Purpose: Little evidence of increased thrombotic risk is available in COVID-19 patients. Our purpose was to assess thrombotic risk in severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods:All patients referred to 4 intensive care units (ICUs) from two centers of a French tertiary hospital for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 between March 3rd and 31st 2020 were included. Medical history, symptoms, biological data and imaging were prospectively collected. Propensity score matching was performed to analyze the occurrence of thromboembolic events between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients.Results: 150 COVID-19 patients were included (122 men, median age 63 [53; 71] years, SAPSII 49 [37; 64] points). Sixty-four clinically relevant thrombotic complications were diagnosed in 150 patients, mainly pulmonary embolisms (16.7%). 28/29 patients (96.6%) receiving continuous renal replacement therapy experienced circuit clotting. Three thrombotic occlusions (in 2 patients) of centrifugal pump occurred in 12 patients (8%) supported by ECMO. Most patients (> 95%) had elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen. No patient developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. Von Willebrand (vWF) activity, vWF antigen and FVIII were considerably increased, and 50/57 tested patients (87.7%) had positive lupus anticoagulant. Comparison with non-COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 145) confirmed that COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 77) developed significantly more thrombotic complications, mainly pulmonary embolisms (11.7 vs. 2.1%, p < 0.008). Coagulation parameters significantly differed between the two groups. Conclusion:Despite anticoagulation, a high number of patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 developed life-threatening thrombotic complications. Higher anticoagulation targets than in usual critically ill patients should therefore probably be suggested.

; for the CORIMUNO-19 Collaborative Group IMPORTANCE Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICPANTS This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events. RESULTS Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care...

is the seventh member of the family of coronaviruses that infect humans (1) and induces coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Human coronaviruses have neuroinvasive capacities and may be neurovirulent by two main mechanisms (2-4): viral replication into glial or neuronal cells of the brain or autoimmune reaction with a misdirected host immune response (5). Thus, a few cases of acute encephalitislike syndromes with human coronaviruses were reported in the past 2 decades (5-8). In regard to COVID-19, current data on central nervous system involvement are uncommon but growing (9-17), demonstrating the high frequency of neurologic symptoms. However, the delineation of a large cohort of confirmed brain MRI parenchymal signal abnormalities (excluding ischemic infarcts) related to COVID-19 has never been performed, and the underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms remain unknown. The purpose of the current study was to describe the neuroimaging findings (excluding ischemic infarcts) in patients with severe COVID-19 and report the clinicobiologic profile of these patients. Materials and Methods This retrospective observational national multicenter study was initiated by the French Society of Neuroradiology in collaboration with neurologists, intensivists, and infectious disease specialists and brought together 16 hospitals. The study was approved by the ethical committee of Strasbourg University Hospital (CE-2020-37) and was in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Because of the emergency in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic responsible for

These results further corroborate the need for systematic screening in the case of anaphylactoid reaction during anesthesia and for the constitution of allergoanesthesia centers to provide expert advice to anesthesiologists and allergists.

No abstract

Neurogenic pulmonary edema (NPE) is usually defined as an acute pulmonary edema occurring shortly after a central neurologic insult. It has been reported regularly for a long time in numerous and various injuries of the central nervous system in both adults and children, but remains poorly understood because of the complexity of its pathophysiologic mechanisms involving hemodynamic and inflammatory aspects. NPE seems to be under-diagnosed in acute neurologic injuries, partly because the prevention and detection of non-neurologic complications of acute cerebral insults are not at the forefront of the strategy of physicians. The presence of NPE should be high on the list of diagnoses when patients with central neurologic injury suddenly become dyspneic or present with a decreased P(a)o(2)/F(i)o(2) ratio. The associated mortality rate is high, but recovery is usually rapid with early and appropriate management. The treatment of NPE should aim to meet the oxygenation needs without impairing cerebral hemodynamics, to avoid pulmonary worsening and to treat possible associated myocardial dysfunction. During brain death, NPE may worsen myocardial dysfunction, preventing heart harvesting.

Perioperative immediate hypersensitivity reactions are rare. Subsequent allergy investigation is complicated by multiple simultaneous drug exposures, the use of drugs with potent effects and the many differential diagnoses to hypersensitivity in the perioperative setting. The approach to the investigation of these complex reactions is not standardized, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that collaboration between experts in the field of allergy/immunology/dermatology and anaesthesiology is needed to provide the best possible care for these patients. The EAACI task force behind this position paper has therefore combined the expertise of allergists, immunologists and anaesthesiologists. The aims of this position paper were to provide recommendations for the investigation of immediate-type perioperative hypersensitivity reactions and to provide practical information that can assist clinicians in planning and carrying out investigations. | 1873GARVEY Et Al.

ObjectiveTo describe neuroimaging findings and to report the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients with neurological manifestations.MethodsIn this retrospective multicenter study (10 Hospitals), we included 64 confirmed COVID-19 patients with neurologic manifestations who underwent a brain MRI.ResultsThe cohort included 43 men (67%), 21 women (33%), and the median age was 66 years (range: 20-92). 36 (56%) brain MRIs were considered abnormal, possibly related to SARS-CoV-2. Ischemic strokes (27%), leptomeningeal enhancement (17%), and encephalitis (13%) were the most frequent neuroimaging findings. Confusion (53%) was the most common neurological manifestation, following by impaired consciousness (39%), presence of clinical signs of corticospinal tract involvement (31%), agitation (31%), and headache (16%). The profile of patients experiencing ischemic stroke was different from the other patients with abnormal brain imaging since the former had less frequently acute respiratory distress syndrome (p=0·006) and more frequently corticospinal tract signs (p=0·02). Patients with encephalitis were younger (p=0·007), whereas agitation was more frequent for patients with leptomeningeal enhancement (p=0·009).ConclusionsCOVID-19 patients may develop a wide range of neurological symptoms, which can be associated with severe and fatal complications, such as ischemic stroke or encephalitis. Concerning the meningoencephalitis involvement, even if a direct effect of the virus cannot be excluded, the pathophysiology rather seems to involve an immune and/or inflammatory process given the presence of signs of inflammation in both cerebrospinal fluid and neuroimaging but the lack of virus in cerebrospinal fluid.