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

IntroductionInternational guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20–25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2–2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets.Methods and analysisNUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2–0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0–1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03573739.

Background No recommendation exists about the timing and setting for tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in septic shock. Patients and methods This prospective multicenter observational study was conducted in 30 ICUs in France and Spain. All consecutive patients presenting with septic shock were eligible. The use of tracheal intubation was described across the participating ICUs. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify parameters associated with early intubation (before H8 following vasopressor onset). Results Eight hundred and fifty-nine patients were enrolled. Two hundred and nine patients were intubated early (24%, range 4.5–47%), across the 18 centers with at least 20 patients included. The cumulative intubation rate during the ICU stay was 324/859 (38%, range 14–65%). In the multivariate analysis, seven parameters were significantly associated with early intubation and ranked as follows by decreasing weight: Glasgow score, center effect, use of accessory respiratory muscles, lactate level, vasopressor dose, pH and inability to clear tracheal secretions. Global R-square of the model was only 60% indicating that 40% of the variability of the intubation process was related to other parameters than those entered in this analysis. Conclusion Neurological, respiratory and hemodynamic parameters only partially explained the use of tracheal intubation in septic shock patients. Center effect was important. Finally, a vast part of the variability of intubation remained unexplained by patient characteristics. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT02780466, registered on May 23, 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02780466?term=intubatic&draw=2&rank=1.

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.