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]

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]

Introduction: Healthcare systems worldwide have been battling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Eosinophils are multifunctional leukocytes implicated in the pathogenesis of several inflammatory processes including viral infections. We focus our study on the prognostic value of eosinopenia as a marker of disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Between 1 March and 30 April 2020, we conducted a multicenter and retrospective study on a cohort of COVID-19 patients (moderate or severe disease) who were hospitalized after presenting to the emergency department (ED). We led our study in six major hospitals of northeast France, one of the outbreak's epicenters in Europe. Results: We have collected data from 1035 patients, with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. More than 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 intensive care unit (ICU). Mean circulating eosinophils rate, at admission, varied according to disease severity (p < 0.001), yet it did not differ between survivors and non-survivors (p = 0.306). Extreme eosinopenia (=0/mm3) was predictive of severity (aOR = 1.77, p = 0.009); however, it was not predictive of mortality (aOR = 0.892, p = 0.696). The areas under the Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were, respectively, 58.5% (CI95%: 55.3–61.7%) and 51.4% (CI95%: 46.8–56.1%) for the ability of circulating eosinophil rates to predict disease severity and mortality. Conclusion: Eosinopenia is very common and often profound in cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Eosinopenia was not a useful predictor of mortality; however, undetectable eosinophils (=0/mm3) were predictive of disease severity during the initial ED management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. Our study aims to describe the characteristics and therapeutic emergency mobile service (EMS) management of patients with vital distress due to COVID-19, their in-hospital care pathway and their in-hospital outcome. Methods: This retrospective and multicentric study was conducted in the six main centers of the French Greater East region, an area heavily impacted by the pandemic. All patients requiring EMS dispatch and who were admitted straight to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included. Clinical data from their pre-hospital and hospital management were retrieved. Results: We included a total of 103 patients (78.6% male, median age 68). In the initial stage, patients were in a critical condition (median oxygen saturation was 72% (60–80%)). In the field, 77.7% (CI 95%: 71.8–88.3%) were intubated. Almost half of our population (45.6%, CI 95%: 37.1–56.9%) had clinical Phenotype 1 (silent hypoxemia), while the remaining half presented Phenotype 2 (acute respiratory failure). In the ICU, a great number had ARDS (77.7%, CI 95% 71.8–88.3% with a PaO2/FiO2 < 200). In-hospital mortality was 33% (CI 95%: 24.6–43.3%). The two phenotypes showed clinical and radiological differences (respiratory rate, OR = 0.98, p = 0.02; CT scan lesion extension >50%, OR = 0.76, p < 0.03). However, no difference was found in terms of overall in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.07, p = 0.74). Conclusion: The clinical phenotypes appear to be very distinguishable in the pre-hospital field, yet no difference was found in terms of mortality. This leads us to recommend an identical management in the initial phase, despite the two distinct presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]