Rationale: Whether patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. Objectives: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-day mortality versus IMV only. Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO versus no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 < 80 or PaCO2 ⩾ 60 mm Hg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model on the basis of predefined variables. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability on Day 7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs. 83%; risk difference, 4%; 95% confidence interval, 0–9%), which decreased during follow-up (survival on Day 90: 63% vs. 65%; risk difference, −2%; 95% confidence interval, −10 to 5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand and when initiated within the first 4 days of IMV and in patients who are profoundly hypoxemic. Conclusions: In an emulated trial on the basis of a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand.
Abstract Background Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19. Methods All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score. Results Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay and 491 (23%) during the first 24 h following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio > 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% versus 39.3% in the early PP group ( p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies was more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96–1.68], p = 0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998–1.412], p = 0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively). Conclusions In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, our data failed to show a survival benefit associated with early PP started within 24 h after ICU admission compared to PP after day-1 for all COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of their severity.
To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78-3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79-4.21, P < 0.001). In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed.
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication after liver transplantation (LT), but the specific impact of rapidly resolving AKI is not elucidated. This study investigates the factors associated with early recovery from AKI and its association with post-LT outcomes.Retrospective analysis of 441 liver transplant recipients with end-stage liver disease without pretransplant renal impairment. AKI was defined according to Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria and early renal recovery by its disappearance within 7 d post-LT.One hundred forty-six patients (32%) developed a post-LT AKI, of whom 99 (69%) recovered early and 45 (31%) did not. Factors associated with early recovery were Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stage 1 (odds ratio [OR],14.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.59-40.22; P < 0.0001), minimum prothrombin time >50 % (OR, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.67-13.46; P = 0.003) and aspartate aminotransferase peak value <1000 U/L (OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 1.64-10.75; P = 0.002) within 48 h post-LT. Patients with early recovery had a renal prognosis similar to that of patients without AKI with no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate between day 7 and 1 y. Their relative risk of developing chronic kidney disease was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.55-1.41; P = 0.6) with survival identical to patients without AKI and better than patients without early recovery (P < 0.0001).Most patients with post-LT AKI recover early and have a similar renal prognosis and survival to those without post-LT AKI. Factors associated with early renal recovery are related to the stage of AKI, the extent of liver injury, and the early graft function. Patients at risk of not recovering may benefit the most from perioperative protective strategies, particularly those aimed at minimizing the adverse effects of calcineurin inhibitors.
Abstract Background Previous retrospective research has shown that maintaining prone positioning (PP) for an average of 40 h is associated with an increase of survival rates in intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This study aims to determine whether a cumulative PP duration of more than 32 h during the first 2 days of intensive care unit (ICU) admission is associated with increased survival compared to a cumulative PP duration of 32 h or less. Methods This study is an ancillary analysis from a previous large international observational study involving intubated patients placed in PP in the first 48 h of ICU admission in 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Given that PP is recommended for a 16-h daily duration, intensive PP was defined as a cumulated duration of more than 32 h during the first 48 h, whereas standard PP was defined as a duration equal to or less than 32 h. Patients were followed-up for 90 days. The primary outcome was mortality at day 60. An Inverse Probability Censoring Weighting (IPCW) Cox model including a target emulation trial method was used to analyze the data. Results Out of 2137 intubated patients, 753 were placed in PP during the first 48 h of ICU admission. The intensive PP group ( n = 79) had a median PP duration of 36 h, while standard PP group ( n = 674) had a median of 16 h during the first 48 h. Sixty-day mortality rate in the intensive PP group was 39.2% compared to 38.7% in the standard PP group ( p = 0.93). Twenty-eight-day and 90-day mortality as well as the ventilator-free days until day 28 were similar in both groups. After IPCW, there was no significant difference in mortality at day 60 between the two-study groups (HR 0.95 [0.52–1.74], p = 0.87 and HR 1.1 [0.77–1.57], p = 0.61 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively). Conclusions This secondary analysis of a large multicenter European cohort of intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 found that intensive PP during the first 48 h did not provide a survival benefit compared to standard PP.
wished to make in our Editorial is that the hypothetical risks of anesthetic neurotoxicity should not dictate our choice of regional versus general anesthesia.There is no evidence of the superiority of one approach over the other in terms of clinically relevant outcome.Therefore, the skills and expertise of the anesthesiologists and surgeons should be the main factors behind this strategic decision.In academic centers where teaching is a priority, the duration of even straightforward surgical procedures may often exceed the duration of a single spinal block.Given the importance of adequate analgesia during the entire procedure, general anesthesia, often in combination with a regional blockade, may have obvious advantages in these situations.As Drs.Williams and Sartorelli also point out, up to 20% of children with spinal anesthesia may need additional sedation even in experienced hands.While this situation can be easily handled by experienced pediatric anesthesiologists, failure of spinal anesthesia and the subsequent change in management plan may be more dangerous in less experienced hands.Again, it is the anesthesiologist and not the anesthetic that makes the difference.
