Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Intensive Care Med ; 49(5): 530-544, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20242131

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether interferon gamma-1b prevents hospital-acquired pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial conducted in 11 European hospitals, we randomly assigned critically ill adults, with one or more acute organ failures, under mechanical ventilation to receive interferon gamma-1b (100 µg every 48 h from day 1 to 9) or placebo (following the same regimen). The primary outcome was a composite of hospital-acquired pneumonia or all-cause mortality on day 28. The planned sample size was 200 with interim safety analyses after enrolling 50 and 100 patients. RESULTS: The study was discontinued after the second safety analysis for potential harm with interferon gamma-1b, and the follow-up was completed in June 2022. Among 109 randomized patients (median age, 57 (41-66) years; 37 (33.9%) women; all included in France), 108 (99%) completed the trial. Twenty-eight days after inclusion, 26 of 55 participants (47.3%) in the interferon-gamma group and 16 of 53 (30.2%) in the placebo group had hospital-acquired pneumonia or died (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-3.29; P = 0.08). Serious adverse events were reported in 24 of 55 participants (43.6%) in the interferon-gamma group and 17 of 54 (31.5%) in the placebo group (P = 0.19). In an exploratory analysis, we found that hospital-acquired pneumonia developed in a subgroup of patients with decreased CCL17 response to interferon-gamma treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated patients with acute organ failure, treatment with interferon gamma-1b compared with placebo did not significantly reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia or death on day 28. Furthermore, the trial was discontinued early due to safety concerns about interferon gamma-1b treatment.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia , Adult , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Interferon-gamma , SARS-CoV-2 , Critical Illness , Double-Blind Method
2.
Crit Care ; 27(1): 103, 2023 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2260570

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limitations of life-sustaining therapies (LST) practices are frequent and vary among intensive care units (ICUs). However, scarce data were available during the COVID-19 pandemic when ICUs were under intense pressure. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, cumulative incidence, timing, modalities, and factors associated with LST decisions in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We did an ancillary analysis of the European multicentre COVID-ICU study, which collected data from 163 ICUs in France, Belgium and Switzerland. ICU load, a parameter reflecting stress on ICU capacities, was calculated at the patient level using daily ICU bed occupancy data from official country epidemiological reports. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to assess the association of variables with LST limitation decisions. RESULTS: Among 4671 severe COVID-19 patients admitted from February 25 to May 4, 2020, the prevalence of in-ICU LST limitations was 14.5%, with a nearly six-fold variability between centres. Overall 28-day cumulative incidence of LST limitations was 12.4%, which occurred at a median of 8 days (3-21). Median ICU load at the patient level was 126%. Age, clinical frailty scale score, and respiratory severity were associated with LST limitations, while ICU load was not. In-ICU death occurred in 74% and 95% of patients, respectively, after LST withholding and withdrawal, while median survival time was 3 days (1-11) after LST limitations. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, LST limitations frequently preceded death, with a major impact on time of death. In contrast to ICU load, older age, frailty, and the severity of respiratory failure during the first 24 h were the main factors associated with decisions of LST limitations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Frailty , Humans , Critical Illness/therapy , Pandemics , Intensive Care Units
3.
EClinicalMedicine ; 52: 101663, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2041666

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might result from hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, contributing to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Because almitrine improves V/Q, it might reduce the risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) in such patients. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of almitrine on the need for MV at day 7. Methods: In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial involving 15 ICUs, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and experiencing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive 5 days of intravenous low-dose (2 µg.kg-1.min-1) almitrine or placebo. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation for MV or death within 7 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, number of ventilator-free days, number of days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357457. Findings: Between September 3, 2020 and September 25, 2021 181 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to almitrine (n=89) or placebo (n=92). 179 patients (excluding two who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age: 60·1 years; 34% women) and analyzed. On day 7, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients assigned to almitrine (36%) and in 37 patients assigned to placebo (41%), for a difference of -4·3% (95% confidence interval: -18·7% to 10·2%). Secondary outcomes (28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at day 28, days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects) did not differ between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low-dose almitrine failed in reducing the need for MV or death at day 7. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC COVID 2020) funded by the French Ministry of Health, Les Laboratoires Servier (Suresnes, France) providing the study drug free of charge.

4.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 48, 2022 02 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1703362

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) causes high mortality. Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) have potentially relevant immune-modulatory properties, whose place in ARDS treatment is not established. This phase 2b trial was undertaken to assess the efficacy of UC-MSCs in patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STROMA-CoV-2) recruited adults (≥ 18 years) with SARS-CoV-2-induced early (< 96 h) mild-to-severe ARDS in 10 French centres. Patients were randomly assigned to receive three intravenous infusions of 106 UC-MSCs/kg or placebo (0.9% NaCl) over 5 days after recruitment. For the modified intention-to-treat population, the primary endpoint was the partial pressure of oxygen to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2)-ratio change between baseline (day (D) 0) and D7. RESULTS: Among the 107 patients screened for eligibility from April 6, 2020, to October 29, 2020, 45 were enrolled, randomized and analyzed. PaO2/FiO2 changes between D0 and D7 did not differ significantly between the UC-MSCs and placebo groups (medians [IQR] 54.3 [- 15.5 to 93.3] vs 25.3 [- 33.3 to 104.6], respectively; ANCOVA estimated treatment effect 7.4, 95% CI - 44.7 to 59.7; P = 0.77). Six (28.6%) of the 21 UC-MSCs recipients and six of 24 (25%) placebo-group patients experienced serious adverse events, none of which were related to UC-MSCs treatment. CONCLUSIONS: D0-to-D7 PaO2/FiO2 changes for intravenous UC-MSCs-versus placebo-treated adults with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS did not differ significantly. Repeated UC-MSCs infusions were not associated with any serious adverse events during treatment or thereafter (until D28). Larger trials enrolling patients earlier during the course of their ARDS are needed to further assess UC-MSCs efficacy in this context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04333368. Registered 01 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04333368 .


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mesenchymal Stem Cells , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
5.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261024, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1623650

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy has been proposed as an option to help organize the healthcare system to face the unprecedented number of patients hospitalized for a COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in intensive care units (ICU). It is, however, considered a particularly high-risk procedure for contamination. This paper aims to provide our experience in performing tracheostomies on COVID-19 critically ill patients during the pandemic and its long-term local complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients tracheostomized for a COVID-19-related ARDS in two university hospitals in the Paris region between January 27th (date of first COVID-19 admission) and May 18th, 2020 (date of last tracheostomy performed). We focused on tracheostomy technique (percutaneous versus surgical), timing (early versus late) and late complications. RESULTS: Forty-eight tracheostomies were performed with an equal division between surgical and percutaneous techniques. There was no difference in patients' characteristics between surgical and percutaneous groups. Tracheostomy was performed after a median of 17 [12-22] days of mechanical ventilation (MV), with 10 patients in the "early" group (≤ day 10) and 38 patients in the "late" group (> day 10). Survivors required MV for a median of 32 [22-41] days and were ultimately decannulated with a median of 21 [15-34] days spent on cannula. Patients in the early group had shorter ICU and hospital stays (respectively 15 [12-19] versus 35 [25-47] days; p = 0.002, and 21 [16-28] versus 54 [35-72] days; p = 0.002) and spent less time on MV (respectively 17 [14-20] and 35 [27-43] days; p<0.001). Interestingly, patients in the percutaneous group had shorter hospital and rehabilitation center stays (respectively 44 [34-81] versus 92 [61-118] days; p = 0.012, and 24 [11-38] versus 45 [22-71] days; p = 0.045). Of the 30 (67%) patients examined by a head and neck surgeon, 17 (57%) had complications with unilateral laryngeal palsy (n = 5) being the most prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy seems to be a safe procedure that could help ICU organization by delegating work to a separate team and favoring patient turnover by allowing faster transfer to step-down units. Following guidelines alone was found sufficient to prevent the risk of aerosolization and contamination of healthcare professionals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/surgery , Tracheostomy/methods , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitals, University , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Paris , Personnel, Hospital , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Tracheostomy/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
7.
PLoS One ; 16(4): e0249799, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1186607

