Programme Hospitalier Recherche Clinique, Institut Pasteur, Inserm, French Public Health Agency.

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

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.

FOB-BAL, under NIV and TCI with propofol, is feasible and safe in nonintubated patients with ARF. The TCI of propofol during FOB-BAL reduces patient discomfort with no significant adverse effects.

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.

No abstract

Background Although lung protection with low tidal volume and limited plateau pressure ( P plat ) improves survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (ARDS), the best way to set positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is still debated. Methods This study aimed to compare two strategies using individual PEEP based on a maximum P plat (28–30 cmH 2 O, the Express group) or on keeping end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure positive (0–5 cmH 2 O, P Lexpi group). We estimated alveolar recruitment (Vrec), end-expiratory lung volume and alveolar distension based on elastance-related end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure ( P L,EL ). Results Nineteen patients with moderate to severe ARDS (PaO 2 /FiO 2 < 150 mmHg) were included with a baseline PEEP of 7.0 ± 1.8 cmH 2 O and a PaO 2 /FiO 2 of 91.2 ± 31.2 mmHg. PEEP and oxygenation increased significantly from baseline with both protocols; PEEP Express group was 14.2 ± 3.6 cmH 2 O versus 16.7 ± 5.9 cmH 2 O in P Lexpi group. No patient had the same PEEP with the two protocols. Vrec was higher with the latter protocol (299 [0 to 875] vs. 222 [47 to 483] ml, p = 0.049) and correlated with improved oxygenation ( R 2 = 0.45, p = 0.002). Two and seven patients in the Express and P L,expi groups, respectively, had P L,EL > 25 cmH 2 O. Conclusions There is a great heterogeneity of P Lexpi when P plat is used to titrate PEEP but with limited risk of over-distension. A PEEP titration for a moderate positive level of P Lexpi might slightly improve alveolar recruitment and oxygenation but increases the risk of over-distension in one-third of patients.

Background Delaying time to prone positioning (PP) may be associated with higher mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the use and the impact of early PP on clinical outcomes in intubated patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) for COVID-19. Methods All intubated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were involved in a secondary analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study of COVID-ICU network including 149 ICUs across France, Belgium and Switzerland. Patients were followed-up until Day-90. The primary outcome was survival at Day-60. Analysis used a Cox proportional hazard model including a propensity score. Results Among 2137 intubated patients, 1504 (70.4%) were placed in PP during their ICU stay and 491 (23%) during the first 24 h following ICU admission. One hundred and eighty-one patients (36.9%) of the early PP group had a PaO2/FiO2 ratio > 150 mmHg when prone positioning was initiated. Among non-early PP group patients, 1013 (47.4%) patients had finally been placed in PP within a median delay of 3 days after ICU admission. Day-60 mortality in non-early PP group was 34.2% versus 39.3% in the early PP group (p = 0.038). Day-28 and Day-90 mortality as well as the need for adjunctive therapies was more important in patients with early PP. After propensity score adjustment, no significant difference in survival at Day-60 was found between the two study groups (HR 1.34 [0.96–1.68], p = 0.09 and HR 1.19 [0.998–1.412], p = 0.053 in complete case analysis or in multiple imputation analysis, respectively). Conclusions In a large multicentric international cohort of intubated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, PP has been used frequently as a main treatment. In this study, our data failed to show a survival benefit associated with early PP started within 24 h after ICU admission compared to PP after day-1 for all COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation regardless of their severity.