Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
Acute Crit Care ; 38(2): 172-181, 2023 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232988

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of positive pressure ventilation, central venous pressure (CVP) and inflammation on the occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) have been poorly described in mechanically ventilated patient secondary to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This was a monocenter retrospective cohort study of consecutive ventilated COVID-19 patients admitted in a French surgical intensive care unit between March 2020 and July 2020. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as development of a new AKI or a persistent AKI during the 5 days after mechanical ventilation initiation. We studied the association between WRF and ventilatory parameters including positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), CVP, and leukocytes count. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included, 12 (21%) presented WRF. Daily PEEP, 5 days mean PEEP and daily CVP values were not associated with occurrence of WRF. 5 days mean CVP was higher in the WRF group compared to patients without WRF (median [IQR], 12 mm Hg [11-13] vs. 10 mm Hg [9-12]; P=0.03). Multivariate models with adjustment on leukocytes and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II confirmed the association between CVP value and risk of WRF (odd ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-4.33). Leukocytes count was also associated with occurrence of WRF in the WRF group (14 G/L [11-18]) and the no-WRF group (9 G/L [8-11]) (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, PEEP levels did not appear to influence occurrence of WRF. High CVP levels and leukocytes count are associated with risk of WRF.

2.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 2023 May 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20232594

ABSTRACT

AIMS: STRONG-HF examined a high-intensity care (HIC) strategy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and close follow-up after acute heart failure (AHF) admission. We assess the role of age on efficacy and safety of HIC. METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalized AHF patients, not treated with optimal GDMT were randomized to HIC or usual care. The primary endpoint of 180-day death or HF readmission occurred equally in older (>65 years, n = 493, 74 ± 5 years) and younger patients (53 ± 11 years, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.43, p = 0.89). Older patients received slightly lower GDMT to day 21, but same doses at day 90 and 180. The effect of HIC on the primary endpoint was numerically higher in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) than older patients (aHR 0.73, 95% CI 0.46-1.15, adjusted interaction p = 0.30), partially related to COVID-19 deaths. After exclusion of COVID-19 deaths, the effect of HIC was similar in younger (aHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.82) and older patients (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.32-1.02, adjusted interaction p = 0.56), with no treatment-by-age interaction (interaction p = 0.57). HIC induced larger improvements in quality of life to day 90 in younger (EQ-VAS adjusted-mean difference 5.51, 95% CI 3.20-7.82) than in older patients (1.77, 95% CI -0.75 to 4.29, interaction p = 0.032). HIC was associated with similar rates of adverse events in older and younger patients. CONCLUSION: High-intensity care after AHF was safe and resulted in a significant reduction of all-cause death or HF readmission at 180 days across the study age spectrum. Older patients have smaller benefits in terms of quality of life.

3.
Sci Rep ; 12(1): 17508, 2022 Oct 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2077109

ABSTRACT

Since January 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has severely affected hospital systems worldwide. In Europe, the first 3 epidemic waves (periods) have been the most severe in terms of number of infected and hospitalized patients. There are several descriptions of the demographic and clinical profiles of patients with COVID-19, but few studies of their hospital pathways. We used transition matrices, constructed from Markov chains, to illustrate the transition probabilities between different hospital wards for 90,834 patients between March 2020 and July 2021 managed in Paris area. We identified 3 epidemic periods (waves) during which the number of hospitalized patients was significantly high. Between the 3 periods, the main differences observed were: direct admission to ICU, from 14 to 18%, mortality from ICU, from 28 to 24%, length of stay (alive patients), from 9 to 7 days from CH and from 18 to 10 days from ICU. The proportion of patients transferred from CH to ICU remained stable. Understanding hospital pathways of patients is crucial to better monitor and anticipate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on health system.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Intensive Care Units , Retrospective Studies , Hospital Mortality
5.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(7): 700-714, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1886186

ABSTRACT

Unique challenges arise when conducting trials to evaluate therapies already in common clinical use, including difficulty enrolling patients owing to widespread open-label use of trial therapies and the need for large sample sizes to detect small but clinically meaningful treatment effects. Despite numerous successes in trials evaluating novel interventions such as vaccines, traditional explanatory trials have struggled to provide definitive answers to time-sensitive questions for acutely ill patients with COVID-19. Pragmatic trials, which can increase efficiency by allowing some or all trial procedures to be embedded into clinical care, are increasingly proposed as a means to evaluate therapies that are in common clinical use. In this Personal View, we use two concurrently conducted COVID-19 trials of hydroxychloroquine (the US ORCHID trial and the UK RECOVERY trial) to contrast the effects of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs on trial conduct, trial results, and the care of patients managed outside of clinical trials. In view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of explanatory and pragmatic trial designs, we make recommendations for their optimal use in the evaluation of therapies in the acute care setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Research Design
7.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): 1717-1725, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1232230

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Immunologic Factors/analysis , Kinetics , Sepsis/complications , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Sepsis/epidemiology , Sepsis/immunology
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