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is frequently associated with gastrointestinal manifestations. Herein we evaluated the interest in measuring the intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP), a biomarker of intestinal injury, in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Serum I-FABP was analyzed in 28 consecutive patients hospitalized for a PCR-confirmed COVID-19, in 24 hospitalized patients with non-COVID-19 pulmonary diseases, and 79 patients admitted to the emergency room for abdominal pain. RESULTS: I-FABP serum concentrations were significantly lower in patients with COVID-19, as compared to patients with non-COVID-19 pulmonary diseases [70.3 pg/mL (47-167.9) vs. 161.1 pg/mL (88.98-305.2), respectively, p = 0.008]. I-FABP concentrations in these two populations were significantly lower than in patients with abdominal pain without COVID-19 [344.8 pg/mL (268.9-579.6)]. I-FABP was neither associated with severity nor the duration of symptoms. I-FABP was correlated with polymorphonuclear cell counts. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, we observed a low I-FABP concentration in COVID-19 patients either with or without gastrointestinal symptoms, of which the pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical impact remain to be established. Further explorations on a larger cohort of patients will be needed to unravel the molecular mechanism of such observation, including the effects of malabsorption and/or abnormal lipid metabolism.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Fatty Acid-Binding Proteins/blood , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Aged , Biomarkers/blood , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Prognosis
8.
Ann Med ; 52(7): 367-375, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-684538

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To identify predictive factors of unfavourable outcome among patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a monocentric retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in Paris area. An unfavourable outcome was defined as the need for artificial ventilation and/or death. Characteristics at admission were analysed to identify factors predictive of unfavourable outcome using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. Based on the results, a nomogram to predict 14-day probability of poor outcome was proposed. RESULTS: Between March 15th and April 14th, 2020, 279 COVID-19 patients were hospitalized after a median of 7 days after the first symptoms. Among them, 88 (31.5%) patients had an unfavourable outcome: 48 were admitted to the ICU for artificial ventilation, and 40 patients died without being admitted to ICU. Multivariable analyses retained age, overweight, polypnoea, fever, high C-reactive protein, elevated us troponin-I, and lymphopenia as risk factors of an unfavourable outcome. A nomogram was established with sufficient discriminatory power (C-index 0.75), and proper consistence between the prediction and the observation. CONCLUSION: We identified seven easily available prognostic factors and proposed a simple nomogram for early detection of patients at risk of aggravation, in order to optimize clinical care and initiate specific therapies. KEY MESSAGES Since novel coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a minority of patients develops severe respiratory distress syndrome, leading to death despite intensive care. Tools to identify patients at risk in European populations are lacking. In our series, age, respiratory rate, overweight, temperature, C-reactive protein, troponin and lymphocyte counts were risk factors of an unfavourable outcome in hospitalized adult patients. We propose an easy-to-use nomogram to predict unfavourable outcome for hospitalized adult patients to optimize clinical care and initiate specific therapies.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Critical Care , Hospitalization , Nomograms , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Paris , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis , Proportional Hazards Models , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
11.
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med ; 39(3): 395-415, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-549176

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of these guidelines is to produce a framework to facilitate the partial and gradual resumption of intervention activity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The group has endeavoured to produce a minimum number of recommendations to highlight the strengths to be retained in the 7 predefined areas: (1) protection of staff and patients; (2) benefit/risk and patient information; (3) preoperative assessment and decision on intervention; (4) modalities of the preanaesthesia consultation; (5) specificity of anaesthesia and analgesia; (6) dedicated circuits and (7) containment exit type of interventions. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provides 51 statements on anaesthesia management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. After one round of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of the recommendations and algorithms. CONCLUSION: We present suggestions for how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists can be minimised and how personal protective equipment policies relate to COVID-19 pandemic context.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Anesthesia/standards , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Adult , Airway Management , Analgesia/adverse effects , Analgesia/methods , Anesthesia/adverse effects , Anesthesia/methods , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Child , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Critical Pathways , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/transmission , Disinfection , Elective Surgical Procedures , Equipment Contamination/prevention & control , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Informed Consent , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Operating Rooms/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Isolation , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Preoperative Care , Professional Staff Committees , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , Symptom Assessment , Universal Precautions
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL