Search

Introduction: Although largely used, the place of oxygen therapy and its devices in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF) deserves to be clarified. The French Intensive Care Society (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, SRLF) and the French Emergency Medicine Society (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence, SFMU) organized a consensus conference on oxygen therapy in ARF (excluding acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive diseases) in December 2023. Methods: A committee without any conflict of interest (CoI) with the subject defined 7 generic questions and drew up a list of sub questions according to the population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) model. An independent work group reviewed the literature using predefined keywords. The quality of the data was assessed using the GRADE methodology. Fifteen experts in the field from both societies proposed their own answers in a public session and answered questions from the jury (a panel of 16 critical-care and emergency medicine physicians, nurses and physiotherapists without any CoI) and the public. The jury then met alone for 48 h to write its recommendations. Results: The jury provided 22 statements answering 11 questions: in patients with ARF (1) What are the criteria for initiating oxygen therapy? (2) What are the targets of oxygen saturation? (3) What is the role of blood gas analysis? (4) When should an arterial catheter be inserted? (5) Should standard oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) be preferred? (6) What are the indications for non-invasive ventilation (NIV)? (7) What are the indications for invasive mechanical ventilation? (8) Should awake prone position be used? (9) What is the role of physiotherapy? (10) Which criteria necessarily lead to ICU admission? (11) Which oxygenation device should be preferred for patients for whom a do-not-intubate decision has been made? Conclusion: These recommendations should optimize the use of oxygen during ARF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of virtual reality (VR) in healthcare education is on the increase. In disaster medicine, it could be a solution to the cost and logistic constraints for a "full-scale" scenarios. However, VR is mainly designed for single players, which is not appropriate for the objectives pursued in disaster medicine. We decided to evaluate the educational value of using individual VR simulation in disaster medicine on a group of learners. Methods: The VR scenario used was a reproduction of a major train crash, with 21 victims and whose objectives were START triage and first aid techniques. The sessions were carried out in multi-participant groups with different roles (active and immersed with headset, paper triage without headset, and active for communications not immersed in the headset). Their perceived self-efficacy was assessed before (T0), after (T1) and 2 months (T2) after the training. Satisfaction and confidence in learning were also measured. Results: The median levels of satisfaction and confidence in learning were of 21/25 and 32/40 respectively. Their perceived self-efficacy increased significantly between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001), and remained stable until T2. The different roles of participant showed no difference in terms of satisfaction, confidence in learning or changes in perceived self-efficacy. One third of the participants agreed that the number of participants had interfered with their learning. A significant negative correlation (rS = -0.51, p = 0.002) was found between satisfaction and the fact of having been hindered by the number of participants. Around 90% of participants found the activity entertaining and found the new technologies appropriate for learning technical skills. Conclusions: This first experience of VR in a group setting is satisfactory and shows its positive effects. The limitations highlighted here will enable areas of improvement to be identified for the use of VR in disaster medicine, pending the development of multi-player tools. It would now be appropriate to analyse the impact of this type of simulation on learning and its retention over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Lymphocytes and CRP have been reported as markers of interest. We chose to investigate the prognostic value of the LCR ratio as a marker of severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection. Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate and severe coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), all of whom were hospitalized after being admitted to the Emergency Department (ED). We conducted our study in six major hospitals of northeast France, one of the outbreak's epicenters in Europe. A total of 1035 patients with COVID-19 were included in our study. Around three-quarters of them (76.2%) presented a moderate form of the disease, while the remaining quarter (23.8%) presented a severe form requiring admission to the ICU. At ED admission, the median LCR was significantly lower in the group presenting severe disease compared to that with moderate disease (versus 6.24 (3.24–12) versus 12.63 ((6.05–31.67)), p < 0.001). However, LCR was neither associated with disease severity (OR: 0.99, CI 95% (0.99–1)), p = 0.476) nor mortality (OR: 0.99, CI 95% (0.99–1)). In the ED, LCR, although modest, with a threshold of 12.63, was a predictive marker for severe forms of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The overloading of health care systems is an international problem. In this context, new tools such as symptom checker (SC) are emerging to improve patient orientation and triage. This SC should be rigorously evaluated and we can take a cue from the way we evaluate medical students, using objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) with simulated patients. Objective: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of a symptom checker versus emergency physicians using OSCEs as an assessment method. Methods: We explored a method to evaluate the ability to set a diagnosis and evaluate the emergency of a situation with simulation. A panel of medical experts wrote 220 simulated patients cases. Each situation was played twice by an actor trained to the role: once for the SC, then for an emergency physician. Like a teleconsultation, only the patient's voice was accessible. We performed a prospective non-inferiority study. If primary analysis had failed to detect non-inferiority, we have planned a superiority analysis. Results: The SC established only 30% of the main diagnosis as the emergency physician found 81% of these. The emergency physician was also superior compared to the SC in the suggestion of secondary diagnosis (92% versus 52%). In the matter of patient triage (vital emergency or not), there is still a medical superiority (96% versus 71%). We prove a non-inferiority of the SC compared to the physician in terms of interviewing time. Conclusions and relevance: We should use simulated patients instead of clinical cases in order to evaluate the effectiveness of SCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We have previously surveyed a panel of 508 physicians from around the world about which biomarkers would be relevant if obtained in a very short time frame, corresponding to emergency situations (life-threatening or not). The biomarkers that emerged from this study were markers of cardiovascular disease: troponin, D-dimers, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Cardiovascular disease is a group of disorders affecting the heart and blood vessels. At the intersection of medicine, basic research and engineering, biosensors that address the need for rapid biological analysis could find a place of choice in the hospital or primary care ecosystem. Rapid, reliable, and inexpensive analysis with a multi-marker approach, including machine learning analysis for patient risk analysis, could meet the demand of medical teams. The objective of this opinion review, proposed by a multidisciplinary team of experts (physicians, biologists, market access experts, and engineers), is to present cases where a rapid biological response is indeed valuable, to provide a short overview of current biosensor technologies for cardiac biomarkers designed for a short result time, and to discuss existing market access issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Understanding hypoxemia, with and without the clinical signs of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in COVID-19, is key for management. Hence, from a population of critical patients admitted to the emergency department (ED), we aimed to study silent hypoxemia (Phenotype I) in comparison to symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF (Phenotype II). Methods: This multicenter study was conducted between 1 March and 30 April 2020. Adult patients who were presented to the EDs of nine Great-Eastern French hospitals for confirmed severe or critical COVID-19, who were then directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), were retrospectively included. Results: A total of 423 critical COVID-19 patients were included, out of whom 56.1% presented symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF, whereas 43.9% presented silent hypoxemia. Patients with clinical phenotype II were primarily intubated, initially, in the ED (46%, p < 0.001), whereas those with silent hypoxemia (56.5%, p < 0.001) were primarily intubated in the ICU. Initial univariate analysis revealed higher ICU mortality (29.2% versus 18.8%, p < 0.014) and in-hospital mortality (32.5% versus 18.8%, p < 0.002) in phenotype II. However, multivariate analysis showed no significant differences between the two phenotypes regarding mortality and hospital or ICU length of stay. Conclusions: Silent hypoxemia is explained by various mechanisms, most physiological and unspecific to COVID-19. Survival was found to be comparable in both phenotypes, with decreased survival in favor of Phenotype II. However, the spectrum of silent to symptomatic hypoxemia appears to include a continuum of disease progression, which can brutally evolve into fatal ARF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Introduction: In the present study, we investigate the prognostic value of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as a marker of severity and mortality in COVID-19 infection. (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients with moderate to severe coronavirus 19 (COVID-19), all of whom were hospitalized after being admitted to the emergency department (ED). (3) Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in our study. Neither lymphocytes, platelets or PLR were associated with disease severity. Lymphocyte count was significantly lower and PLR values were significantly higher in the group of patients who died, and both were associated with mortality in the univariate analysis (OR: 0.524, 95% CI: (0.336–0.815), p = 0.004) and (OR: 1.001, 95% CI: (1.000–1.001), p = 0.042), respectively. However, the only biological parameter significantly associated with mortality in the multivariate analysis was platelet count (OR: 0.996, 95% CI: (0.996–1.000), p = 0.027). The best PLR value for predicting mortality in COVID-19 was 356.6 (OR: 3.793, 95% CI: (1.946–7.394), p < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: A high PLR value is however associated with excess mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Introduction: Multiple studies have demonstrated that lymphocyte count monitoring is a valuable prognostic tool for clinicians during inflammation. The aim of our study was to determine the prognostic value of delta lymphocyte H24 from admission from the emergency department for mortality and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (2) Methods: We have made a retrospective and multicentric study in six major hospitals of northeastern France. The patients were hospitalized and had a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. (3): Results: A total of 1035 patients were included in this study. Factors associated with infection severity were CRP > 100 mg/L (OR: 2.51, CI 95%: (1.40–3.71), p < 0.001) and lymphopenia < 800/mm3 (OR: 2.15, CI 95%: (1.42–3.27), p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, delta lymphocytes H24 (i.e., the difference between lymphocytes values at H24 and upon admission to the ED) < 135 was one of the most significant biochemical factors associated with mortality (OR: 2.23, CI 95%: (1.23–4.05), p = 0.009). The most accurate threshold for delta lymphocytes H24 was 75 to predict severity and 135 for mortality. (4) Conclusion: Delta lymphocytes H24 could be a helpful early screening prognostic biomarker to predict severity and mortality associated with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: For the past two years, healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Several studies tried to find predictive factors of mortality in COVID-19 patients. We aimed to research age as a predictive factor associated with in-hospital mortality in severe and critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: Between 1 March and 20 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients who were all hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We led our study in nine hospitals of northeast France, one of the pandemic's epicenters in Europe. Results: The median age of our study population was 66 years (58–72 years). Mortality was 24.6% (CI 95%: 20.6–29%) in the ICU and 26.5% (CI 95%: 22.3–31%) in the hospital. Non-survivors were significantly older (69 versus 64 years, p < 0.001) than the survivors. Although a history of cardio-vascular diseases was more frequent in the non-survivor group (p = 0.015), other underlying conditions and prior level of autonomy did not differ between the two groups. On multivariable analysis, age appeared to be an interesting predictive factor of in-hospital mortality. Thus, age ranges of 65 to 74 years (OR = 2.962, CI 95%: 1.231–7.132, p = 0.015) were predictive of mortality, whereas the group of patients aged over 75 years was not (OR = 3.084, CI 95%: 0.952–9.992, p = 0.06). Similarly, all comorbidities except for immunodeficiency (OR = 4.207, CI 95%: 1.006–17.586, p = 0.049) were not predictive of mortality. Finally, survival follow-up was obtained for the study population. Conclusion: Age appears to be a relevant predictive factor of in-hospital mortality in cases of severe or critical SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Sleep trackers are used widely by patients with sleep complaints, however their metrological validation is often poor and relies on healthy subjects. We assessed the metrological validity of two commercially available sleep trackers (Withings Activité/Fitbit Alta HR) through a prospective observational monocentric study, in adult patients referred for polysomnography (PSG). We compared the total sleep time (TST), REM time, REM latency, nonREM1 + 2 time, nonREM3 time, and wake after sleep onset (WASO). We report absolute and relative errors, Bland–Altman representations, and a contingency table of times spent in sleep stages with respect to PSG. Sixty‐five patients were included (final sample size 58 for