Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 55
Filter
1.
Perfusion ; : 2676591221096225, 2022 Jun 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1872076

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A strategy that limits tidal volumes and inspiratory pressures, improves outcomes in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) may facilitate ultra-protective ventilation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venovenous ECCO2R in supporting ultra-protective ventilation in moderate-to-severe ARDS. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were interrogated for studies (2000-2021) reporting venovenous ECCO2R use in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Studies reporting ≥10 adult patients in English language journals were included. Ventilatory parameters after 24 h of initiating ECCO2R, device characteristics, and safety outcomes were collected. The primary outcome measure was the change in driving pressure at 24 h of ECCO2R therapy in relation to baseline. Secondary outcomes included change in tidal volume, gas exchange, and safety data. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting 421 patients (PaO2:FiO2 141.03 mmHg) were included. Extracorporeal blood flow rates ranged from 0.35-1.5 L/min. Random effects modelling indicated a 3.56 cmH2O reduction (95%-CI: 3.22-3.91) in driving pressure from baseline (p < .001) and a 1.89 mL/kg (95%-CI: 1.75-2.02, p < .001) reduction in tidal volume. Oxygenation, respiratory rate and PEEP remained unchanged. No significant interactions between driving pressure reduction and baseline driving pressure, partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide or PaO2:FiO2 ratio were identified in metaregression analysis. Bleeding and haemolysis were the commonest complications of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Venovenous ECCO2R permitted significant reductions in ∆P in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Heterogeneity amongst studies and devices, a paucity of randomised controlled trials, and variable safety reporting calls for standardisation of outcome reporting. Prospective evaluation of optimal device operation and anticoagulation in high quality studies is required before further recommendations can be made.

2.
J Geriatr Cardiol ; 19(2): 137-151, 2022 Feb 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1870115

ABSTRACT

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is an uncommon syndrome characterized by sudden and severe hemodynamic compromise secondary to acute myocardial inflammation, often presenting as profound cardiogenic shock, life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and/or electrical storm. FM may be refractory to conventional therapies and require mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The immune system has been recognized as playing a pivotal role in the pathophysiology of myocarditis, leading to an increased focus on immunosuppressive treatment strategies. Recent data have highlighted not only the fact that FM has significantly worse outcomes than non-FM, but that prognosis and management strategies of FM are heavily dependent on histological subtype, placing greater emphasis on the role of endomyocardial biopsy in diagnosis. The impact of subtype on severity and prognosis will likewise influence how aggressively the myocarditis is managed, including whether MCS is warranted. Many patients with refractory cardiogenic shock secondary to FM end up requiring MCS, with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation demonstrating favorable survival rates, particularly when initiated prior to the development of multiorgan failure. Among the challenges facing the field are the need to more precisely identify immunopathophysiological pathways in order to develop targeted therapies, and the need to better optimize the timing and management of MCS to minimize complications and maximize outcomes.

3.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 May 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1832818

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients 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 vs 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 vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 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 at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;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 MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on 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 in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

4.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 7211, 2022 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1821603

ABSTRACT

With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Among 1062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); current smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial registration The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Melanthiaceae , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Incidence , Male , Pandemics , Paris/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(3): 270-280, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813641

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Previous studies support the potential efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO) for improving survival in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) cases. Prone positioning (PP) has been shown to improve the outcomes of moderate-to-severe ARDS patients. Few studies and no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effect of PP performed in ECMO patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effect of prone positioning for ARDS patients receiving vvECMO on survival. All authors were contacted to obtain complementary information not mentioned in the original articles. The main objective was to compare 28-day survival in vvECMO patients with PP to vvECMO patients without PP (controls). RESULTS: Thirteen studies with a combined population of 1836 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. PP was associated with a significant improvement in 28-day survival (503 survivors among 681 patients in the PP group [74%; 95% CI 71-77] vs. 450 survivors among 770 patients in the control group [58%, 95% CI 55-62]; RR 1.31 [95% CI 1.21-1.41]; I2 22% [95% CI 0-62%]; P < 0.0001). Survival was also improved in terms of other endpoints (60-day survival, 90-day survival, ICU survival, and hospital survival). In contrast, the duration of mechanical ventilation was increased in vvECMO patients with PP (mean difference 11.4 days [95% CI 9.2-13.5]; 0.64 [95% CI 0.50-0.78]; I2 8%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: According to this meta-analysis, survival was improved when prone positioning was used in ARDS patients receiving vvECMO. The impact of this combination on survival should be investigated in prospective randomized controlled trials.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Humans , Prone Position , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies
6.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(1): 1-15, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1800370

