Efficacy of almitrine as a rescue therapy for refractory hypoxemia in COVID and non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome. A retrospective monocenter study.

BACKGROUND: Almitrine, a drug enhancing hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, has been proposed as a rescue therapy for refractory hypoxemia in Covid related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (C-ARDS). We aimed at investigating the response to almitrine depending on the cause of ARDS (Covid vs Non Covid). METHODS: Monocenter retrospective study from 2014 to 2021. All patients diagnosed with moderate to severe ARDS and treated with almitrine as rescue therapy for refractory hypoxemia were studied. Factor independently associated with oxygenation response to almitrine infusion were determined. RESULTS: 60 patients with ARDS and treated with almitrine were analyzed, 36 (60%) due to SARS-CoV2 infection and 24 (40%) due to other causes. Baseline PaO2/FiO2 was 78 [61-101] mmHg, 76% had at least one prone positioning before the start of almitrine infusion. Median PaO2/FiO2 increased by +38 [7-142] mmHg (+61% [10-151]) after almitrine infusion. PaO2/FiO2 increased by +134 [12-186] mmHg in non-Covid ARDS (NC-ARDS) and by +19 [8-87] mmHg in C-ARDS. The increase in PaO2/FiO2 was lower in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS (p=0.013). In multivariable analysis, C-ARDS, non-invasive ventilation and concomitant use of norepinephrine were independently associated with a decreased oxygenation response to almitrine infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports a highly variable response to almitrine infusion in ARDS patients with refractory hypoxemia. Independent factors associated with a reduced oxygenation response to almitrine infusion were: Covid ARDS, concomitant use of norepinephrine, and non-invasive ventilatory strategy.

Systematic review with meta-analysis of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proadm) as a prognostic marker in Covid-19-hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is useful for risk stratification in patients with sepsis and respiratory infections. The study's purpose was to assess the available data and determine the association between MR-proADM levels and mortality in COVID-19 participants. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of medical electronic databases was performed including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and grey literature for relevant data published from 1 January 2020, to 20 November 2022. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported MR-proADM levels in survivors vs. non-survivors of COVID-19 patients. Pooled analysis showed that MR-proADM level in the survivor group was 0.841 ± 0.295 nmol/L for patients who survive COVID-19, compared to 1.692 ± 0.761 nmol/L for non-survivors (MD = -0.78; 95%CI: -0.92 to -0.64; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of this study is that mortality of COVID-19 is linked to MR-proADM levels, according to this meta-analysis. The use of MR-proADM might be extremely beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary. Nevertheless, in order to confirm the obtained data, it is necessary to conduct large prospective studies that will address the potential diagnostic role of MR-proADM as a marker of COVID-19 severity.KEY MESSAGESSeverity of COVID-19 seems to be linked to MR-proADM levels and can be used as a potential marker for predicting a patient's clinical course.The use of MR-proADM might be beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary.For patients with COVID-19, MR-proADM may be an excellent prognostic indicator because it is a marker of endothelial function that may predict the precise impact on the equilibrium between vascular relaxation and contraction and lowers platelet aggregation inhibitors, coagulation inhibitors, and fibrinolysis activators in favor of clotting factors.

Outcomes of Patients With Active Cancer and COVID-19 in the Intensive-Care Unit: A Multicenter Ambispective Study.

Background: Several studies report an increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer patients. However, data in the intensive care unit (ICU) are scarce. Research Question: We aimed to investigate the association between active cancer and mortality among patients requiring organ support in the ICU. Study Design and Methods: In this ambispective study encompassing 17 hospitals in France, we included all adult active cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring organ support and admitted in ICU. For each cancer patient, we included 3 non cancer patients as controls. Patients were matched at the same ratio using the inverse probability weighting approach based on a propensity score assessing the probability of cancer at admission. Mortality at day 60 after ICU admission was compared between cancer patients and non-cancer patients using primary logistic regression analysis and secondary multivariable analyses. Results: Between March 12, 2020 and March 8, 2021, 2608 patients were admitted with SARS-CoV-2 infection in our study, accounting for 2.8% of the total population of patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted in all French ICUs within the same period. Among them, 105 (n=4%) presented with cancer (51 patients had hematological malignancy and 54 patients had solid tumors). 409 of 420 patients were included in the propensity score matching process, of whom 307 patients in the non-cancer group and 102 patients in the cancer group. 145 patients (35%) died in the ICU at day 60, 59 (56%) with cancer and 86 (27%) without cancer. In the primary logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio for death associated to cancer was 2.3 (95%CI 1.24 - 4.28, p=0.0082) higher for cancer patients than for a non-cancer patient at ICU admission. Exploratory multivariable analyses showed that solid tumor (OR: 2.344 (0.87-6.31), p=0.062) and hematological malignancies (OR: 4.144 (1.24-13.83), p=0.062) were independently associated with mortality. Interpretation: Patients with cancer and requiring ICU admission for SARS-CoV-2 infection had an increased mortality, hematological malignancy harboring the higher risk in comparison to solid tumors.

Timing and causes of death in severe COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies reporting the causes of death in patients with severe COVID-19 have provided conflicting results. The objective of this study was to describe the causes and timing of death in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study in eight ICUs across seven French hospitals. All consecutive adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to the ICU with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory failure were included in the analysis. The causes and timing of ICU deaths were reported based on medical records. RESULTS: From March 1, 2020, to April 28, 287 patients were admitted to the ICU for SARS-CoV-2 related acute respiratory failure. Among them, 93 patients died in the ICU (32%). COVID-19-related multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) was the leading cause of death (37%). Secondary infection-related MODS accounted for 26% of ICU deaths, with a majority of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Refractory hypoxemia/pulmonary fibrosis was responsible for death in 19% of the cases. Fatal ischemic events (venous or arterial) occurred in 13% of the cases. The median time from ICU admission to death was 15 days (25th-75th IQR, 7-27 days). COVID-19-related MODS had a median time from ICU admission to death of 14 days (25th-75th IQR: 7-19 days), while only one death had occurred during the first 3 days since ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: In our multicenter observational study, COVID-19-related MODS and secondary infections were the two leading causes of death, among severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.

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.