Search

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe COVID-19 is common (> 50%). A specific inflammatory process has been suggested in the pathogenesis of AKI, which could be improved by dexamethasone (DXM). In a small monocenter study (n = 100 patients), we reported a potential protective effect of DXM on the risk of AKI. This study aimed to investigate the preventive impact of DXM on AKI in a multicenter study of patients with severe COVID-19., Methods: We conducted a multicenter study in three French ICUs from March 2020 to August 2021. All patients admitted to ICU for severe COVID-19 were included. Individuals with preexistent AKI or DXM administration before admission to ICU were excluded. While never used during the first wave, DXM was used subsequently at ICU entry, providing two treatment groups. Multivariate Cause-specific Cox models taking into account changes in ICU practices over time, were utilized to determine the association between DXM and occurrence of AKI., Results: Seven hundred and ninety-eight patients were included. Mean age was 62.6 ± 12.1 years, 402/798 (50%) patients had hypertension, and 46/798 (6%) had previous chronic kidney disease. Median SOFA was 4 [3-6] and 420/798 (53%) required invasive mechanical ventilation. ICU mortality was 208/798 (26%). AKI was present in 598/798 (75%) patients: 266/598 (38%), 163/598 (27%), and 210/598 (35%) had, respectively, AKI KDIGO 1, 2, 3, and 61/598 (10%) patients required renal replacement therapy. Patients receiving DXM had a significantly decreased hazard of AKI occurrence compared to patients without DXM (HR 0.67; 95CI 0.55-0.81). These results were consistent in analyses that (1) excluded patients with DXM administration to AKI onset delay of less than 12 h, (2) incorporating the different 'waves' of the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusions: DXM was associated with a decrease in the risk of AKI in severe COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. This supports the hypothesis that the inflammatory injury of AKI may be preventable., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the value of hematocrit for monitoring fluid resuscitation of burn patients in the acute phase of their care., Method: We conducted a single-center retrospective study focused on patients admitted with a burn surface of more than 20 % of the total body surface area (TBSA) from 2014 to 2021. We investigated the relationship between the change in hematocrit and the volume administered for patient resuscitation. The change in hematocrit is the difference between an admission hematocrit and a second one taken between the eighth and twenty-fourth hour., Results: We included 230 patients with an average burn size of 39.1 ± 20.3 % TBSA, in 94.4 % by a thermal mechanism. The management seems to be in accordance with the current recommendations, with a volume administered during the first 24 h of 4.3 ± 2.5 ml/kg/ % BSA, allowing to obtain an hourly diuresis of 0.9 ± 0.7 ml/kg/h. We did not find any correlation between the pre-hospital volume administration and the hematocrit at admission (p = 0.36). Hematocrit decreased on average to -4.5 ± 8.1 % between admission and a control performed after the 8th hour. This decrease was weakly correlated with the volumes infused between the two samples (r 2 =0.13, p < 0.001). A resuscitation above 5.2 ml/kg/ % Burn surface area is an independent factor for excess mortality., Conclusion: Hematocrit or its variations in our limited data base appears to not reliably detect over-resuscitation, therefore it is possible that it may not be a relevant marker. These conclusions should be clarified in a multi-institutional prospective or real-world analysis to validate the findings and null hypothesis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Donat et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Purpose: To compare the characteristics, management, and prognosis of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) for coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 during the first two waves of the outbreak and to evaluate the relationship between ICU strain (ICU demand due to COVID-19 admissions) and mortality., Methods: In a multicentre retrospective study, 1166 COVID-19 patients admitted to five ICUs in France between 20 February and 31 December 2020 were included. Data were collected at each ICU from medical records. A Cox proportional-hazards model identified factors associated with 28-day mortality., Results: 640 patients (55%) were admitted during the first wave (February to June 2020) and 526 (45%) during the second wave (July to December 2020). ICU strain was lower during the second wave (-0.81 [-1.04 --0.31] vs. 1.18 [-0.34-1.29] SD when compared to mean COVID-19 admission in each center during study period, P<0.001). Patients admitted during the second wave were older, had more profound hypoxemia and lower SOFA. High flow nasal cannula was more frequently used during the second wave (68% vs. 39%, P<0.001) and intubation was less frequent (46% vs. 69%, P<0.001). Neither 28-day mortality (30% vs. 26%, P = 0.12) nor hospital mortality (37% vs. 31%, P = 0.27) differed between first and second wave. Overweight and obesity were associated with lower 28-day mortality while older age, underlying chronic kidney disease, severity at ICU admission as assessed by SOFA score and ICU strain were associated with higher 28-day mortality. ICU strain was not associated with hospital mortality., Conclusion: The characteristics and the management of patients varied between the first and the second wave of the pandemic. Rather than the wave, ICU strain was independently associated with 28-day mortality, but not with hospital mortality., Competing Interests: A. Demoule reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Philips, personal fees from Baxter, personal fees and non-financial support from Fisher & Paykel, grants from French Ministry of Health, personal fees from Getinge, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Respinor, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Lungpacer, personal fees from Lowenstein, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. M. Fartoukh reports non-financial support from Biomerieux, personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work, and grants from French Ministry of Health. G. Louis reports other from Pfizer, other from Fresenius, outside the submitted work. E. Azoulay has received fees for lectures from Gilead, Pfizer, Baxter, and Alexion, and his research group has been supported by Ablynx, Fisher & Paykel, Jazz Pharma, and MSD. S. Nemlaghi has no conflict of interest to report. E. Jullien has no conflict of interest to report. C. Desnos has no conflict of interest to report. S. Clerc has no conflict of interest to report. E. Yvin has no conflict of interest to report. N. Mellati has no conflict of interest to report. C. Charron has no conflict of interest to report. G. Voiriot reports grants and personal fees from BioMérieux, grants from SOS Oxygène, grants from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Y. Picard has no conflict of interest to report. A. Vieillard-Baron reports research grant from GSK company. M. Darmon declares having received a grant from MSD, speaker fees from MSD, Astellas, and Gilead-Kite and having attended an advisory board for Gilead-Kite. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objectives: The clinical outcomes of the Beta (B.1.351) variant of concern (VOC) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remain poorly understood. In early 2021, northeastern France experienced an outbreak of Beta that was not observed elsewhere. This outbreak slightly preceded and then overlapped with a second outbreak of the better understood VOC Alpha (B.1.1.7) in the region. This situation allowed us to contemporaneously compare Alpha and Beta in terms of the characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill patients., Methods: A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted on all consecutive adult patients who had laboratory confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, underwent variant screening, and were admitted to one of four intensive care units (ICU) for acute respiratory failure between January 9th and May 15th, 2021. Primary outcome was 60-day mortality. Differences between Alpha and Beta in terms of other outcomes, patient variables, management, and vaccination characteristics were also explored by univariate analysis. The factors that associated with 60-day death in Alpha- and Beta-infected patients were examined with logistic regression analysis., Results: In total, 333 patients (median age, 63 years; 68% male) were enrolled. Of these, 174 and 159 had Alpha and Beta, respectively. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of 60-day mortality (19 vs. 23%), 28-day mortality (17 vs. 20%), need for mechanical ventilation (60 vs. 61%), mechanical ventilation duration (14 vs. 15 days), other management variables, patient demographic variables, comorbidities, or clinical variables on ICU admission. The vast majority of patients were unvaccinated (94%). The remaining 18 patients had received a partial vaccine course and 2 were fully vaccinated. The vaccinated patients were equally likely to have Alpha and Beta., Conclusions: Beta did not differ from Alpha in terms of patient characteristics, management, or outcomes in critically ill patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04906850., Competing Interests: GL has received financial support from Pfizer and Fresenius to participate in scientific meetings during the 36 months prior to publication. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Louis, Belveyre, Goetz, Gibot, Dunand, Conrad, Gaci, Gette, Ouamara, Perez, Cadoz, Picard and Mellati.)

Background: Deviation from guidelines is frequent in emergency situations, and this may lead to increased mortality. Probably because of time constraints, 55% is the greatest reported guidelines compliance rate in severe trauma patients. This study aimed to identify among all available recommendations a reasonable bundle of items that should be followed to optimize the outcome of hemorrhagic shocks (HSs) and severe traumatic brain injuries (TBIs)., Methods: We first estimated the compliance with French and European guidelines using the data from the French TraumaBase registry. Then, we used a machine learning procedure to reduce the number of recommendations into a minimal set of items to be followed to minimize 7-day mortality. We evaluated the bundles using an external validation cohort., Results: This study included 5,924 trauma patients (1,414 HS and 4,955 TBI) between 2011 and August 2019 and studied compliance to 36 recommendation items. Overall compliance rate to recommendation items was 71.6% and 66.9% for HS and TBI, respectively. In HS, compliance was significantly associated with 7-day decreased mortality in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis (risk ratio [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.17; p = 0.06). In TBI, compliance was significantly associated with decreased mortality in univariate and multivariate analysis (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; p = 0.01). For HS, the bundle included 13 recommendation items. In the validation cohort, when this bundle was applied, patients were found to have a lower 7-day mortality rate (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63; p = 0.01). In TBI, the bundle included seven items. In the validation cohort, when this bundle was applied, patients had a lower 7-day mortality rate (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.71; p = 0.02)., Discussion: Using a machine-learning procedure, we were able to identify a subset of recommendations that minimizes 7-day mortality following traumatic HS and TBI. These two bundles remain to be evaluated in a prospective manner., Level of Evidence: Care Management, level II., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)