ABSTRACT

Rates of survival with functional recovery for both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are notably low. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is emerging as a modality to improve prognosis by augmenting perfusion to vital end-organs by utilizing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during conventional CPR and stabilizing the patient for interventions aimed at reversing the aetiology of the arrest. Implementing this emergent procedure requires a substantial investment in resources, and even the most successful ECPR programs may nonetheless burden healthcare systems, clinicians, patients, and their families with unsalvageable patients supported by extracorporeal devices. Non-randomized and observational studies have repeatedly shown an association between ECPR and improved survival, versus conventional CPR, for in-hospital cardiac arrest in select patient populations. Recently, randomized controlled trials suggest benefit for ECPR over standard resuscitation, as well as the feasibility of performing such trials, in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest within highly coordinated healthcare delivery systems. Application of these data to clinical practice should be done cautiously, with outcomes likely to vary by the setting and system within which ECPR is initiated. ECPR introduces important ethical challenges, including whether it should be considered an extension of CPR, at what point it becomes sustained organ replacement therapy, and how to approach patients unable to recover or be bridged to heart replacement therapy. The economic impact of ECPR varies by health system, and has the potential to outstrip resources if used indiscriminately. Ideally, studies should include economic evaluations to inform health care systems about the cost-benefits of this therapy.


Subject(s)
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest , Adult , Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest/therapy
8.
Front Immunol ; 13: 790334, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1715001

ABSTRACT

The capacity of pre-existing immunity to human common coronaviruses (HCoV) to cross-protect against de novo COVID-19is yet unknown. In this work, we studied the sera of 175 COVID-19 patients, 76 healthy donors and 3 intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) batches. We found that most COVID-19 patients developed anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies before IgM. Moreover, the capacity of their IgGs to react to beta-HCoV, was present in the early sera of most patients before the appearance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. This implied that a recall-type antibody response was generated. In comparison, the patients that mounted an anti-SARS-COV2 IgM response, prior to IgG responses had lower titres of anti-beta-HCoV IgG antibodies. This indicated that pre-existing immunity to beta-HCoV was conducive to the generation of memory type responses to SARS-COV-2. Finally, we also found that pre-COVID-19-era sera and IVIG cross-reacted with SARS-CoV-2 antigens without neutralising SARS-CoV-2 infectivity in vitro. Put together, these results indicate that whilst pre-existing immunity to HCoV is responsible for recall-type IgG responses to SARS-CoV-2, it does not lead to cross-protection against COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19/immunology , Common Cold/immunology , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Neutralizing/metabolism , Antibodies, Viral/metabolism , Antigens, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Cross Reactions , Female , Humans , Immunity, Heterologous , Immunoglobulin G/metabolism , Immunoglobulin M/metabolism , Immunologic Memory , Male , Middle Aged , Survival Analysis
9.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 205(12): 1382-1390, 2022 Jun 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714499

ABSTRACT

The role of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in the management of severe acute respiratory failure, including acute respiratory distress syndrome, has become better defined in recent years in light of emerging high-quality evidence and technological advances. Use of ECMO has consequently increased throughout many parts of the world. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has highlighted deficiencies in organizational capacity, research capability, knowledge sharing, and resource use. Although governments, medical societies, hospital systems, and clinicians were collectively unprepared for the scope of this pandemic, the use of ECMO, a highly resource-intensive and specialized form of life support, presented specific logistical and ethical challenges. As the pandemic has evolved, there has been greater collaboration in the use of ECMO across centers and regions, together with more robust data reporting through international registries and observational studies. Nevertheless, centralization of ECMO capacity is lacking in many regions of the world, and equitable use of ECMO resources remains uneven. There are no widely available mechanisms to conduct large-scale, rigorous clinical trials in real time. In this critical care review, we outline lessons learned during COVID-19 and prior respiratory pandemics in which ECMO was used, and we describe how we might apply these lessons going forward, both during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
10.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-319567

ABSTRACT

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use for severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has evolved during the course of the pandemic. Early uncertainty regarding the role of ECMO during the current pandemic was based on the suboptimal initial experiences. However, more recent data suggests favorable outcomes in COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO support. We aimed to explore the epidemiology and outcomes of ECMO for COVID-19 related cardiopulmonary failure and evaluate outcomes of new centers versus established ones.Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter international, observational study conducted in (19) ECMO centers in five countries from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. We included 307 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO for refractory hypoxemia and severe respiratory acidosis with or without circulatory failure. Data collection included Patients characteristics, demographic data, ECMO-related specific data, pre-ECMO patient condition, 24 hours post-ECMO initiation data, and outcome. The primary outcome is survival to home discharge. Secondary outcomes include mortality during ECMO, survival to decannulation, and outcomes stratified by center type in which patients were treated.Findings: Three hundred and seven COVID-19 patients received ECMO support during the study period. The median age was 45 years (37-52 IQR), and 81% were men. 178 (58%) patients survived ECMO, of whom 138 (45%) patients were discharged home, and 40 patients (13%) died post-ECMO decannulation while 128 patients (41.7%) died during ECMO. Patient outcomes in the new centers developed in response to the pandemic were similar to those of established centers.Interpretation: During pandemics, ECMO may provide favorable outcomes in highly select patients as resources allow. Outcomes in ECMO centers established during the pandemic were comparable to existing centers.Funding Statement: None.Declaration of Interests: Kiran Shekar acknowledges research support from the Metro North Hospital and Health Service and the Prince Charles Hospital Foundation. Dr. Brodie receives research support from ALung Technologies. He has been on the medical advisory boards for Baxter, Abiomed, Xenios, and Hemovent and is the President-Elect of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). Dr. Combes reported receiving grants and personal fees from Maquet, Xenios, and Baxter and serving as the recent past president of the EuroELSO organization. Other authors have no conflict of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: After the SWAAC ELSO steering committee's authorization, IRB approval was obtained from the coordinating center King Saud Medical City in Riyadh - Saudi Arabia. The country representatives obtained IRB approval for each participating center as well.

11.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-315970

ABSTRACT

Background: Data on incidence, clinical presentation and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) are limited. Methods: . Case series of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to a single ICU in France. All consecutive patients requiring MV with RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 12th and April 24 th , 2020 were included. Frequency, clinical characteristics, responsible pathogens and outcomes of VAP were assessed, and compared to an historical cohort of patients with severe influenza-associated pneumonia requiring MV admitted to the same ICU during the preceding three winter seasons. Results: : Among 54 consecutive patients with Covid-19–associated acute respiratory failure requiring MV included (median (IQR) age 48 (42-58) years;74% male;93% requiring venovenous-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 46 (85%) developed VAP (median (IQR) MV duration before the first episode, 11 (8-16) days). VAP-causative pathogens were predominantly Enterobacteriaceae (72%), particularly inducible AmpC-cephalosporinase producers (41%), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (35%). VAP recurred in 46 (85%) patients and 17 (31%) died. Most recurrences were relapses (ie, infection with the same pathogen), with a high percentage occurring on adequate antimicrobial treatment. Despite a high P. aeruginosa -VAP rate in patients with influenza-associated ARDS, the pulmonary infection recurrence rate was significantly lower than in Covid-19 patients. Overall mortality was similar for the two groups. Conclusions: : Patients with severe Covid-19–associated acute respiratory failure requiring MV had a very high late-onset VAP rate. Inducible AmpC-cephalosporinase–producing Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa frequently caused VAP, with multiple recurrences and difficulties eradicating the pathogen from the lung.

12.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-309702

ABSTRACT

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.Findings: The analysis included 1,199 (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).Interpretation: 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.Funding Statement: This study was funded by the Fondation AP-HP and the Direction de la Recherche Clinique et du Developpement and the French Ministry of Health. The REVA network received a 75 000 € research grant from Air Liquide Healthcare.Declaration of Interests: Dr Schmidt reported personal fees from Getinge, Drager, and Xenios, outside the submitted work. Dr Demoule reports personal fees from Medtronic, grants, personal fees and nonfinancial support from Philips, personal fees from Baxter, personal fees from Hamilton, personal fees and non-financial support from Fisher & Paykel, grants from French Ministry of Health, personal fees from Getinge, grants and personal fees from Respinor, grants and nonfinancial support from Lungpacer, outside the submitted work. Dr Dres reported personal fees from Lungpacer. No other disclosures were reported.Ethics Approval Statement: COVID-ICU received approval from the ethical committee of the French Intensive Care Society (CE-SRLF 20-23) following our local regulations.

13.
Vieillard-Baron, Antoine, Flicoteaux, Rémi, Salmona, Maud, Annane, Djillali, Ayed, Soufia, Azoulay, Elie, Bellaiche, Raphael, Beloucif, Sadek, Berti, Enora, Bertier, Astrid, Besset, Sébastien, Bret, Marlène, Cariou, Alain, Carpentier, Christophe, Chaouch, Oussama, Chariot, Appoline, Charron, Cyril, Charpentier, Julien, Cheurfa, Cherifa, Cholley, Bernard, Clerc, Sébastien, Combes, Alain, Chousterman, Benjamin, Cohen, Yves, Constantin, Jean-Michel, Damoisel, Charles, Darmon, Michael, Degos, Vincent, D’Ableiges, Bertrand De Maupeou, Demeret, Sophie, Montmollin, Etienne De, Demoule, Alexandre, Depret, Francois, Diehl, Jean-Luc, Djibré, Michel, Do, Chung-Hi, Dudoignon, Emmanuel, Duranteau, Jacques, Fartoukh, Muriel, Fieux, Fabienne, Gayat, Etienne, Gennequin, Mael, Guidet, Bertrand, Gutton, Christophe, Hamada, Sophie, Heming, Nicholas, Jouffroy, Romain, Keita-Meyer, Hawa, Langeron, Olivier, Lortat-Jacob, Brice, Marey, Jonathan, Mebazaa, Alexandre, Megarbane, Bruno, Mekontso-Dessap, Armand, Mira, Jean-Paul, Molle, Julie, Mongardon, Nicolas, Montravers, Philippe, Morelot-Panzini, Capucine, Nemlaghi, Safaa, Nguyen, Bao-long, Parrot, Antoine, Pasqualotto, Romain, Peron, Nicolas, Picard, Lucile, de Chambrun, Marc Pineton, Planquette, Benjamin, Plaud, Benoit, Pons, Stéphanie, Quesnel, Christophe, Raphalen, Jean-Herlé, Razazi, Keyvan, Ricard, Jean-Damien, Roche, Anne, Rohaut, Benjamin, Roux, Damien, Savale, Laurent, Sobotka, Jennifer, Teboul, Jean-Louis, Timsit, Jean-François, Voiriot, Guillaume, Weiss, Emmanuel, Wildenberg, Lucille, Zogheib, Elie, Riou, Bruno, Batteux, Frédéric.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-327150

ABSTRACT

Importance Information about the severity of Omicron is scarce. Objective To report the respective risk of ICU admission in patients hospitalized with Delta and Omicron variants and to compare the characteristics and disease severity of critically ill patients infected with both variants according to vaccination status. Design Analysis from the APHP database, called Reality, prospectively recording the following information in consecutive patients admitted in the ICU for COVID-19: age, sex, immunosuppression, vaccination, pneumonia, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, time between symptom onset and ICU admission, and in-ICU mortality. Retrospective analysis on an administrative database, “Système d’Information pour le Suivi des Victimes” (SI-VIC), which lists hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Setting 39 hospitals in the Paris area from APHP group. Participants Patients hospitalized from December 1, 2021 to January 18, 2022 for COVID-19. Main outcomes and measures Risk of ICU admission was evaluated in 3761 patients and Omicron cases were compared to Delta cases in the ICU in 888 consecutive patients. Results On January 18, 45% of patients in the ICU and 63.8% of patients in conventional hospital units were infected with the Omicron variant (p < 0.001). The risk of ICU admission with Omicron was reduced by 64% than with Delta (9.3% versus 25.8% of cases, respectively, p < 0.001). In critically ill patients, 400 had the Delta variant, 229 the Omicron variant, 98 had an uninformative variant screening test and 161 did not have information on variant screening test. 747 patients (84.1%) were admitted for pneumonia. Compared to patients infected with Delta, Omicron patients were more vaccinated (p<0.001), even with 3 doses, more immunocompromised (p<0.001), less admitted for pneumonia (p<0.001), especially when vaccinated (62.1% in vaccinated versus 80.7% in unvaccinated, p<0.001), and less invasively ventilated (p=0.02). Similar results were found in the subgroup of pneumonia but Omicron cases were older. Unadjusted in-ICU mortality did not differ between Omicron and Delta cases, neither in the overall population (20.0% versus 27.9%, p = 0.08), nor in patients with pneumonia (31.6% versus 29.7%, respectively) where adjusted in-ICU mortality did not differ according to the variant (HR 1.43 95%CI [0.89;2.29], p=0.14). Conclusion and relevance Compared to the Delta variant, the Omicron variant is less likely to result in ICU admission and less likely to be associated with pneumonia. However, when patients with the Omicron variant are admitted for pneumonia, the severity seems similar to that of patients with the Delta variant, with more immunocompromised and vaccinated patients and no difference in adjusted in-ICU mortality. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.

14.
Gastro Hep Adv ; 1(3): 393-402, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1670508

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Apolipoprotein A1 (A1) and haptoglobin (HP) serum levels are associated with the spread and severity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We have constructed and validated a multivariable risk calculator (A1HPV6) integrating A1, HP, alpha2-macroglobulin, and gamma glutamyl transferase to improve the performances of virological biomarkers. METHODS: In a prospective observational study of hospitalized patients with nonsevere SARS-CoV-2 infection, A1HPV6 was constructed in 127 patients and validated in 116. The specificity was assessed in 7482 controls representing the general population. The primary diagnostic endpoint was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in patients with positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR. The primary prognostic endpoint was the age-and sex-adjusted risk of A1HPV6 to predict patients with WHO-stage > 4 (W > 4) severity. We assessed the kinetics of the A1HPV6 components in a nonhuman primate model (NHP), from baseline to 7 days (D7) after SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for A1HPV6 was 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) in the validation subset, which was not significantly different from that in the construction subset, 0.99 (0.99-0.99; P = .80), like for sensitivity 92% (85-96) vs 94% (88-97; P = .29). A1HPV6 was associated with W > 4, with a significant odds ratio of 1.3 (1.1-1.5; 0.002). In NHP, A1 levels decreased (P < .01) at D2 and normalized at D4; HP levels increased at D2 and peaked at D4. In patients, A1 concentration was very low at D2 vs controls (P < .01) and increased at D14 (P < .01) but was still lower than controls; HP increased at D2 and remained elevated at D14. CONCLUSION: These results validate the diagnostic and prognostic performances of A1HPV6. Similar kinetics of apolipoprotein A1, HP, and alpha-2-macroglobulin were observed in the NHP model. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927133.

15.
Crit Care ; 26(1): 8, 2022 01 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1590188

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning (PP) reduces mortality of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The potential benefit of prone positioning maneuvers during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between the use of prone positioning during extracorporeal support and ICU mortality in a pooled population of patients from previous European cohort studies. METHODS: We performed a pooled individual patient data analysis of European cohort studies which compared patients treated with prone positioning during ECMO (Prone group) to "conventional" ECMO management (Supine group) in patients with severe ARDS. RESULTS: 889 patients from five studies were included. Unadjusted ICU mortality was 52.8% in the Supine Group and 40.8% in the Prone group. At a Cox multiple regression analysis PP during ECMO was not significantly associated with a reduction of ICU mortality (HR 0.67 95% CI: 0.42-1.06). Propensity score matching identified 227 patients in each group. ICU mortality of the matched samples was 48.0% and 39.6% for patients in the Supine and Prone group, respectively (p = 0.072). CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of ARDS patients receiving venovenous extracorporeal support, the use of prone positioning during ECMO was not significantly associated with reduced ICU mortality. The impact of this procedure will have to be definitively assessed by prospective randomized controlled trials.


Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Data Analysis , Humans , Patient Positioning , Prone Position , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies
16.
Ann Intensive Care ; 11(1): 170, 2021 Dec 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1566528

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Predicting outcomes of critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients with coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is a major challenge to avoid futile, and prolonged ICU stays. METHODS: The objective was to develop predictive survival models for patients with COVID-19 after 1-to-2 weeks in ICU. Based on the COVID-ICU cohort, which prospectively collected characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Machine learning was used to develop dynamic, clinically useful models able to predict 90-day mortality using ICU data collected on day (D) 1, D7 or D14. RESULTS: Survival of Severely Ill COVID (SOSIC)-1, SOSIC-7, and SOSIC-14 scores were constructed with 4244, 2877, and 1349 patients, respectively, randomly assigned to development or test datasets. The three models selected 15 ICU-entry variables recorded on D1, D7, or D14. Cardiovascular, renal, and pulmonary functions on prediction D7 or D14 were among the most heavily weighted inputs for both models. For the test dataset, SOSIC-7's area under the ROC curve was slightly higher (0.80 [0.74-0.86]) than those for SOSIC-1 (0.76 [0.71-0.81]) and SOSIC-14 (0.76 [0.68-0.83]). Similarly, SOSIC-1 and SOSIC-7 had excellent calibration curves, with similar Brier scores for the three models. CONCLUSION: The SOSIC scores showed that entering 15 to 27 baseline and dynamic clinical parameters into an automatable XGBoost algorithm can potentially accurately predict the likely 90-day mortality post-ICU admission (sosic.shinyapps.io/shiny). Although external SOSIC-score validation is still needed, it is an additional tool to strengthen decisions about life-sustaining treatments and informing family members of likely prognosis.

17.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(1): 111-113, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1491087
18.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-291594

ABSTRACT

Objective: With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. Methods In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Results Among 1,062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years;758 [71.4%] women;321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5;16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95%CI [0.38;8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83;18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92;18.28]);active smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21;0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Conclusion The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk. Trial registration: The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.

20.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 355, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463260

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was frequently used to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress (ARDS) during the initial outbreak. Care of COVID-19 patients evolved markedly during the second part of 2020. Our objective was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who received ECMO for severe COVID-19 ARDS before or after July 1, 2020. METHODS: We included consecutive adults diagnosed with COVID-19 in Paris-Sorbonne University Hospital Network ICUs, who received ECMO for severe ARDS until January 28, 2021. Characteristics and survival probabilities over time were estimated during the first and second waves. Pre-ECMO risk factors predicting 90-day mortality were assessed using multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 88 and 71 patients admitted, respectively, before and after July 1, 2020, were comparable except for older age, more frequent use of dexamethasone (18% vs. 82%), high-flow nasal oxygenation (19% vs. 82%) and/or non-invasive ventilation (7% vs. 37%) after July 1. Respective estimated probabilities (95% confidence intervals) of 90-day mortality were 36% (27-47%) and 48% (37-60%) during the first and the second periods. After adjusting for confounders, probability of 90-day mortality was significantly higher for patients treated after July 1 (HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.02-5.07). ECMO-related complications did not differ between study periods. CONCLUSIONS: 90-day mortality of ECMO-supported COVID-19-ARDS patients increased significantly after July 1, 2020, and was no longer comparable to that of non-COVID ECMO-treated patients. Failure of prolonged non-invasive oxygenation strategies before intubation and increased lung damage may partly explain this outcome.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/mortality , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/trends , Hospitalization/trends , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Severity of Illness Index , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Intensive Care Units/trends , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Paris/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL