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.

Impact of Early Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in Elderly COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit-A Cohort Study.

(1) Background: Admission to the ICU and intensity of care provided to elderly COVID-19 patients are difficult choices guided by the expected patient-centered benefits. However, the impact of an early discussion of limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) has been poorly investigated. (2) Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study including all ≥70-year-old COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Factors associated with early LTE discussion (defined as before or up to 2 days post-ICU admission) and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. (3) Results: Eighty-two patients (59 M/23 F; 78 years (74-82) [median (interquartile range)]; 43/82 with LTE) were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 55%. Early LTE was decided upon for 22/82 patients (27%), more frequently in older (p < 0.001) and frailer patients (p = 0.004). Using a multivariable logistic regression model including clinical frailty scale grade ≥4, hospital acquisition of COVID-19, ventilation support modality and SOFA score on admission, early LTE was not associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.57 (0.15-2.00), p = 0.39). LTE resulted in less frequent invasive mechanical ventilation (23% versus 65%, p = 0.001), renal replacement therapy (5% versus 27%, p = 0.03) and norepinephrine infusion (23% versus 60%, p = 0.005), and shorter ICU stay (6 days (2-12) versus 14 days (7-24), p = 0.001). (4) Conclusions: In this small sample exploratory study, we were unable to demonstrate any increase in in-hospital mortality associated with early LTE discussion in elderly COVID-19 patients while reducing the use of organ support techniques. These findings require confirmation in larger studies.

Combination of Mycological Criteria: a Better Surrogate to Identify COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis Patients and Evaluate Prognosis?

Diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) remains unclear especially in nonimmunocompromised patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate seven mycological criteria and their combination in a large homogenous cohort of patients. All successive patients (n = 176) hospitalized for COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation and who clinically worsened despite appropriate standard of care were included over a 1-year period. Direct examination, culture, Aspergillus quantitative PCR (Af-qPCR), and galactomannan testing were performed on all respiratory samples (n = 350). Serum galactomannan, ß-d-glucan, and plasma Af-qPCR were also assessed. The criteria were analyzed alone or in combination in relation to mortality rate. Mortality was significantly different in patients with 0, ≤2, and ≥3 positive criteria (log rank test, P = 0.04) with death rate of 43.1, 58.1, and 76.4%, respectively. Direct examination, plasma qPCR, and serum galactomannan were associated with a 100% mortality rate. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) galactomannan and positive respiratory sample culture were often found as isolated markers (28.1 and 34.1%) and poorly repeatable when a second sample was obtained. Aspergillus DNA was detected in 13.1% of samples (46 of 350) with significantly lower quantitative cycle (Cq) when associated with at least one other criterion (30.2 versus 35.8) (P < 0.001). A combination of markers and/or blood biomarkers and/or direct respiratory sample examination seems more likely to identify patients with CAPA. Af-qPCR may help identifying false-positive results of BAL galactomannan testing and culture on respiratory samples while quantifying fungal burden accurately.

Cytological patterns of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patterns of inflammatory bronchoalveolar cells in COVID-19 patients treated with ECMO are not well described. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe inflammatory cell subpopulations in blood and bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) obtained in critically ill COVID-19 patients shortly after ECMO implementation. METHODS: BAL was performed in the middle lobe in 12 consecutive ECMO-treated COVID-19 patients. Trained cytologists analyzed peripheral blood and BAL cells using flow cytometry and routine staining, respectively. Data were interpreted in relation to dexamethasone administration and weaning from ECMO and ventilator. RESULTS: High neutrophil proportions (66% to 88% of total cells) were observed in the absence of bacterial superinfection and more frequently in dexamethasone-free patients (83% [82-85] vs. 29% [8-68], P = 0.006), suggesting that viral infection could be responsible of predominantly neutrophilic lung inflammation. Successful weaning from ECMO/ventilator could not be predicted by the peripheral white blood and BAL cell pattern. CONCLUSION: High neutrophil proportions can be observed in critically ill COVID-19 patients despite the lack of microbiological evidence on BAL of bacterial superinfection. Dexamethasone was associated with lower neutrophil proportions in BAL. Our study was probably underpowered to provide BAL cell pattern helpful to predict weaning from ECMO/ventilator.

Cumulative Radiation Exposure in Covid-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

Medical imaging plays a major role in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patient diagnosis and management. However, the radiation dose received from medical procedures by these patients has been poorly investigated. We aimed to estimate the cumulative effective dose (CED) related to medical exposure in COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in comparison to the usual critically ill patients. We designed a descriptive cohort study including 90 successive ICU COVID-19 patients admitted between March and May 2020 and 90 successive non-COVID-19 patients admitted between March and May 2019. In this study, the CED resulting from all radiological examinations was calculated and clinical characteristics predictive of higher exposure risk identified. The number of radiological examinations was 12.0 (5.0-26.0) [median (interquartile range) in COVID-19 vs. 4.0 (2.0-8.0) in non-COVID-19 patient (P < 0.001)]. The CED during a four-month period was 4.2 mSv (1.9-11.2) in the COVID-19 vs. 1.2 mSv (0.13-6.19) in the non-COVID-19 patients (P < 0.001). In the survivors, the CED in COVID-19 vs. non-COVID-19 patients was ≥100 mSv in 3% vs. 0%, 10-100 mSv in 23% vs. 15%, 1-10 mSv in 56% vs. 30% and <1 mSv in 18% vs. 55%. The CED (P < 0.001) and CED per ICU hospitalization day (P = 0.004) were significantly higher in COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 patients. The CED correlated significantly with the hospitalization duration (r = 0.45, P < 0.001) and the number of conventional radiological examinations (r = 0.8, P < 0.001). To conclude, more radiological examinations were performed in critically ill COVID-19 patients than non-COVID-19 patients resulting in higher CED. In COVID-19 patients, contribution of strategies to limit CED should be investigated in the future.

Outcome of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients According to the Setting of Corticosteroid Initiation-A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.

(1) Background: Corticosteroids lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, the outcome of COVID-19 patients referred to the intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory deterioration despite corticosteroids initiated during hospitalization before ICU admission has been poorly investigated. Our objective was to determine survival according to corticosteroid initiation setting. (2) Methods: We conducted a cohort study including all successive critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids and managed in our ICU. We compared survival, whether corticosteroids were initiated before (Cb-group) or after ICU admission (Ca-group), using a propensity score matching. (3) Results: Overall, 228 patients (67 years (56-74); 168M/60F; invasive mechanical ventilation on admission, 17%) were included with 63 patients in the Cb-group and 165 patients in the Ca-group. Survival to hospital discharge was 43% versus 69%, respectively (p = 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with death were age (odds ratio, 1.07; 95%-confidence interval, (1.04-1.11); p < 0.0001), the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score on ICU admission (1.30 (1.14-1.50); p = 0.0001) and corticosteroid initiation before ICU admission (2.64 (1.30-5.43); p = 0.007). No significant differences in outcome related to corticosteroid regimen were found. (4) Conclusions: Critically ill COVID-19 patients transferred to the ICU with deterioration despite corticosteroids initiated before admission have a less favorable outcome than patients receiving corticosteroids initiated after ICU admission.

Dismal Survival in COVID-19 Patients Requiring ECMO as Rescue Therapy after Corticosteroid Failure.

(1) Background: COVID-19 may lead to refractory hypoxemia requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Survival rate if ECMO is implemented as rescue therapy after corticosteroid failure is unknown. We aimed to investigate if ECMO implemented after failure of the full-recommended 10-day corticosteroid course can improve outcome. (2) Methods: We conducted a three-center cohort study including consecutive dexamethasone-treated COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO between 03/2020 and 05/2021. We compared survival at hospital discharge between patients implemented after (ECMO-after group) and before the end of the 10-day dexamethasone course (ECMO-before group). (3) Results: Forty patients (28M/12F; age, 57 years (51-62) (median (25th-75th percentiles)) were included, 28 (70%) in the ECMO-before and 12 (30%) in the ECMO-after group. In the ECMO-before group, 9/28 patients (32%) received the 6 mg/day dexamethasone regimen versus 12/12 (100%) in the ECMO-after group (p < 0.0001). The rest of the patients received an alternative dexamethasone regimen consisting of 20 mg/day during 5 days followed by 10 mg/day during 5 days. Patients in the ECMO-before group tended to be younger (57 years (51-59) versus 62 years (57-67), p = 0.053). In the ECMO-after group, no patient (0%) survived while 12 patients (43%) survived in the ECMO-before group (p = 0.007). (4) Conclusions: Survival is poor in COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO implemented after the full-recommended 10-day dexamethasone course. Since these patients may have developed a particularly severe presentation, new therapeutic strategies are urgently required.

Reversibility of total airway closure and alveolar consolidation in a COVID-19 patient: A case study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be complicated by life-threatening pneumonia requiring tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO). It is not yet clear to what extent and after which delay the most severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia are reversible. Here, we present a 39-year-old patient who developed a severe COVID-19-attributed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) resulting in complete alveolar consolidation and airway closure for several weeks. His remarkable ventilatory pattern was established using ventilator airway pressure curve analysis and computed tomography imaging. The patient was managed with supportive care, mechanical ventilation and vvECMO. He received dexamethasone and tocilizumab as immunomodulatory drugs. Despite multiple complications, he recovered and was weaned from vvECMO, ventilator and oxygen on days 75, 95 and 99 post-intubation, respectively. He was discharged from hospital on day 113. This case study strongly supports the remarkable potential for reversibility of ARDS in COVID-19 patients and discusses the implications for critical care nursing regarding mechanical ventilation and ECMO device management in patients who may become entirely dependent on vvECMO for oxygenation and carbon dioxide elimination.

Impact of early low-calorie low-protein versus standard-calorie standard-protein feeding on outcomes of ventilated adults with shock: design and conduct of a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.

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.

Pathophysiological Processes Underlying the High Prevalence of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predisposes to deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) particularly in mechanically ventilated adults with severe pneumonia. The extremely high prevalence of DVT in the COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been established between 25 and 84% based on studies including systematic duplex ultrasound of the lower limbs when prophylactic anticoagulation was systematically administrated. DVT prevalence has been shown to be markedly higher than in mechanically ventilated influenza patients (6-8%). Unusually high inflammatory and prothrombotic phenotype represents a striking feature of COVID-19 patients, as reflected by markedly elevated reactive protein C, fibrinogen, interleukin 6, von Willebrand factor, and factor VIII. Moreover, in critically ill patients, venous stasis has been associated with the prothrombotic phenotype attributed to COVID-19, which increases the risk of thrombosis. Venous stasis results among others from immobilization under muscular paralysis, mechanical ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure, and pulmonary microvascular network injuries or occlusions. Venous return to the heart is subsequently decreased with increase in central and peripheral venous pressures, marked proximal and distal veins dilation, and drops in venous blood flow velocities, leading to a spontaneous contrast "sludge pattern" in veins considered as prothrombotic. Together with endothelial lesions and hypercoagulability status, venous stasis completes the Virchow triad and considerably increases the prevalence of DVT and PE in critically ill COVID-19 patients, therefore raising questions regarding the optimal doses for thromboprophylaxis during ICU stay.