Withings and 52 for Fitbit). Both devices gave a relatively accurate sleep start time with a median absolute error of 5 (IQR −43; 27) min for Withings and −2.0 (−12.5; 4.2) min for Fitbit but both overestimated TST. Withings tended to underestimate WASO with a median absolute error of −25.0 (−61.5; −8.5) min, while Fitbit tended to overestimate it (median absolute error 10 (−18; 43) min. Withings underestimated light sleep and overestimated deep sleep, while Fitbit overestimated light and REM sleep and underestimated deep sleep. The overall kappas for concordance of each epoch between PSG and devices were low: 0.12 (95%CI 0.117–0.121) for Withings and VPSG indications 0.07 (95%CI 0.067–0.071) for Fitbit, as well as kappas for each VPSG indication 0.07 (95%CI 0.067–0.071). Thus, commercially available sleep trackers are not reliable for sleep architecture in patients with sleep complaints/pathologies and should not replace actigraphy and/or PSG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Context: The management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is based on a rapid diagnosis. The aim of this study was to focus on the ACS symptoms differences according to gender, in order to contribute to the improvement of knowledge regarding the clinical presentation in women. (2) Methods: We searched for relevant literature in two electronic databases, and analyzed the symptom presentation for patients with suspected ACS. Fifteen prospective studies were included, with a total sample size of 10,730. (3) Results: During a suspected ACS, women present more dyspnea, arm pain, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, palpitations and pain at the shoulder than men, with RR (95%CI) of 1.13 [1.10; 1.17], 1.30 [1.05; 1.59], 1,40 [1.26; 1.56], 1.08 [1.01; 1.16], 1.67 [1.49; 1.86], 1.78 [1.02; 3.13], respectively. They are older by (95%CI) 4.15 [2.28; 6.03] years compared to men. The results are consistent in the analysis of the ACS confirmed subgroup. (4) Conclusions: We have shown that there is a gender-based symptomatic difference and a female presentation for ACS. The "typical" or "atypical" semiology of ACS symptoms should no longer be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Backround: Technological advances should foster gains in physicians' efficiency. For example, a reduction of the medical decision time can be enabled by faster biological tests. The main objective of this study was to collect responses from an international panel of physicians on their needs for biomarkers and also to convey the improvement in the outcome to be made possible by the potential development of fast diagnostic tests for these biomarkers. (2) Methods: we distributed a questionnaire on the Internet to physicians. (3) Results: 508 physicians participated in this survey. The mean age was 38 years. General practice and emergency medicine were heavily represented, with 95% CIs of 44% (39.78, 48.41) and 32% (27.84, 35.94)), respectively. The two most represented countries were France (95% CI: 74% (70.20, 77.83)) and the USA (95% CI: 11% (8.65, 14.18)). Ninety-eight percentages of the physicians thought that obtaining cited biomarkers more quickly would be beneficial to their practice and to patient's care. The main biomarkers of interest identified by our panel were troponin (95% CI: 51% (46.24, 54.94)), C-reactive protein (95% CI: 42% (38.03, 46.62)), D-dimer (95% CI: 29% (24.80, 32.68)), and brain natriuretic peptide (95% CI: 13% (10.25, 16.13)). (4) Conclusions: Our study highlights the real technological need for fast biomarker results, which could be provided by biosensors. The relevance of some answers such as troponin is questionable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(1) Introduction: According to recent studies, the ratio of C-reactive-protein to lymphocyte is more sensitive and specific than other biomarkers associated to systemic inflammatory processes. This study aimed to determine the prognostic value of CLR on COVID-19 severity and mortality at emergency department (ED) admission. (2) Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we carried out a multicenter and retrospective study in six major hospitals of northeast France. The cohort was composed of patients hospitalized for a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. (3) Results: A total of 1,035 patients were included in this study. Factors associated with infection severity were the CLR (OR: 1.001, CI 95%: (1.000–1.002), p = 0.012), and the lymphocyte level (OR: 1.951, CI 95%: (1.024–3.717), p = 0.042). In multivariate analysis, the only biochemical factor significantly associated with mortality was lymphocyte rate (OR: 2.308, CI 95%: (1.286–4.141), p = 0.005). The best threshold of CLR to predict the severity of infection was 78.3 (sensitivity 79%; specificity 47%), and to predict mortality, was 159.5 (sensitivity 48%; specificity 70%). (4) Conclusion: The CLR at admission to the ED could be a helpful prognostic biomarker in the early screening and prediction of the severity and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]