No abstract

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) frequency, severity and characterization in critically ill patients has not been reported. Methods Single-centre cohort performed from 3 March 2020 to 14 April 2020 in four intensive care units in Bordeaux University Hospital, France. All patients with COVID-19 and pulmonary severity criteria were included. AKI was defined using Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria. A systematic urinary analysis was performed. The incidence, severity, clinical presentation, biological characterization (transient versus persistent AKI; proteinuria, haematuria and glycosuria) and short-term outcomes were evaluated. Results Seventy-one patients were included, with basal serum creatinine (SCr) of 69 ± 21 µmol/L. At admission, AKI was present in 8/71 (11%) patients. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] follow-up was 17 (12–23) days. AKI developed in a total of 57/71 (80%) patients, with 35% Stage 1, 35% Stage 2 and 30% Stage 3 AKI; 10/57 (18%) required renal replacement therapy (RRT). Transient AKI was present in only 4/55 (7%) patients and persistent AKI was observed in 51/55 (93%). Patients with persistent AKI developed a median (IQR) urine protein/creatinine of 82 (54–140) (mg/mmol) with an albuminuria/proteinuria ratio of 0.23 ± 20, indicating predominant tubulointerstitial injury. Only two (4%) patients had glycosuria. At Day 7 after onset of AKI, six (11%) patients remained dependent on RRT, nine (16%) had SCr >200 µmol/L and four (7%) had died. Day 7 and Day 14 renal recovery occurred in 28% and 52%, respectively. Conclusion Severe COVID-19-associated AKI is frequent, persistent, severe and characterized by an almost exclusive tubulointerstitial injury without glycosuria.

IntroductionIn the emergency setting, focused cardiac ultrasound has become a fundamental tool for diagnostic, initial emergency treatment and triage decisions. A new ultra-miniaturized pocket ultrasound device (PUD) may be suited to this specific setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the diagnostic ability of an ultra-miniaturized ultrasound device (Vscan™, GE Healthcare, Wauwatosa, WI) and of a conventional high-quality echocardiography system (Vivid S5™, GE Healthcare) for a cardiac focused ultrasonography in patients admitted to the emergency department.MethodsDuring 4 months, patients admitted to our emergency department and requiring transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) were included in this single-center, prospective and observational study. Patients underwent TTE using a PUD and a conventional echocardiography system. Each examination was performed independently by a physician experienced in echocardiography, unaware of the results found by the alternative device. During the focused cardiac echocardiography, the following parameters were assessed: global cardiac systolic function, identification of ventricular enlargement or hypertrophy, assessment for pericardial effusion and estimation of the size and the respiratory changes of the inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter.ResultsOne hundred fifty-one (151) patients were analyzed. With the tested PUD, the image quality was sufficient to perform focused cardiac ultrasonography in all patients. Examination using PUD adequately qualified with a very good agreement global left ventricular systolic dysfunction (κ = 0.87; 95%CI: 0.76-0.97), severe right ventricular dilation (κ = 0.87; 95%CI: 0.71-1.00), inferior vena cava dilation (κ = 0.90; 95%CI: 0.80-1.00), respiratory-induced variations in inferior vena cava size in spontaneous breathing (κ = 0.84; 95%CI: 0.71-0.98), pericardial effusion (κ = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.55-0.95) and compressive pericardial effusion (κ = 1.00; 95%CI: 1.00-1.00).ConclusionsIn an emergency setting, this new ultraportable echoscope (PUD) was reliable for the real-time detection of focused cardiac abnormalities.

No abstract

BackgroundAugmented renal clearance (ARC) is recognized as a leading cause of β-lactam subexposure when conventional dosing regimens are used. The main objective was to compare the clinical outcome of ARC patients treated by conventional or increased β-lactam dosing regimens for a first episode of hospital or ventilator-acquired pneumonia (HAP-VAP).MethodsIn this single-center, retrospective study, every ARC patient treated by β-lactam for a first episode of HAP-VAP was included during two 15-month periods, before (Control period) and after (Treatment period) the modification of a local antibiotic therapy protocol. ARC was defined by a 24-h measured creatinine clearance ≥ 150 ml/min. The primary endpoint was defined as a therapeutic failure of the antimicrobial therapy or a HAP-VAP relapse within 28 days. Inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW) was derived from a propensity score model. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association between treatment period and clinical outcome.ResultsDuring the study period, 177 patients were included (control period, N = 88; treatment period, N = 89). Therapeutic failure or HAP-VAP relapse was significantly lower in the treatment period (10 vs. 23%, p = 0.019). The IPTW-adjusted hazard ratio of poor clinical outcome in the treatment period was 0.35 (95% CI 0.15–0.81), p = 0.014. No antibiotic side effect was reported during the treatment period.ConclusionsHigher than licensed dosing regimens of β-lactams may be safe and effective in reducing the rate of therapeutic failure and HAP-VAP recurrence in critically ill augmented renal clearance (ARC) patients.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract