Evolution of hematocrit in burn patients as a marker of early fluid management during acute phase.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of hematocrit for monitoring fluid resuscitation of burn patients in the acute phase of their care. METHOD: We conducted a single-center retrospective study focused on patients admitted with a burn surface of more than 20 % of the total body surface area (TBSA) from 2014 to 2021. We investigated the relationship between the change in hematocrit and the volume administered for patient resuscitation. The change in hematocrit is the difference between an admission hematocrit and a second one taken between the eighth and twenty-fourth hour. RESULTS: We included 230 patients with an average burn size of 39.1 ± 20.3 % TBSA, in 94.4 % by a thermal mechanism. The management seems to be in accordance with the current recommendations, with a volume administered during the first 24 h of 4.3 ± 2.5 ml/kg/ % BSA, allowing to obtain an hourly diuresis of 0.9 ± 0.7 ml/kg/h. We did not find any correlation between the pre-hospital volume administration and the hematocrit at admission (p = 0.36). Hematocrit decreased on average to -4.5 ± 8.1 % between admission and a control performed after the 8th hour. This decrease was weakly correlated with the volumes infused between the two samples (r2 =0.13, p < 0.001). A resuscitation above 5.2 ml/kg/ % Burn surface area is an independent factor for excess mortality. CONCLUSION: Hematocrit or its variations in our limited data base appears to not reliably detect over-resuscitation, therefore it is possible that it may not be a relevant marker. These conclusions should be clarified in a multi-institutional prospective or real-world analysis to validate the findings and null hypothesis.

Validation of a pre-established triage protocol for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 outbreak under resource scarcity: A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: In case of COVID-19 related scarcity of critical care resources, an early French triage algorithm categorized critically ill patients by probability of survival based on medical history and severity, with four priority levels for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1 -high priority, P2 -intermediate priority, P3 -not needed, P4 -not appropriate. This retrospective multi-center study aimed to assess its classification performance and its ability to help saving lives under capacity saturation. METHODS: ICU patients admitted for severe COVID-19 without triage in spring 2020 were retrospectively included from three hospitals. Demographic data, medical history and severity items were collected. Priority levels were retrospectively allocated at ICU admission and on ICU day 7-10. Mortality rate, cumulative incidence of death and of alive ICU discharge, length of ICU stay and of mechanical ventilation were compared between priority levels. Calculated mortality and survival were compared between full simulated triage and no triage. RESULTS: 225 patients were included, aged 63.1±11.9 years. Median SAPS2 was 40 (IQR 29-49). At the end of follow-up, 61 (27%) had died, 26 were still in ICU, and 138 had been discharged. Following retrospective initial priority allocation, mortality rate was 53% among P4 patients (95CI 34-72%) versus 23% among all P1 to P3 patients (95CI 17-30%, chi-squared p = 5.2e-4). The cumulative incidence of death consistently increased in the order P3, P1, P2 and P4 both at admission (Gray's test p = 3.1e-5) and at reassessment (p = 8e-5), and conversely for that of alive ICU discharge. Reassessment strengthened consistency. Simulation under saturation showed that this two-step triage protocol could have saved 28 to 40 more lives than no triage. CONCLUSION: Although it cannot eliminate potentially avoidable deaths, this triage protocol proved able to adequately prioritize critical care for patients with highest probability of survival, hence to save more lives if applied.

Comparison of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Alpha (B.1.1.7) vs. Beta (B.1.351) in Critically Ill Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Objectives: The clinical outcomes of the Beta (B.1.351) variant of concern (VOC) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus remain poorly understood. In early 2021, northeastern France experienced an outbreak of Beta that was not observed elsewhere. This outbreak slightly preceded and then overlapped with a second outbreak of the better understood VOC Alpha (B.1.1.7) in the region. This situation allowed us to contemporaneously compare Alpha and Beta in terms of the characteristics, management, and outcomes of critically ill patients. Methods: A multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted on all consecutive adult patients who had laboratory confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, underwent variant screening, and were admitted to one of four intensive care units (ICU) for acute respiratory failure between January 9th and May 15th, 2021. Primary outcome was 60-day mortality. Differences between Alpha and Beta in terms of other outcomes, patient variables, management, and vaccination characteristics were also explored by univariate analysis. The factors that associated with 60-day death in Alpha- and Beta-infected patients were examined with logistic regression analysis. Results: In total, 333 patients (median age, 63 years; 68% male) were enrolled. Of these, 174 and 159 had Alpha and Beta, respectively. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of 60-day mortality (19 vs. 23%), 28-day mortality (17 vs. 20%), need for mechanical ventilation (60 vs. 61%), mechanical ventilation duration (14 vs. 15 days), other management variables, patient demographic variables, comorbidities, or clinical variables on ICU admission. The vast majority of patients were unvaccinated (94%). The remaining 18 patients had received a partial vaccine course and 2 were fully vaccinated. The vaccinated patients were equally likely to have Alpha and Beta. Conclusions: Beta did not differ from Alpha in terms of patient characteristics, management, or outcomes in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04906850.

Protocol for TRAUMADORNASE: a prospective, randomized, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial of aerosolized dornase alfa to reduce the incidence of moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia in ventilated trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome continues to drive significant morbidity and mortality after severe trauma. The incidence of trauma-induced, moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia, according to the Berlin definition, could be as high as 45%. Its pathophysiology includes the release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which propagate tissue injuries by triggering neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). NETs include a DNA backbone coated with cytoplasmic proteins, which drive pulmonary cytotoxic effects. The structure of NETs and many DAMPs includes double-stranded DNA, which prevents their neutralization by plasma. Dornase alfa is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved recombinant DNase, which cleaves extracellular DNA and may therefore break up the backbone of NETs and DAMPs. Aerosolized dornase alfa was shown to reduce trauma-induced lung injury in experimental models and to improve arterial oxygenation in ventilated patients. METHODS: TRAUMADORNASE will be an institution-led, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial in ventilated trauma patients. The primary trial objective is to demonstrate a reduction in the incidence of moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia in severe trauma patients during the first 7 days from 45% to 30% by providing aerosolized dornase alfa as compared to placebo. The secondary objectives are to demonstrate an improvement in lung function and a reduction in morbidity and mortality. Randomization of 250 patients per treatment arm will be carried out through a secure, web-based system. Statistical analyses will include a descriptive step and an inferential step using fully Bayesian techniques. The study was approved by both the Agence Nationale de la Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé (ANSM, on 5 October 2018) and a National Institutional Review Board (CPP, on 6 November 2018). Participant recruitment began in March 2019. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals. DISCUSSION: If early administration of inhaled dornase alfa actually reduces the incidence of moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia in patients with severe trauma, this new therapeutic strategy may be easily implemented in many clinical trauma care settings. This treatment may facilitate ventilator weaning, reduce the burden of trauma-induced lung inflammation and facilitate recovery and rehabilitation in severe trauma patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03368092. Registered on 11 December 2017.

Impact of Discontinuing Contact Precautions for MRSA and ESBLE in an Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective Noninferiority Before and After Study.

OBJECTIVE To compare incidence densities of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBLE) acquisition in the intensive care unit (ICU) before and after discontinuation of contact precautions (CP) and application of standard precautions (SP). DESIGN Prospective noninferiority before-and-after study comparing 2 periods: January 1, 2012, to January 31, 2014 (the CP period) and February 1, 2014, to February 29, 2016 (the SP period). SETTING A 16-bed polyvalent ICU in France with only single-bed rooms with dedicated equipment and reusable medical devices. PATIENTS All patients admitted to the ICU during the CP and SP periods were included: 1,547 and 1,577 patients, respectively. METHODS Incidence densities of ICU-acquired MRSA or ESBLE were determined per 1,000 patient days. Other studied factors included (1) patient characteristics, (2) incidence densities of MRSA or ESBLE carried at admission, (3) compliance with hand hygiene protocols, and (4) antibiotic consumption. RESULTS Incidence densities of ICU-acquired MRSA were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-1.33) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.30-1.29) per 1,000 patient days during the CP and SP periods, respectively. For ESBLE, values were 2.7 (95% CI, 1.78-3.62) and 2.06 (95% CI, 1.27-2.86) per 1,000 patient days. These rates were significantly nonsuperior during the SP period compared to CP period, with a margin of 1 per 1,000 patient days for both MRSA (P=.002) and ESBLE (P=.004). Other factors were comparable during the 2 periods. Only ESBLE carried at admission was inferior during the SP period. We observed a high level of compliance to hand hygiene protocols. CONCLUSIONS Discontinuing CP did not increase acquired MRSA and ESBLE in our ICU with single rooms with dedicated equipment, strict application of hand hygiene, medical and paramedical leadership, and good antibiotic stewardship. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1342-1350.