Intensive Care and Sepsis (CRICS) Group IMPORTANCE In the intensive care unit (ICU), orotracheal intubation can be associated with increased risk of complications because the patient may be acutely unstable, requiring prompt intervention, often by a practitioner with nonexpert skills. Video laryngoscopy may decrease this risk by improving glottis visualization. OBJECTIVE To determine whether video laryngoscopy increases the frequency of successful first-pass orotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy in ICU patients.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of 371 adults requiring intubation while being treated at 7 ICUs in France between May 2015 and January 2016; there was 28 days of follow-up.INTERVENTIONS Intubation using a video laryngoscope (n = 186) or direct laryngoscopy (n = 185). All patients received general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients with successful first-pass intubation. The secondary outcomes included time to successful intubation and mild to moderate and severe life-threatening complications. RESULTS Among 371 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 62.8 [15.8] years; 136 [36.7%] women), 371 completed the trial. The proportion of patients with successful first-pass intubation did not differ significantly between the video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy groups (67.7% vs 70.3%; absolute difference, −2.5% [95% CI, −11.9% to 6.9%]; P = .60). The proportion of first-attempt intubations performed by nonexperts (primarily residents, n = 290) did not differ between the groups (84.4% with video laryngoscopy vs 83.2% with direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference 1.2% [95% CI, −6.3% to 8.6%]; P = .76). The median time to successful intubation was 3 minutes (range, 2 to 4 minutes) for both video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (absolute difference, 0 [95% CI, 0 to 0]; P = .95). Video laryngoscopy was not associated with life-threatening complications (24/180 [13.3%] vs 17/179 [9.5%] for direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference, 3.8% [95% CI, −2.7% to 10.4%]; P = .25). In post hoc analysis, video laryngoscopy was associated with severe life-threatening complications (17/179 [9.5%] vs 5/179 [2.8%] for direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference, 6.7% [95% CI, 1.8% to 11.6%]; P = .01) but not with mild to moderate life-threatening complications (10/181 [5.4%] vs 14/181 [7.7%]; absolute difference, −2.3% [95% CI, −7.4% to 2.8%]; P = .37).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients in the ICU requiring intubation, video laryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy did not improve first-pass orotracheal intubation rates and was associated with higher rates of severe life-threatening complications. Further studies are needed to assess the comparative effectiveness of these 2 strategies in different clinical settings and among operators with diverse skill levels.

Tracheal intubation is one of the most commonly performed and high-risk interventions in critically ill patients. Limited information is available on adverse peri-intubation events.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the incidence and nature of adverse peri-intubation events and to assess current practice of intubation in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe International Observational Study to Understand the Impact and Best Practices of Airway Management in Critically Ill Patients (INTUBE) study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study involving consecutive critically ill patients undergoing tracheal intubation in the intensive care units (ICUs), emergency departments, and wards, from October 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019 (August 28, 2019, was the final follow-up) in a convenience sample of 197 sites from 29 countries across 5 continents. EXPOSURES Tracheal intubation.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse peri-intubation events defined as at least 1 of the following events occurring within 30 minutes from the start of the intubation procedure: cardiovascular instability (either: systolic pressure <65 mm Hg at least once, <90 mm Hg for >30 minutes, new or increase need of vasopressors or fluid bolus >15 mL/kg), severe hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation <80%) or cardiac arrest. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit mortality. RESULTSOf 3659 patients screened, 2964 (median age, 63 years; interquartile range [IQR], 49-74 years; 62.6% men) from 197 sites across 5 continents were included. The main reason for intubation was respiratory failure in 52.3% of patients, followed by neurological impairment in 30.5%, and cardiovascular instability in 9.4%. Primary outcome data were available for all patients. Among the study patients, 45.2% experienced at least 1 major adverse peri-intubation event. The predominant event was cardiovascular instability, observed in 42.6% of all patients undergoing emergency intubation, followed by severe hypoxemia (9.3%) and cardiac arrest (3.1%). Overall ICU mortality was 32.8%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this observational study of intubation practices in critically ill patients from a convenience sample of 197 sites across 29 countries, major adverse peri-intubation events-in particular cardiovascular instability-were observed frequently.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Methods Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). Results Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16–24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Conclusion Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic is responsible for many hospitalizations in intensive care units (ICU), with widespread use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) which exposes patients to the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The characteristics of VAP in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. Methods We retrospectively collected data on all patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first phase of the epidemic in one of the seven ICUs of the Pays-de-Loire region (North-West France) and who were on invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h. We studied the characteristics of VAP in these patients. VAP was diagnosed based on official recommendations, and we included only cases of VAP that were confirmed by a quantitative microbiological culture. Findings We analyzed data from 188 patients. Of these patients, 48.9% had VAP and 19.7% experienced multiple episodes. Our study showed an incidence of 39.0 VAP per 1000 days of IMV (until the first VAP episode) and an incidence of 33.7 VAP per 1000 days of IMV (including all 141 episodes of VAP). Multi-microbial VAP accounted for 39.0% of all VAP, and 205 pathogens were identified. Enterobacteria accounted for 49.8% of all the isolated pathogens. Bacteremia was associated in 15 (10.6%) cases of VAP. Pneumonia was complicated by thoracic empyema in five cases (3.5%) and by pulmonary abscess in two cases (1.4%). Males were associated with a higher risk of VAP (sHR 2.24 CI95% [1.18; 4.26] p = 0.013). Interpretation Our study showed an unusually high incidence of VAP in patients admitted to the ICU for severe COVID-19, even though our services were not inundated during the first wave of the epidemic. We also noted a significant proportion of enterobacteria. VAP-associated complications (abscess, empyema) were not exceptional. Registration As an observational study, this study has not been registered.

