Prospective multi-center evaluation of the incidence of unplanned extubation and its outcomes in French intensive care units. The Safe-ICU study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the epidemiology and outcomes of unplanned extubation (UE), both accidental and self-extubation, in ICU. METHODS: A multicentre prospective cohort study was conducted in 47 French ICUs. The number of mechanical ventilation (MV) days, and planned and unplanned extubation were recorded in each center over a minimum period of three consecutive months to evaluate UE incidence. Patient characteristics, UE environmental factors, and outcomes were compared based on the UE mechanism (accidental or self-extubation). Self-extubation outcomes were compared with planned extubation using a propensity-matched population. Finally, risk factors for extubation failure (re-intubation before day 7) were determined following self-extubation. RESULTS: During the 12-month inclusion period, we found a pooled UE incidence of 1.0 per 100 MV days. UE accounted for 9% of all endotracheal removals. Of the 605 UE, 88% were self-extubation and 12% were accidental-extubations. The latter had a worse prognosis than self-extubation (34%vs. 8% ICU-mortality, p < 0.001). Self-extubation did not increase mortality compared with planned extubation (8 vs. 11%, p = 0.075). Regardless of the type of extubation, planned or unplanned, extubation failure was independently associated with a poor outcome. Cancer, higher respiratory rate, lower PaO2/FiO2 at the time of extubation, weaning process not-ongoing, and immediate post-extubation respiratory failure were independent predictors of failed self-extubation. CONCLUSION: Unplanned extubation, mostly represented by self-extubation, is common in ICU and accounts for 9% of all endotracheal extubations. While accidental extubations are a serious and infrequent adverse event, self-extubation does not increase mortality compared to planned extubation.

Resilience after severe critical illness: a prospective, multicentre, observational study (RESIREA).

BACKGROUND: Critical-illness survivors may experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and quality-of-life impairments. Resilience may protect against psychological trauma but has not been adequately studied after critical illness. We assessed resilience and its associations with PTSD and quality of life, and also identified factors associated with greater resilience. METHODS: This prospective, multicentre, study in patients recruited at 41 French ICUs was done in parallel with the NUTRIREA-3 trial in patients given mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amines for shock. Three months to one year after intensive-care-unit admission, survivors completed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25), Impact of Event-Revised scale for PTSD symptoms (IES-R), SF-36 quality-of-life scale, Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ). RESULTS: Of the 382 included patients, 203 (53.1%) had normal or high resilience (CD-RISC-25 ≥ 68). Of these resilient patients, 26 (12.8%) had moderate to severe PTSD symptoms (IES-R ≥ 24) vs. 45 (25.4%) patients with low resilience (p = 0.002). Resilient patients had higher SF-36 scores. Factors independently associated with higher CD-RISC-25 scores were higher MSPSS score indicating stronger social support (OR, 1.027; 95%CI 1.008-1.047; p = 0.005) and lower B-IPQ scores indicating a more threatening perception of the illness (OR, 0.973; 95%CI 0.950-0.996; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Resilient patients had a lower prevalence of PTSD symptoms and higher quality of life scores, compared to patients with low resilience. Higher scores for social support and illness perception were independently associated with greater resilience. Thus, our findings suggest that interventions to strengthen social support and improve illness perception may help to improve resilience. Such interventions should be evaluated in trials with PTSD mitigation and quality-of-life improvement as the target outcomes.

Treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS with umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in the STROMA-CoV-2 multicenter randomized double-blind trial: long-term safety, respiratory function, and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The STROMA-CoV-2 study was a French phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial that did not identify a significant efficacy of umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome. Safety on day 28 was found to be good. The aim of our extended study was to assess the 6- and 12-month safety of UC-MSCs administration in the STROMA-CoV-2 cohort. METHODS: A detailed multi-domain assessment was conducted at 6 and 12 months following hospital discharge focusing on adverse events, lung computed tomography-scan, pulmonary and muscular functional status, and quality of life in the STROMA-CoV-2 cohort including SARS-CoV-2-related early (< 96 h) mild-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and October 2020, 47 patients were enrolled, of whom 19 completed a 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in any endpoints or adverse effects between the UC-MSCs and placebo groups at the 6- and 12-month assessments. Ground-glass opacities persisted at 1 year in 5 patients (26.3%). Furthermore, diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide remained altered over 1 year, although no patient required oxygen or non-invasive ventilatory support. Quality of life revealed declines in mental, emotional and physical health throughout the follow-up period, and the six-minute walking distance remained slightly impaired at the 1-year patient assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a favorable safety profile for the use of intravenous UC-MSCs in the context of the first French wave of SARS-CoV-2-related moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, with no adverse effects observed at 1 year.

Efficacy of oral 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101), a MAS receptor activator, in adults with severe COVID-19 (COVA): a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 binding to ACE2 is potentially associated with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19. The aim of the study was to test whether Mas-receptor activation by 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101) could restore the Renin-Angiotensin System equilibrium and limit the frequency of respiratory failure and mortality in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Methods: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial. Randomization: 1:1 oral BIO101 (350 mg BID) or placebo, up to 28 days or until an endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint: mortality or respiratory failure requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Key secondary endpoint: hospital discharge following recovery (ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT04472728). Findings: Due to low recruitment the planned sample size of 310 was not reached and 238 patients were randomized between August 26, 2020 and March 8, 2022. In the modified ITT population (233 patients; 126 BIO101 and 107 placebo), respiratory failure or early death by day 28 was 11.4% lower in the BIO101 (13.5%) than in the placebo (24.3%) group, (p = 0.0426). At day 28, proportions of patients discharged following recovery were 80.1%, and 70.9% in the BIO101 and placebo group respectively, (adjusted difference 11.0%, 95% CI [-0.4%, 22.4%], p = 0.0586). Hazard Ratio for time to death over 90 days: 0.554 (95% CI [0.285, 1.077]), a 44.6% mortality reduction in the BIO101 group (not statistically significant). Treatment emergent adverse events of respiratory failure were more frequent in the placebo group. Interpretation: BIO101 significantly reduced the risk of death or respiratory failure supporting its use in adults hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms due to COVID-19. Funding: Biophytis.

