Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: In case of COVID-19 related scarcity of critical care resources, an early French triage algorithm categorized critically ill patients by probability of survival based on medical history and severity, with four priority levels for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1 -high priority, P2 -intermediate priority, P3 -not needed, P4 -not appropriate. This retrospective multi-center study aimed to assess its classification performance and its ability to help saving lives under capacity saturation. METHODS: ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 without triage in spring 2020 were retrospectively included from three hospitals. Demographic data, medical history and severity items were collected. Priority levels were retrospectively allocated at ICU admission and on ICU day 7-10. Mortality rate, cumulative incidence of death and of alive ICU discharge, length of ICU stay and of mechanical ventilation were compared between priority levels. Calculated mortality and survival were compared between full simulated triage and no triage. RESULTS: 225 patients were included, aged 63.1±11.9 years. Median SAPS2 was 40 (IQR 29-49). At the end of follow-up, 61 (27%) had died, 26 were still in ICU, and 138 had been discharged. Following retrospective initial priority allocation, mortality rate was 53% among P4 patients (95CI 34-72%) versus 23% among all P1 to P3 patients (95CI 17-30%, chi-squared p = 5.2e-4). The cumulative incidence of death consistently increased in the order P3, P1, P2 and P4 both at admission (Gray's test p = 3.1e-5) and at reassessment (p = 8e-5), and conversely for that of alive ICU discharge. Reassessment strengthened consistency. Simulation under saturation showed that this two-step triage protocol could have saved 28 to 40 more lives than no triage. CONCLUSION: Although it cannot eliminate potentially avoidable deaths, this triage protocol proved able to adequately prioritize critical care for patients with highest probability of survival, hence to save more lives if applied.

Inhaled amikacin versus placebo to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: the AMIKINHAL double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Pre-emptive inhaled antibiotics may be effective to reduce the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients. Meta-analysis of small sample size trials showed a favourable signal. Inhaled antibiotics are associated with a reduced emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the benefit of a 3-day course of inhaled antibiotics among patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 3 days on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Academic, investigator-initiated, parallel two group arms, double-blind, multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial. Patients invasively ventilated more than 3 days will be randomised to receive 20 mg/kg inhaled amikacin daily for 3 days or inhaled placebo (0.9% Sodium Chloride). Occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia will be recorded based on a standardised diagnostic framework from randomisation to day 28 and adjudicated by a centralised blinded committee. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol and amendments have been approved by the regional ethics review board and French competent authorities (Comité de protection des personnes Ouest I, No.2016-R29). All patients will be included after informed consent according to French law. Results will be disseminated in international scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2016-001054-17 and NCT03149640.

Evaluation of Humoral Immunity to SARS-CoV-2: Diagnostic Value of a New Multiplex Addressable Laser Bead Immunoassay.

Despite efforts to develop anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody (Ab) immunoassays, reliable serological methods are still needed. We developed a multiplex addressable laser bead immunoassay (ALBIA) to detect and quantify anti-Spike S1 and nucleocapsid N Abs. Recombinant S1 and N proteins were bound to fluorescent beads (ALBIA-IgG-S1/N). Abs were revealed using class-specific anti-human Ig Abs. The performances of the test were analyzed on 575 serum samples including 192 from SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction-confirmed patients, 13 from seasonal coronaviruses, 70 from different inflammatory/autoimmune diseases, and 300 from healthy donors. Anti-S1 IgM were detected by monoplex ALBIA-IgM-S1. Comparison with chemiluminescent assays or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays was performed using commercial tests. Multiplex ALBIA-IgG-S1/N was effective in detecting and quantifying anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG Abs. Two weeks after first symptoms, sensitivity and specificity were 97.7 and 98.0% (anti-S1), and 100 and 98.7% (anti-N), respectively. Agreement with commercial tests was good to excellent, with a higher sensitivity of ALBIA. ALBIA-IgG-S1/N was positive in 53% of patients up to day 7, and in 75% between days 7 and 13. For ALBIA-IgM-S1, sensitivity and specificity were 74.4 and 98.7%, respectively. Patients in intensive care units had higher IgG Ab levels (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). ALBIA provides a robust method for exploring humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Serology should be performed after 2 weeks following first symptoms, when all COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) patients had at least one anti-S1 or anti-N IgG Ab, illustrating the interest of a multiplex test.

Association of Social Network Use With Increased Anxiety Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Anesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Emergency Medicine Teams: Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Critical care teams are on the front line of managing the COVID-19 pandemic, which is stressful for members of these teams. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess whether the use of social networks is associated with increased anxiety related to the COVID-19 pandemic among members of critical care teams. METHODS: We distributed a web-based survey to physicians, residents, registered and auxiliary nurses, and nurse anesthetists providing critical care (anesthesiology, intensive care, or emergency medicine) in several French hospitals. The survey evaluated the respondents' use of social networks, their sources of information on COVID-19, and their levels of anxiety and information regarding COVID-19 on analog scales from 0 to 10. RESULTS: We included 641 respondents in the final analysis; 553 (86.3%) used social networks, spending a median time of 60 minutes (IQR 30-90) per day on these networks. COVID-19-related anxiety was higher in social network users than in health care workers who did not use these networks (median 6, IQR 5-8 vs median 5, IQR 3-7) in univariate (P=.02) and multivariate (P<.001) analyses, with an average anxiety increase of 10% in social network users. Anxiety was higher among health care workers using social networks to obtain information on COVID-19 than among those using other sources (median 6, IQR 5-8 vs median 6, IQR 4-7; P=.04). Social network users considered that they were less informed about COVID-19 than those who did not use social networks (median 8, IQR 7-9 vs median 7, IQR 6-8; P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that social networks contribute to increased anxiety in critical care teams. To protect their mental health, critical care professionals should consider limiting their use of these networks during the COVID-19 pandemic.