Severe leptospirosis in non-tropical areas: a nationwide, multicentre, retrospective study in French ICUs.

PURPOSE: To report the incidence, risk factors, clinical presentation, and outcome predictors of severe leptospirosis requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission in a temperate zone. METHODS: LEPTOREA was a retrospective multicentre study conducted in 79 ICUs in metropolitan France. Consecutive adults admitted to the ICU for proven severe leptospirosis from January 2012 to September 2016 were included. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) and hierarchical classification on principal components (HCPC) were performed to distinguish different clinical phenotypes. RESULTS: The 160 included patients (0.04% of all ICU admissions) had median values of 54 years [38-65] for age, 40 [28-58] for the SAPSII, and 11 [8-14] for the SOFA score. Hospital mortality was 9% and was associated with older age; worse SOFA score and early need for endotracheal ventilation and/or renal replacement therapy; chronic alcohol abuse and worse hepatic dysfunction; confusion; and higher leucocyte count. Four phenotypes were identified: moderately severe leptospirosis (n = 34, 21%) with less organ failure and better outcomes; hepato-renal leptospirosis (n = 101, 63%) with prominent liver and kidney dysfunction; neurological leptospirosis (n = 8, 5%) with the most severe organ failures and highest mortality; and respiratory leptospirosis (n = 17, 11%) with pulmonary haemorrhage. The main risk factors for leptospirosis contamination were contact with animals, contact with river or lake water, and specific occupations. CONCLUSIONS: Severe leptospirosis was an uncommon reason for ICU admission in metropolitan France and carried a lower mortality rate than expected based on the high severity and organ-failure scores. The identification in our population of several clinical presentations may help clinicians establish an appropriate index of suspicion for severe leptospirosis.

Effect of an ICU Diary on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms Among Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Keeping a diary for patients while they are in the intensive care unit (ICU) might reduce their posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Objectives: To assess the effect of an ICU diary on the psychological consequences of an ICU hospitalization. Design, Setting, and Participants: Assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in 35 French ICUs from October 2015 to January 2017, with follow-up until July 2017. Among 2631 approached patients, 709 adult patients (with 1 family member each) who received mechanical ventilation within 48 hours after ICU admission for at least 2 days were eligible, 657 were randomized, and 339 were assessed 3 months after ICU discharge. Interventions: Patients in the intervention group (n = 355) had an ICU diary filled in by clinicians and family members. Patients in the control group (n = 354) had usual ICU care without an ICU diary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was significant PTSD symptoms, defined as an Impact Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) score greater than 22 (range, 0-88; a higher score indicates more severe symptoms), measured in patients 3 months after ICU discharge. Secondary outcomes, also measured at 3 months and compared between groups, included significant PTSD symptoms in family members; significant anxiety and depression symptoms in patients and family members, based on a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score greater than 8 for each subscale (range, 0-42; higher scores indicate more severe symptoms; minimal clinically important difference, 2.5); and patient memories of the ICU stay, reported with the ICU memory tool. Results: Among 657 patients who were randomized (median [interquartile range] age, 62 [51-70] years; 126 women [37.2%]), 339 (51.6%) completed the trial. At 3 months, significant PTSD symptoms were reported by 49 of 164 patients (29.9%) in the intervention group vs 60 of 175 (34.3%) in the control group (risk difference, -4% [95% CI, -15% to 6%]; P = .39). The median (interquartile range) IES-R score was 12 (5-25) in the intervention group vs 13 (6-27) in the control group (difference, -1.47 [95% CI, -1.93 to 4.87]; P = .38). There were no significant differences in any of the 6 prespecified comparative secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who received mechanical ventilation in the ICU, the use of an ICU diary filled in by clinicians and family members did not significantly reduce the number of patients who reported significant PTSD symptoms at 3 months. These findings do not support the use of ICU diaries for preventing PTSD symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02519725.

The ICU-Diary study: prospective, multicenter comparative study of the impact of an ICU diary on the wellbeing of patients and families in French ICUs.

BACKGROUND: Post-intensive care syndrome includes the multiple consequences of an intensive care unit (ICU) stay for patients and families. It has become a new challenge for intensivists. Prevention programs have been disappointing, except for ICU diaries, which report the patient's story in the ICU. However, the effectiveness of ICU diaries for patients and families is still controversial, as the interpretation of the results of previous studies was open to criticism hampering an expanded use of the diary. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the post-traumatic stress syndrome in patients. The secondary objectives are to evaluate the post-traumatic stress syndrome in families, anxiety and depression symptoms in patients and families, and the recollected memories of patients. Endpoints will be evaluated 3 months after ICU discharge or death. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, assessor-blind comparative study of the effect of an ICU diary on patients and families. We will compare two groups: one group with an ICU diary written by staff and family and given to the patient at ICU discharge or to the family in case of death, and a control group without any ICU diary. Each of the 35 participating centers will include 20 patients having at least one family member who will likely visit the patient during their ICU stay. Patients must be ventilated within 48 h after ICU admission and not have any previous chronic neurologic or acute condition responsible for cognitive impairments that would hamper their participation in a phone interview. Three months after ICU discharge or death of the patient, a psychologist will contact the patient and family by phone. Post-traumatic stress syndrome will be evaluated using the Impact of Events Scale-Revised questionnaire, anxiety and depression symptoms using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaire, both in patients and families, and memory recollection using the ICU Memory Tool Questionnaire in patients. The content of a randomized sample of diaries of each center will be analyzed using a grid. An interview of the patients in the intervention arm will be conducted 6 months after ICU discharge to analyze in depth how they use the diary. DISCUSSION: This study will provide new insights on the impact of ICU diaries on post-traumatic stress disorders in patients and families after an ICU stay. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, ID: NCT02519725 . Registered on 13 July 2015.

Predictors of intensive care unit refusal in French intensive care units: a multiple-center study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with granting or refusing intensive care unit (ICU) admission, to analyze ICU characteristics and triage decisions, and to describe mortality in admitted and refused patients. DESIGN: Observational, prospective, multiple-center study. SETTING: Four university hospitals and seven primary-care hospitals in France. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Age, underlying diseases (McCabe score and Knaus class), dependency, hospital mortality, and ICU characteristics were recorded. The crude ICU refusal rate was 23.8% (137/574), with variations from 7.1% to 63.1%. The reasons for refusal were too well to benefit (76/137, 55.4%), too sick to benefit (51/137, 37.2%), unit too busy (9/137, 6.5%), and refusal by the family (1/137). In logistic regression analyses, two patient-related factors were associated with ICU refusal: dependency (odds ratio [OR], 14.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.27-38.25; p < .0001) and metastatic cancer (OR, 5.82; 95% CI, 2.22-15.28). Other risk factors were organizational, namely, full unit (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.88-5.31), center (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.27-6.39), phone admission (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14-0.40), and daytime admission (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.84). The Standardized Mortality Ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.19-1.69) for immediately admitted patients, 1.75 (95% CI, 1.60-1.84) for refused patients, and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.28-1.75) for later-admitted patients. CONCLUSIONS: ICU refusal rates varied greatly across ICUs and were dependent on both patient and organizational factors. Efforts to define ethically optimal ICU admission policies might lead to greater homogeneity in refusal rates, although case-mix variations would be expected to leave an irreducible amount of variation across ICUs.