Nicotine patches in patients on mechanical ventilation for severe COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial.

PURPOSE: Epidemiologic studies have documented lower rates of active smokers compared to former or non-smokers in symptomatic patients affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the efficacy and safety of nicotine administered by a transdermal patch in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 18 intensive care units in France, we randomly assigned adult patients (non-smokers, non-vapers or who had quit smoking/vaping for at least 12 months) with proven COVID-19 pneumonia receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for up to 72 h to receive transdermal patches containing either nicotine at a daily dose of 14 mg or placebo until 48 h following successful weaning from mechanical ventilation or for a maximum of 30 days, followed by 3-week dose tapering by 3.5 mg per week. Randomization was stratified by centre, non- or former smoker status and Sequential Organ Function Assessment score (< or ≥ 7). The primary outcome was day-28 mortality. Main prespecified secondary outcomes included 60-day mortality, time to successful extubation, days alive and free from mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressor support or organ failure at day 28. RESULTS: Between November 6th 2020, and April 2nd 2021, 220 patients were randomized from 18 active recruiting centers. After excluding 2 patients who withdrew consent, 218 patients (152 [70%] men) were included in the analysis: 106 patients to the nicotine group and 112 to the placebo group. Day-28 mortality did not differ between the two groups (30 [28%] of 106 patients in the nicotine group vs 31 [28%] of 112 patients in the placebo group; odds ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval, CI 0.57-1.87]; p = 0.46). The median number of day-28 ventilator-free days was 0 (IQR 0-14) in the nicotine group and 0 (0-13) in the placebo group (with a difference estimate between the medians of 0 [95% CI -3-7]). Adverse events likely related to nicotine were rare (3%) and similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients having developed severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, transdermal nicotine did not significantly reduce day-28 mortality. There is no indication to use nicotine in this situation.

A three-step support strategy for relatives of patients dying in the intensive care unit: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In relatives of patients dying in intensive care units (ICUs), inadequate team support can increase the prevalence of prolonged grief and other psychological harm. We aimed to evaluate whether a proactive communication and support intervention would improve relatives' outcomes. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial in 34 ICUs in France, to compare standard care with a physician-driven, nurse-aided, three-step support strategy for families throughout the dying process, following a decision to withdraw or withhold life support. Inclusion criteria were relatives of patients older than 18 years with an ICU length of stay 2 days or longer. Participating ICUs were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) into an intervention cluster and a control cluster. The randomisation scheme was generated centrally by a statistician not otherwise involved in the study, using permutation blocks of non-released size. In the intervention group, three meetings were held with relatives: a family conference to prepare the relatives for the imminent death, an ICU-room visit to provide active support, and a meeting after the patient's death to offer condolences and closure. ICUs randomly assigned to the control group applied their best standard of care in terms of support and communication with relatives of dying patients. The primary endpoint was the proportion of relatives with prolonged grief (measured with PG-13, score ≥30) 6 months after the death. Analysis was by intention to treat, with the bereaved relatives as the unit of observation. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02955992. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2017, and Oct 8, 2019, we enrolled 484 relatives of ICU patients to the intervention group and 391 to the control group. 379 (78%) relatives in the intervention group and 309 (79%) in the control group completed the 6-month interview to measure the primary endpoint. The intervention significantly reduced the number of relatives with prolonged grief symptoms (66 [21%] vs 57 [15%]; p=0·035) and the median PG-13 score was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group (19 [IQR 14-26] vs 21 [15-29], mean difference 2·5, 95% CI 1·04-3·95). INTERPRETATION: Among relatives of patients dying in the ICU, a physician-driven, nurse-aided, three-step support strategy significantly reduced prolonged grief symptoms. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Rare paraneoplastic syndrome of prostatic cancer: limbic encephalitis: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Limbic encephalitis is an autoimmune neurologic disorder, often of paraneoplastic origin, that seldom complicates prostatic tumors. The nonspecificity of symptoms makes the diagnosis sometimes difficult to establish. Prognosis is essentially determined by comorbidities and sensorineural and cognitive sequelae. CLINICAL CASE: A 66-year-old Caucasian patient known to have prostatic small-cell neuroendocrine adenocarcinoma under hormonal therapy developed complex partial epileptic seizures associated with rapidly aggravating severe memory impairment. The tripod of autoimmune limbic encephalitis diagnosis was based on the clinical aspect of brain's functional deterioration, electroencephalography aspect, and γ-aminobutyric acid type B anti-receptor antibody positivity. Clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic management as well as evolutionary risks were further analyzed. CONCLUSION: Limbic encephalitis is an extremely rare presentation of neurologic paraneoplastic syndromes. A better knowledge of this entity would help better manage diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties and reduce the risk of possible sequelae.

When a Ventilator Takes Autonomous Decisions without Seeking Approbation nor Warning Clinicians: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Complexity and functions of automated medical devices used to support life (eg, ventilators, dialysis machines, monitors, insulin pump with continuous blood glucose monitoring system, etc.) increase over time. Until recently, devices were partially automated by very simple feedback loops, with no or few software dependence (such as the simplest home thermostat). For the last two decades, devices have been increasingly driven by complex algorithms devoted to improve patient's treatment and monitoring as well as users experience. METHODS: We report the unexpected and inappropriate operation of two recent ventilators, associated to potential harmful consequences. We provide both a description of the clinical situations (five ICU patients, archetypal situations) and a test bench analysis. RESULTS: While set in volume mode, these ventilators activated an algorithm dedicated to limit airway pressure when an increase in airway resistance occurred. In such situations, a pressure-like mode was activated (with decelerating inspiratory flow and set pressure, with target of volume). The main consequences observed were that the tidal volume was no longer guaranteed or delivered and that the pressure limitation operated by the algorithm prevented the airway pressure from reaching the high-pressure alarm threshold. CONCLUSION: This led to the silent takeover of commands by the ventilator without clinicians or nurses being aware of it and without any warnings or alarms emission adapted to the severity of the event. Generally speaking, such an algorithm questions the place of automation and its limit when users are not aware of its presence as well as the need for regulation and additional tests before its implementation. Intensivists and respiratory care specialists should remain vigilant regarding the risk of rare but critical events related to unexpected functioning or insufficiently tested equipment during the pre-clinical development phases. They should not neglect misunderstood critical events without having performed sufficient investigations.