ImportanceThe benefit of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (high-flow oxygen) in terms of intubation and mortality in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 is controversial.ObjectiveTo determine whether the use of high-flow oxygen, compared with standard oxygen, could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 admitted in intensive care units (ICUs).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThe SOHO-COVID randomized clinical trial was conducted in 34 ICUs in France and included 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen equal to or below 200 mm Hg. It was an ancillary trial of the ongoing original SOHO randomized clinical trial, which was designed to include patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from all causes. Patients were enrolled from January to December 2021; final follow-up occurred on March 5, 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive high-flow oxygen (n = 357) or standard oxygen delivered through a nonrebreathing mask initially set at a 10-L/min minimum (n = 354).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was mortality at day 28. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including the proportion of patients requiring intubation, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 90, mortality and length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events.ResultsAmong the 782 randomized patients, 711 patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; 214 women [30%]). The mortality rate at day 28 was 10% (36/357) with high-flow oxygen and 11% (40/354) with standard oxygen (absolute difference, –1.2% [95% CI, –5.8% to 3.4%]; P = .60). Of 13 prespecified secondary outcomes, 12 showed no significant difference including in length of stay and mortality in the ICU and in mortality up until day 90. The intubation rate was significantly lower with high-flow oxygen than with standard oxygen (45% [160/357] vs 53% [186/354]; absolute difference, –7.7% [95% CI, –14.9% to –0.4%]; P = .04). The number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was not significantly different between groups (median, 28 [IQR, 11-28] vs 23 [IQR, 10-28] days; absolute difference, 0.5 days [95% CI, –7.7 to 9.1]; P = .07). The most common adverse events were ventilator-associated pneumonia, occurring in 58% (93/160) in the high-flow oxygen group and 53% (99/186) in the standard oxygen group.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen, compared with standard oxygen therapy, did not significantly reduce 28-day mortality.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04468126

BACKGROUND: Hypotension during surgery is frequent in the elderly population and is associated with acute kidney and myocardial injury, which are, themselves, associated with increased 30-day mortality. The present study compared the hemodynamic effects of hypobaric unilateral spinal anesthesia (HUSA) to general anesthesia (GA) in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing hip fracture surgery. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized study. In the HUSA group, patients were positioned with the operated hip above, and the hypobaric anesthetic solution was composed of 9 mg ropivacaine, 5 µg sufentanil, and 1 mL of sterile water. Anesthesia was adjusted for the GA group. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was measured with a noninvasive blood pressure upper arm cuff every 3 minutes. Hypotension was treated with a bolus of ephedrine and then a continuous intravenous of norepinephrine to obtain a MAP ≥65 mm Hg. Primary outcome was the occurrence of severe hypotension, defined as a MAP <65 mm Hg for >12 consecutive minutes. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients were included. Severe hypotension was more frequent in the GA group compared to the HUSA group (odds ratio, 5.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-11.7; P < .001). There was no significant difference regarding the short-term outcomes between the HUSA and GA groups: acute kidney injury (respectively, 5.1% vs 11.3%; P = .22), myocardial injury (18.0% vs 14.0%; P = .63), and 30-day mortality (2.4% vs 4.7%; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: HUSA leads to fewer episodes of severe intraoperative hypotension compared to GA in an elderly population undergoing hip fracture surgery.

Around a quarter of parturients with epidural analgesia and free access to clear fluids during labour presented higher estimated gastric content at full cervical dilatation. The SR-CSA may be of interest for the fast ultrasound assessment of the gastric content status in case of emergent obstetrical procedures at full cervical dilatation.

ImportanceGiven the high risk of thrombosis and anticoagulation-related bleeding in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, identifying the lowest effective dose of anticoagulation therapy for these patients is imperative.ObjectivesTo determine whether therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) or high-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (HD-PA) decreases mortality and/or disease duration compared with standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (SD-PA), and whether TA outperforms HD-PA; and to compare the net clinical outcomes among the 3 strategies.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsThe ANTICOVID randomized clinical open-label trial included patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygen and having no initial thrombosis on chest computer tomography with pulmonary angiogram at 23 health centers in France from April 14 to December 13, 2021. Of 339 patients randomized, 334 were included in the primary analysis—114 patients in the SD-PA group, 110 in the HD-PA, and 110 in the TA. At randomization, 90% of the patients were in the intensive care unit. Data analyses were performed from April 13, 2022, to January 3, 2023.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either SD-PA, HD-PA, or TA with low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin for 14 days.Main Outcomes and MeasuresA hierarchical criterion of all-cause mortality followed by time to clinical improvement at day 28. Main secondary outcome was net clinical outcome at day 28 (composite of thrombosis, major bleeding, and all-cause death).ResultsAmong the study population of 334 individuals (mean [SD] age, 58.3 [13.0] years; 226 [67.7%] men and 108 [32.3%] women), use of HD-PA and SD-PA had similar probabilities of favorable outcome (47.3% [95% CI, 39.9% to 54.8%] vs 52.7% [95% CI, 45.2% to 60.1%]; P = .48), as did TA compared with SD-PA (50.9% [95% CI, 43.4% to 58.3%] vs 49.1% [95% CI, 41.7% to 56.6%]; P = .82) and TA compared with HD-PA (53.5% [95% CI 45.8% to 60.9%] vs 46.5% [95% CI, 39.1% to 54.2%]; P = .37). Net clinical outcome was met in 29.8% of patients receiving SD-PA (20.2% thrombosis, 2.6% bleeding, 14.0% death), 16.4% receiving HD-PA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 11.8% death), and 20.0% receiving TA (5.5% thrombosis, 3.6% bleeding, 12.7% death). Moreover, HD-PA and TA use significantly reduced thrombosis compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, −14.7 [95% CI −6.2 to −23.2] and −14.7 [95% CI −6.2 to −23.2], respectively). Use of HD-PA significantly reduced net clinical outcome compared with SD-PA (absolute difference, −13.5; 95% CI −2.6 to −24.3).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that compared with SD-PA, neither HD-PA nor TA use improved the primary hierarchical outcome of all-cause mortality or time to clinical improvement in patients with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia; however, HD-PA resulted in significantly better net clinical outcome by decreasing the risk of de novo thrombosis.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04808882