Clinical description and outcome of overall varicella-zoster virus-related organ dysfunctions admitted in intensive care units: the VAZOREA cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Due to aging population and increasing part of immunocompromised patients, a raise in life-threatening organ damage related to VZV can be expected. Two retrospective studies were already conducted on VZV in ICU but focused on specific organ injury. Patients with high-risk of VZV disease still must be identified. The objective of this study was to report the clinical features and outcome of all life-threatening VZV manifestations requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 26 French ICUs and included all adult patients with any life-threatening VZV-related event requiring ICU admission or occurring in ICU between 2010 and 2019. RESULTS: One-hundred nineteen patients were included with a median SOFA score of 6. One hundred eight patients (90.8%) were admitted in ICU for VZV disease, leaving 11 (9.2%) with VZV disease occurring in ICU. Sixty-one patients (51.3%) were immunocompromised. Encephalitis was the most prominent organ involvement (55.5%), followed by pneumonia (44.5%) and hepatitis (9.2%). Fifty-four patients (45.4%) received norepinephrine, 72 (60.5% of the total cohort) needed invasive mechanical ventilation, and 31 (26.3%) received renal-replacement therapy. In-hospital mortality was 36.1% and was significantly associated with three independent risk factors by multivariable logistic regression: immunosuppression, VZV disease occurring in ICU and alcohol abuse. Hierarchical clustering on principal components revealed five phenotypically distinct clusters of patients: VZV-related pneumonia, mild encephalitis, severe encephalitis in solid organ transplant recipients, encephalitis in other immunocompromised hosts and VZV disease occurring in ICU. In-hospital mortality was highly different across phenotypes, ranging from zero to 75% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, severe VZV manifestations are associated with high mortality in the ICU, which appears to be driven by immunosuppression status rather than any specific organ involvement. Deciphering the clinical phenotypes may help clinicians identify high-risk patients and assess prognosis.

Derivation and validation of a risk-stratification model for patients with probable or proven COVID-19 in EDs: the revised HOME-CoV score.

BACKGROUND: The HOME-CoV (Hospitalisation or Outpatient ManagEment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection) score is a validated list of uniquely clinical criteria indicating which patients with probable or proven COVID-19 can be treated at home. The aim of this study was to optimise the score to improve its ability to discriminate between patients who do and do not need admission. METHODS: A revised HOME-CoV score was derived using data from a previous prospective multicentre study which evaluated the original Home-CoV score. Patients with proven or probable COVID-19 attending 34 EDs in France, Monaco and Belgium between April and May 2020 were included. The population was split into a derivation and validation sample corresponding to the observational and interventional phases of the original study. The main outcome was non-invasive or invasive ventilation or all-cause death within 7 days following inclusion. Two threshold values were defined using a sensitivity of >0.9 and a specificity of >0.9 to identify low-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. The revised HOME-CoV score was then validated by retrospectively applying it to patients in the same EDs with proven or probable COVID-19 during the interventional phase. The revised HOME-CoV score was also tested against original HOME-CoV, qCSI, qSOFA, CRB65 and SMART-COP in this validation cohort. RESULTS: There were 1696 patients in the derivation cohort, of whom 65 (3.8%) required non-invasive ventilation or mechanical ventilation or died within 7 days and 1304 patients in the validation cohort, of whom 22 (1.7%) had a progression of illness. The revised score included seven clinical criteria. The area under the curve (AUC) was 87.6 (95% CI 84.7 to 90.6). The cut-offs to define low-risk and high-risk patients were <2 and >3, respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUC was 85.8 (95% CI 80.6 to 91.0). A score of <2 qualified 73% of patients as low risk with a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.55-0.92) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.99-1.00). CONCLUSION: The revised HOME-CoV score, which does not require laboratory testing, may allow accurate risk stratification and safely qualify a significant proportion of patients with probable or proven COVID-19 for home treatment.

Protocol for fever control using external cooling in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock: SEPSISCOOL II randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Fever treatment is commonly applied in patients with sepsis but its impact on survival remains undetermined. Patients with respiratory and haemodynamic failure are at the highest risk for not tolerating the metabolic cost of fever. However, fever can help to control infection. Treating fever with paracetamol has been shown to be less effective than cooling. In the SEPSISCOOL pilot study, active fever control by external cooling improved organ failure recovery and early survival. The main objective of this confirmatory trial is to assess whether fever control at normothermia can improve the evolution of organ failure and mortality at day 60 of febrile patients with septic shock. This study will compare two strategies within the first 48 hours of septic shock: treatment of fever with cooling or no treatment of fever. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SEPSISCOOL II is a pragmatic, investigator-initiated, adaptive, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, superiority trial in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with febrile septic shock. After stratification based on the acute respiratory distress syndrome status, patients will be randomised between two arms: (1) cooling and (2) no cooling. The primary endpoint is mortality at day 60 after randomisation. The secondary endpoints include the evolution of organ failure, early mortality and tolerance. The target sample size is 820 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is funded by the French health ministry and was approved by the ethics committee CPP Nord Ouest II (Amiens, France). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04494074.