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.
Difficulties or failure in airway management are still important factors in morbidity and mortality related to anesthesia and intensive care. A patent and secure airway is essential to manage anesthetized or critically ill patients. Oxygenation maintenance during tracheal intubation is the cornerstone of difficult airway management and is always emphasized in guidelines. The occurrence of respiratory adverse events has decreased in claims for injuries due to inadequate airway management mainly at induction of anesthesia. Nevertheless, claim reports emphasize that airway emergencies, tracheal extubation and/or recovery of anesthesia phases are still associated with death or brain damage, indicating that additional educational support and management strategies to improve patient safety are required. The present brief review analyses specific problems of airway management related to difficult tracheal intubation and to difficult mask ventilation prediction. The review will focus on basic airway management including preoxygenation, and on some oxygenation and tracheal intubation techniques that may be performed to solve a difficult airway.
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.
Sex-related differences in the perception of pain and susceptibility to opioids remain a matter of debate. Intravenous morphine titration used to obtain pain relief in the immediate postoperative period is a unique clinical model for assessing the effect of sex on reported pain. Because of the wide variation in dose requirements for pain management, the authors conducted a prospective study in a large population and also assessed the effect of aging.Intravenous morphine titration was administered as a bolus of 2 (body weight 60 kg) during the immediate postoperative period. The interval between each bolus was 5 min. The visual analog pain scale (VAS) threshold required to administer morphine was 30, and pain relief was defined as a VAS score of 30 or less. Data are expressed as mean +/- SD.Data from 4,317 patients were analyzed; 54% of the patients were male, and 46% were female. The mean morphine dose required to obtain pain relief was 11.9 +/- 6.8 mg or 0.173 +/- 0.103 mg/kg. Women had a higher initial VAS score (74 +/- 19 vs. 71 +/- 19; P < 0.001) and required a greater dose of morphine (0.183 +/- 0.111 vs. 0.165 +/- 0.095 mg/kg; P < 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was noted in elderly (aged > 75 yr) patients (0.163 +/- 0.083 vs. 0.157 +/- 0.085 mg/kg).Women experienced more severe postoperative pain and required a greater dose (+11%) of morphine than men in the immediate postoperative period. This sex-related difference disappeared in elderly patients.
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.
L’information preoperatoire du malade, l’evaluation de sa douleur au moyen d’outils fiables ainsi que la mise en œuvre de protocoles therapeutiques simples adaptes a chaque type de chirurgie et a chaque patient constituent autant d’elements indissociables d’une prise en charge optimale de la douleur postoperatoire. Pour les douleurs les plus severes, il faut privilegier les associations therapeutiques (analgesie multimodale) qui ont pour double avantage d’ameliorer les scores d’analgesie tout en diminuant les doses de chacune des molecules utilisees. Enfin, les nouvelles molecules antalgiques seront sans doute plus selectives que les autres, mais la multiplicite des cibles et la complexite des mecanismes physiopathologiques de la douleur necessiteront toujours l’association de molecules afin d’ameliorer le confort de l’opere.
The efficacy and safety of cefiderocol in ICU patients with difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) non-fermenting Gram-negative bacteria (Nf-GNB) are not as well-established. Consequently, we conducted a cohort study to compare Cefiderocol with the Best Available Therapy (BAT) in ICU patients. We included adult patients from 9 different ICUs, including a burn ICU unit, from 2019 to 2023 treated with Cefiderocol for DTR Nf-GNB isolated from the blood or lungs. We matched each patient at a 1:2 ratio based on the same DTR Nf-GBN isolated pathogen, and when possible, within the same type of ICU (burn unit or not). The primary endpoint of the study was the clinical cure at 15 days, with secondary endpoints including clinical cure at 30 days, relapse, and in-ICU mortality. For each outcome, adjusted odds ratios were estimated using bidirectional stepwise regression in a final model, which included 13 preselected confounders. We included 27 patients with cefiderocol, matched with 54 patients receiving the BAT. Four patients were not exactly matched on the type of ICU unit. Characteristics were comparable between groups, mostly male with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 [1-5], and 28% had immunosuppression. Cefiderocol patients were most likely to have higher number of antibiotic lines. The main DTR Nf-GNB identified was Pseudomonas aeruginosa (81.5%), followed by Acinetobater baumanii (14.8%) and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (3.7%). Pneumonia was the identified infection in 21 (78.8%) patients in the Cefiderocol group and in 51 (94.4%) patients in the BAT group (p = 0.054). Clinical cure at 15 and 30-day and the in-ICU mortality was comparable between groups, however relapse was higher in the cefiderocol group (8-29.6% vs. 4-7.4%;aOR 10.06[1.96;51.53]) CONCLUSION: Cefiderocol did not show an improvement in clinical cure or mortality rates compared to BAT in the treatment of DTR Nf-GNB, but it was associated with a higher relapse rate.
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.
