Search

Purpose: Despite systemic thrombolysis, a few patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remain hemodynamically unstable. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a considerable lifesaving therapy but systemic thrombolysis before cannulation could carry a high risk of hemorrhage and alter the prognosis. Methods: Between June 2012 and June 2023, we retrospectively analyzed from three intensive care units in Sorbonne University, ECMO-related complications and 90-day mortality for high-risk PE patients who received ECMO without previous systemic thrombolysis compared to those cannulated after systemic thrombolysis failure. Hospital discharge survivors were assessed for long-term health-related quality of life and echocardiographic evaluations. Results: 72 high-risk PE patients [median age 48 (37–61) years, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) 74 (60–85)] were placed on VA-ECMO for 5 (5–7) days. 31 (43%) patients underwent pre-ECMO thrombolysis (thrombolysis ECMO group, T +) compared to 41 patients (57%, no thrombolysis ECMO group, T−). There was more pre-ECMO cardiac arrest in the thrombolysis ECMO group (94% vs. 67%, p = 0.02). Ninety-day survival was not different between groups (39% vs 46%, log-rank test, p = 0.31). There was no difference in severe hemorrhages (61% vs 59%, p = 1). Twenty-five over 28 patients attended follow-up at a median time of 69 (52–95) months. Long-term quality of life was acceptable and none of them experienced chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Conclusions: Ninety-day survival and bleeding events rates did not differ in patients treated with VA-ECMO after systemic thrombolysis compared to those who were not. Recent systemic thrombolysis, as a single parameter, should not be considered as a contraindication for VA-ECMO in high-risk PE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some publications suggest that pulse oximetry measurement (SpO2) might overestimate arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) measurement in COVID-19 patients. This study aims to evaluate the agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. We conducted a multicenter, prospective study including consecutive intensive care patients from October 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021, and compared for each measurement the difference between SpO2 and SaO2, also called the systematic bias. The primary endpoint was the agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 measured with the Lin concordance coefficient and illustrated using the Bland and Altman method. Factors associated with systematic bias were then identified using a generalised estimating equation. The study included 105 patients, 66 COVID-19 positive and 39 COVID-19 negative, allowing for 1539 measurements. The median age was 66 [57; 72] years with median SOFA and SAPSII scores of, respectively, 4 [3; 6] and 37 [31; 47]. The median SpO2 and SaO2 among all measurements was respectively 97 [96–99] and 94 [92–96] with a systematic bias of 0.80 [− 0.6; 2.4]. This difference was, respectively, 0.80 [− 0.7; 2.5] and 0.90 [− 0.3; 2.0] among COVID-19 positive and negative patients. Overall agreement measured with the Lin correlation coefficient was 0.65 [0.63; 0.68] with 0.61 [0.57; 0.64] and 0.53 [0.45; 0.60] among the COVID-19 positive and negative groups, respectively. Factors independently associated with the variation of the SpO2-SaO2 difference were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and need for mechanical ventilation. In our population, agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 is acceptable. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SaO2 remains an efficient monitoring tool to characterise the level of hypoxemia and follow therapeutic interventions. As is already known about general intensive care unit patients, the greater hypoxemia, the weaker the correlation between SpO2 and SaO2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Data are scarce regarding the experience of critically ill patients at high risk of death. Identifying their concerns could allow clinicians to better meet their needs and align their end-of-life trajectory with their preferences and values. We aimed to identify concerns expressed by conscious patients at high risk of dying in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Multiple source multicentre study. Concerns expressed by patients were collected from five different sources (literature review, panel of 50 ICU experts, prospective study in 11 ICUs, in-depth interviews with 17 families and 15 patients). All qualitative data collected were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results: The five sources produced 1307 concerns that were divided into 7 domains and 41 sub-domains. After removing redundant items and duplicates, and combining and reformulating similar items, 28 concerns were extracted from the analysis of the data. To increase accuracy, they were merged and consolidated, and resulted in a final list of 15 concerns pertaining to seven domains: concerns about loved-ones; symptom management and care (including team competence, goals of care discussions); spiritual, religious, and existential preoccupations (including regrets, meaning, hope and trust); being oneself (including fear of isolation and of being a burden, absence of hope, and personhood); the need for comforting experiences and pleasure; dying and death (covering emotional and practical concerns); and after death preoccupations. Conclusion: This list of 15 concerns may prove valuable for clinicians as a tool for improving communication and support to better meet the needs of patients at high risk of dying. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aerosolized polymyxins for ventilator-associated pneumonia caused by extensive drug resistant Gram-negative bacteria: class, dose and manner should remain the trifecta As summarized in the figure, using PMB rather than polymyxin E (PME) has several advantages: 1 - PMB is a mixture of 4 polymyxins (PMB1-4), that are concentration-dependent antibiotics directly active against GNB. In countries where both polymyxins are available, nebulized PMB should be preferred to nebulized colistimethate sodium and three arms should be compared: IV PMB, aerosolized PMB and a combination of both. Improving the management of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) represents an unmet clinical need, particularly when caused by carbapenem-resistant organisms, with need to optimize therapy to reduce adverse events, intubation period and length of ICU stay. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: Duration of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) due to non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli (NF-GNB), including Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of a short duration of antibiotics (8 days) vs. prolonged antibiotic therapy (15 days) in VAP due to PA (PA-VAP). Methods: We conducted a nationwide, randomized, open-labeled, multicenter, non-inferiority trial to evaluate optimal duration of antibiotic treatment in PA-VAP. Eligible patients were adults with diagnosis of PA-VAP and randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to receive a short-duration treatment (8 days) or a long-duration treatment (15 days). A pre-specified analysis was used to assess a composite endpoint combining mortality and PA-VAP recurrence rate during hospitalization in the intensive care unit (ICU) within 90 days. Results: The study was stopped after 24 months due to slow inclusion rate. In intention-to-treat population (n = 186), the percentage of patients who reached the composite endpoint was 25.5% (N = 25/98) in the 15-day group versus 35.2% (N = 31/88) in the 8-day group (difference 9.7%, 90% confidence interval (CI) −1.9%–21.2%). The percentage of recurrence of PA-VAP during the ICU stay was 9.2% in the 15-day group versus 17% in the 8-day group. The two groups had similar median days of mechanical ventilation, of ICU stay, number of extra pulmonary infections and acquisition of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens during ICU stay. Conclusions: Our study failed to show the non-inferiority of a short duration of antibiotics in the treatment of PA-VAP, compared to a long duration. The short duration strategy may be associated to an increase of PA-VAP recurrence. However, the lack of power limits the interpretation of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B I Primary and secondary outcomes i b In the ITT population, 25 (25.5%) patients of the 15-day group and 31 (35.2%) patients of the 8-day group had a PA-VAP recurrence or were dead in ICU at 90-day (Table 2, Fig. Correction to: Comparison of 8 versus 15 days of antibiotic therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial Eligible patients were adults with diagnosis of PA-VAP and randomly assigned in 1:1 ratio to receive a short-duration treatment (8 days) or a long-duration treatment (15 days). [Extracted from the article]

Why and when to administer nebulized aminoglycosides and colistin in VAP The main reason for nebulizing aminoglycosides and colistin in VAP is to bypass the alveolar-capillary barrier which offers a severe obstacle to lung penetration following intravenous administration. In comparison to intravenous route, nebulized aminoglycosides and colistin can achieve significantly higher lung tissue concentrations necessary for the effective treatment of VAP due to MDR GNB [[1]]. In 2018, the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (FSAICM) and the French Intensive Care Society (FICS) published guidelines regarding hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in the intensive care unit [[11]], and recommended nebulized colistin and/or aminoglycosides alone in HAP due to MDR GNB susceptible to colistin and/or aminoglycosides, when no other antibiotics can be used. [Extracted from the article]

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. There was a typographical error in Figure 1: "Nebulization time ≤ 30 min" (first light blue square) should be replaced by "Nebulization time ≤ 90 min". The authors apologize for the mistake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine and the French Society of Intensive Care edited guidelines focused on hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in intensive care unit. The goal of 16 French-speaking experts was to produce a framework enabling an easier decision-making process for intensivists. Results: The guidelines were related to 3 specific areas related to HAP (prevention, diagnosis and treatment) in 4 identified patient populations (COPD, neutropenia, post-operative and paediatric). The literature analysis and the formulation of the guidelines were conducted according to the Grade of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. An extensive literature research over the last 10 years was conducted based on publications indexed in PubMed™ and Cochrane™ databases. Conclusions: HAP should be prevented by a standardised multimodal approach and the use of selective digestive decontamination in units where multidrug-resistant bacteria prevalence was below 20%. Diagnosis relies on clinical assessment and microbiological findings. Monotherapy, in the absence of risk factors for multidrug-resistant bacteria, non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli and/or increased mortality (septic shock, organ failure), is strongly recommended. After microbiological documentation, it is recommended to reduce the spectrum and to prefer monotherapy for the antibiotic therapy of HAP, including for non-fermenting Gram-negative bacilli. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]