ICU strain and outcome in COVID-19 patients-A multicenter retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: To compare the characteristics, management, and prognosis of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 during the first two waves of the outbreak and to evaluate the relationship between ICU strain (ICU demand due to COVID-19 admissions) and mortality. METHODS: In a multicentre retrospective study, 1166 COVID-19 patients admitted to five ICUs in France between 20 February and 31 December 2020 were included. Data were collected at each ICU from medical records. A Cox proportional-hazards model identified factors associated with 28-day mortality. RESULTS: 640 patients (55%) were admitted during the first wave (February to June 2020) and 526 (45%) during the second wave (July to December 2020). ICU strain was lower during the second wave (-0.81 [-1.04 --0.31] vs. 1.18 [-0.34-1.29] SD when compared to mean COVID-19 admission in each center during study period, P<0.001). Patients admitted during the second wave were older, had more profound hypoxemia and lower SOFA. High flow nasal cannula was more frequently used during the second wave (68% vs. 39%, P<0.001) and intubation was less frequent (46% vs. 69%, P<0.001). Neither 28-day mortality (30% vs. 26%, P = 0.12) nor hospital mortality (37% vs. 31%, P = 0.27) differed between first and second wave. Overweight and obesity were associated with lower 28-day mortality while older age, underlying chronic kidney disease, severity at ICU admission as assessed by SOFA score and ICU strain were associated with higher 28-day mortality. ICU strain was not associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: The characteristics and the management of patients varied between the first and the second wave of the pandemic. Rather than the wave, ICU strain was independently associated with 28-day mortality, but not with hospital mortality.

Spike Gene Evolution and Immune Escape Mutations in Patients with Mild or Moderate Forms of COVID-19 and Treated with Monoclonal Antibodies Therapies.

We explored the molecular evolution of the spike gene after the administration of anti-spike monoclonal antibodies in patients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19. Four out of the 13 patients acquired a mutation during follow-up; two mutations (G1204E and E406G) appeared as a mixture without clinical impact, while the Q493R mutation emerged in two patients (one receiving bamlanivimab and one receiving bamlanivimab/etesevimab) with fatal outcomes. Careful virological monitoring of patients treated with mAbs should be performed, especially in immunosuppressed patients.

Impact of prone position in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients admitted to the ICU for severe acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Studies performed in spontaneously breathing patients with mild to moderate respiratory failure suggested that prone position (PP) in COVID-19 could be beneficial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 were enrolled in four ICUs. PP sessions lasted at least 3 h each and were performed twice daily. A Cox proportional hazard model identified factors associated with the need of intubation. A propensity score overlap weighting analysis was performed to assess the association between spontaneous breathing PP (SBPP) and intubation. RESULTS: Among 379 patients, 40 underwent SBPP. Oxygenation was achieved by high flow nasal canula in all but three patients. Duration of proning was 2.5 [1.6;3.4] days. SBPP was well tolerated hemodynamically, increased PaO2/FiO2 (78 [68;96] versus 63 [53;77] mm Hg, p = 0.004) and PaCO2 (38 [34;43] versus 35 [32;38] mm Hg, p = 0.005). Neither day-28 survival (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16-1.16] nor risk of invasive ventilation [sHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.49;1.88] differed between patients who underwent PP and others. CONCLUSIONS: SBPP in COVID-19 is feasible and well tolerated in severely hypoxemic patients. It did not induce any effect on risk of intubation and day-28 mortality.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can have symptoms that rapidly evolve to profound hypoxaemia and death. The efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with severe ARDS in the context of COVID-19 is unclear. We aimed to establish the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with respiratory failure and COVID-19 treated with ECMO. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was done in the Paris-Sorbonne University Hospital Network, comprising five intensive care units (ICUs) and included patients who received ECMO for COVID-19 associated ARDS. Patient demographics and daily pre-ECMO and on-ECMO data and outcomes were collected. Possible outcomes over time were categorised into four different states (states 1-4): on ECMO, in the ICU and weaned off ECMO, alive and out of ICU, or death. Daily probabilities of occupation in each state and of transitions between these states until day 90 post-ECMO onset were estimated with use of a multi-state Cox model stratified for each possible transition. Follow-up was right-censored on July 10, 2020. FINDINGS: From March 8 to May 2, 2020, 492 patients with COVID-19 were treated in our ICUs. Complete day-60 follow-up was available for 83 patients (median age 49 [IQR 41-56] years and 61 [73%] men) who received ECMO. Pre-ECMO, 78 (94%) patients had been prone-positioned; their median driving pressure was 18 (IQR 16-21) cm H2O and PaO2/FiO2 was 60 (54-68) mm Hg. At 60 days post-ECMO initiation, the estimated probabilities of occupation in each state were 6% (95% CI 3-14) for state 1, 18% (11-28) for state 2, 45% (35-56) for state 3, and 31% (22-42) for state 4. 35 (42%) patients had major bleeding and four (5%) had a haemorrhagic stroke. 30 patients died. INTERPRETATION: The estimated 60-day survival of ECMO-rescued patients with COVID-19 was similar to that of studies published in the past 2 years on ECMO for severe ARDS. If another COVID-19 outbreak occurs, ECMO should be considered for patients developing refractory respiratory failure despite optimised care. FUNDING: None.

Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients. METHODS: The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7. RESULTS: Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.