The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis,

BackgroundWhile outcome improvement with extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) is not demonstrated, a strong pathophysiological rational supports its use in the setting of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COPD exacerbation. We aimed to describe our single-center experience of ECCO2R indications and outcome.MethodsPatients treated with ECCO2R in our medial ICU, from March 2014 to November 2017, were retrospectively enrolled. Primary end point was evolution of ventilator settings during the two first days following ECCO2R start.ResultsThirty-three patients received ECCO2R. Seventeen were managed with Hemolung®, 10 with Prismalung®, 4 with ILA®, and 2 with Cardiohelp®. Indications for ECCO2R were mild or moderate ARDS (n = 16), COPD exacerbation (n = 11), or uncontrolled hypercapnia due to other causes (n = 6). Four patients were not intubated at the time of ECCO2R start. Median duration of ECCO2R treatment was 7 days [5–10]. In ARDS patients, between baseline and day 2, median tidal volume and driving pressure decreased from 5.3 [4.4–5.9] mL/kg and 10 [8–15] to 3.8 [3.3–4.1] mL/kg and 9 [8–11], respectively. Prone positioning was performed in 10 of the 16 patients, without serious adverse event. In COPD patients, between baseline and day 2, median ventilation minute and PaCO2 decreased significantly from respectively 7.6 [6.6–8.7] L/min and 9.4 [8.4–10.1] kPa to 5.8 [4.9–6.2] L/min and 6 [5.3–6.8] kPa. Four out of 11 COPD patients were extubated while on ECCO2R. Device thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (15%). Hemolysis was documented in 16 patients (48%). One patient died of intracranial hemorrhage, while on ECCO2R. Twenty-four patients were discharged from ICU alive. Twenty-eight day mortality was 31% in ARDS, 9% in COPD patients, and 50% in other causes of refractory hypercapnic respiratory failure.ConclusionECCO2R was useful to apply ultra-protective ventilation among ARDS patients and improved PaCO2, pH, and minute ventilation in COPD patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40560-018-0304-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rational 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). Methods 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. Results 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). Conclusion 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.

Background Patients infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV 2) and requiring intensive care unit (ICU) have a high incidence of hospital-acquired infections; however, data regarding hospital acquired bloodstream infections (BSI) are scarce. We aimed to investigate risk factors and outcome of BSI in critically ill coronavirus infectious disease-19 (COVID-19) patients. Patients and methods We performed an ancillary analysis of a multicenter prospective international cohort study (COVID-ICU study) that included 4010 COVID-19 ICU patients. For the present analysis, only those with data regarding primary outcome (death within 90 days from admission) or BSI status were included. Risk factors for BSI were analyzed using Fine and Gray competing risk model. Then, for outcome comparison, 537 BSI-patients were matched with 537 controls using propensity score matching. Results Among 4010 included patients, 780 (19.5%) acquired a total of 1066 BSI (10.3 BSI per 1000 patients days at risk) of whom 92% were acquired in the ICU. Higher SAPS II, male gender, longer time from hospital to ICU admission and antiviral drug before admission were independently associated with an increased risk of BSI, and interestingly, this risk decreased over time. BSI was independently associated with a shorter time to death in the overall population (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.05–1.56) and, in the propensity score matched data set, patients with BSI had a higher mortality rate (39% vs 33% p = 0.036). BSI accounted for 3.6% of the death of the overall population. Conclusion COVID-19 ICU patients have a high risk of BSI, especially early after ICU admission, risk that increases with severity but not with corticosteroids use. BSI is associated with an increased mortality rate.

BackgroundThe prognosis of cirrhotic patients admitted to the ICU is considered to be poor but has been mainly reported in liver ICU. We aimed to describe the prognosis of cirrhotic patients admitted to a general ICU, to assess the predictors of mortality in this population, and, finally, to identify a subgroup of patients in whom intensive care escalation might be discussed.ResultsWe performed a retrospective monocentric study of all cirrhotic patients consecutively admitted between 2002 and 2014 in a general ICU in a regional university hospital. Two hundred and eighteen cirrhotic patients were admitted to the ICU. The 28-day and 6-month mortality rates were 53 and 74 %, respectively. Among the 115 patients who were discharged from ICU, only eight patients underwent liver transplantation, whereas 48 had no clear contraindication. Multivariable analyses on 28-day mortality identified three independent variables, incorporated into a new three-variable prognostic model as follows: SOFA ≥ 12 (OR 4.2 [2.2–8.0]; 2 points), INR ≥ 2.6 (OR 2.5 [1.3–4.8]; 1 point), and renal replacement therapy (OR 2.3 [1.1–5.1]; 1 point). For a value of the score at 4 (16 % of patients), 28-day and 3-month mortality rates were 91 and 100 %, respectively. An external validation of the score among 149 critically ill cirrhotic patients showed a good accuracy for predicting in-ICU mortality.ConclusionsMortality of cirrhotic patients admitted to a general ICU was comparable to that of other studies. A pragmatic score integrating the SOFA score, INR, and the need for extrarenal epuration was strongly associated with mortality. Among the 16 % of patients presenting with score 4 at ICU admission, 100 % died in the 3-month follow-up period. The prognostic evaluation on day 3 remains essential for the majority of patients. However, this score calculable at ICU admission might identify patients in whom the benefit of intensive care escalation should be discussed, in particular when liver transplantation is contraindicated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-016-0194-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.