Background Limited data are available regarding antiviral therapy efficacy in most severe patients under mechanical ventilation for Covid-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods Comparison of antiviral strategies (none, hydroxychloroquine (OHQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (L/R), others (combination or remdesivir) in an observational multicentre cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe Covid-19 ARDS. The primary endpoint was the number of day 28 ventilator-free days (VFD). Patients who died before d28 were considered as having 0 VFD. The variable was dichotomized into “patients still ventilated or dead at day 28” versus “patients weaned and alive at day 28”. Results We analyzed 415 patients (85 treated with standard of care (SOC), 57 with L/R, 220 with OHQ, and 53 others). The median number of d28-VFD was 0 (IQR 0–13) and differed between groups (P = 0.03), SOC patients having the highest d28-VFD. After adjustment for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and plateau pressure and accounting for center effect with a generalized linear mixed model, none of the antiviral strategies increased the chance of being alive and weaned from MV at day 28 compared to the SOC strategy (OR 0.48 CI95% (0.18–1.25); OR 0.96 (0.47–2.02) and OR 1.43 (0.53–4.04) for L/R, OHQ and other treatments, respectively). Acute kidney injury during ICU stay was frequent (55%); its incidence was higher in patients receiving lopinavir (66 vs 53%, P = 0.03). After adjustment for age, sex, BMI, chronic hypertension and chronic renal disease, the use of L/R was associated with an increased risk of renal replacement therapy (RRT). (OR 2.52 CI95% 1.16–5.59). Conclusion In this multicentre observational study of moderate-to-severe Covid-19 ARDS patients, we did not observe any benefit among patients treated with OHQ or L/R compared with SOC. The use of L/R treatment was associated with an increased need for RRT. Take home message Neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir/ritonavir as COVID-19 antiviral treatment is associated with higher ventilator-free days at day 28 when compared with standard of care (no antiviral treatment) in ICU patients under invasive mechanical ventilation. Lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with an increased risk of renal replacement therapy requirement. Tweet COVID-19: Insights from ARDS cohort: no signal of efficacy of any antiviral drugs. Lopinavir/ritonavir may be associated with need for RRT

High between-centre variability characterised all the aspects of FB prescription and monitoring, but overall haemodynamic exploration to help guide and monitor FB was infrequent.

IntroductionIn septic shock patients, the prevalence of low (<70%) central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and its relationship to outcome are unknown. The objectives of the present study were to estimate the prevalence of low ScvO2 in the first hours of ICU admission and to assess its potential association with mortality in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.MethodsThis was a prospective, multicentre, observational study conducted over a one-year period in ten French ICUs. Clinicians were asked to include patients with severe sepsis or septic shock preferably within 6 hours of ICU admission and as soon as possible without changing routine practice. ScvO2 was measured at inclusion and 6 hours later (H6), by blood sampling.ResultsWe included 363 patients. Initial ScvO2 below 70% was present in 111 patients and the pooled estimate for its prevalence was 27% (95% Confidence interval (95%CI): 18% to 37%). At time of inclusion, among 166 patients with normal lactate concentration (≤2 mmol/L), 55 (33%) had a low initial ScvO2 (<70%), and among 136 patients who had already reached the classic clinical endpoints for mean arterial pressure (≥65 mmHg), central venous pressure (≥8 mmHg), and urine output (≥0.5 mL/Kg of body weight), 43 (32%) had a low initial ScvO2 (<70%). Among them, 49% had lactate below 2 mmol/L. The day-28 mortality was higher in case of low initial ScvO2 (37.8% versus 27.4%; P = 0.049). When adjusted for confounders including the Simplified Acute Physiology Score and initial lactate concentration, a low initial ScvO2 (Odds ratio (OR) = 3.60, 95%CI: 1.76 to 7.36; P = 0.0004) and a low ScvO2 at H6 (OR = 2.18, 95%CI: 1.12 to 4.26; P = 0.022) were associated with day-28 mortality by logistic regression.ConclusionsLow ScvO2 was common in the first hours of admission to the ICU for severe sepsis or septic shock even when clinical resuscitation endpoints were achieved and even when arterial lactate was normal. A ScvO2 below 70% in the first hours of ICU admission and six hours later was associated with day-28 mortality.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0609-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Previous studies reporting the causes of death in patients with severe COVID-19 have provided conflicting results. The objective of this study was to describe the causes and timing of death in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods We performed a retrospective study in eight ICUs across seven French hospitals. All consecutive adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to the ICU with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and acute respiratory failure were included in the analysis. The causes and timing of ICU deaths were reported based on medical records. Results From March 1, 2020, to April 28, 287 patients were admitted to the ICU for SARS-CoV-2 related acute respiratory failure. Among them, 93 patients died in the ICU (32%). COVID-19-related multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) was the leading cause of death (37%). Secondary infection-related MODS accounted for 26% of ICU deaths, with a majority of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Refractory hypoxemia/pulmonary fibrosis was responsible for death in 19% of the cases. Fatal ischemic events (venous or arterial) occurred in 13% of the cases. The median time from ICU admission to death was 15 days (25th–75th IQR, 7–27 days). COVID-19-related MODS had a median time from ICU admission to death of 14 days (25th–75th IQR: 7–19 days), while only one death had occurred during the first 3 days since ICU admission. Conclusions In our multicenter observational study, COVID-19-related MODS and secondary infections were the two leading causes of death, among severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU.