of thromboembolic events between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients. RESULTS: 150 COVID-19 patients were included (122 men, median age 63 [53; 71] years, SAPSII 49 [37; 64] points). Sixty-four clinically relevant thrombotic complications were diagnosed in 150 patients, mainly pulmonary embolisms (16.7%). 28/29 patients (96.6%) receiving continuous renal replacement therapy experienced circuit clotting. Three thrombotic occlusions (in 2 patients) of centrifugal pump occurred in 12 patients (8%) supported by ECMO. Most patients (> 95%) had elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen. No patient developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. Von Willebrand (vWF) activity, vWF antigen and FVIII were considerably increased, and 50/57 tested patients (87.7%) had positive lupus anticoagulant. Comparison with non-COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 145) confirmed that COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 77) developed significantly more thrombotic complications, mainly pulmonary embolisms (11.7 vs. 2.1%, p < 0.008). Coagulation parameters significantly differed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Despite anticoagulation, a high number of patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 developed life-threatening thrombotic complications. Higher anticoagulation targets than in usual critically ill patients should therefore probably be suggested.