Sleep Assessment in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.

BACKGROUND: Sleep deprivation alters respiratory muscle performance and may precipitate respiratory failure. This study aimed to assess sleep in subjects admitted to ICU for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and its role in the risk of intubation. METHODS: This was a prospective observational single-center cohort study including subjects admitted to ICU for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure defined as breathing frequency ≥ 25 breaths/min or clinical signs of respiratory distress and PaO2 /FIO2 < 300 mm Hg while receiving high-flow nasal oxygen. Subjects with altered consciousness, central nervous or psychiatric disorders, continuous sedation or neuroleptic medication, or were uncooperative were excluded. Sleep was assessed by complete polysomnography (PSG) the night following ICU admission. The main outcome was to assess sleep among subjects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and to compare sleep between subjects who eventually required intubation to those who did not. RESULTS: Over a 24-month inclusion period, 34 subjects had complete PSG, among whom 5 (15%) required intubation in the ICU. Total sleep time was 4.2 h in median (interquartile range 2.9-6.8); deep-sleep duration was 70 min (34-127), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep duration was 9 min (0-28). Among them, 13 subjects (38%) had no REM sleep. Total sleep time and duration of deep and REM sleep stages did not differ between subjects who required intubation and those successfully treated with high-flow nasal oxygen. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas total sleep time remained relatively preserved in critically ill subjects with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, REM sleep time was uncommon or completely absent in a large number of subjects. Sleep did not differ between subjects who required intubation and those who did not. However, given a trend toward an increased risk of intubation in subjects with a complete absence of REM sleep, further studies are needed to better explore the impact of REM sleep on the risk of intubation.

Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) for students' training and assessment in the French respiratory medicine departments in 2021: An overview.

BACKGROUND: Medical professional performances can be assessed by objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) where medical trainees go through a series of simulated clinical situations. OSCEs are now the gold standard for the assessment of medical students' competence during their training. In France, the first national OSCEs will take place in May 2024 and respiratory teachers will be involved in this reform and will use OSCEs for students' training and assessment in respiratory medicine. Students training regarding this final OSCE may vary across medical faculties and may impact students' results. Therefore, we aimed to provide a national overview of OSCE's training performed by respiratory teachers and their interest in developing a common French databank of OSCEs. METHODS: We conducted a national anonymous online survey among the members of the French college of respiratory teachers (CEP), from 2021 February the 15th to 2021 June the 15th. The survey consisted of 32 questions. RESULTS: Among 118 French pulmonologists teachers, 52 (45%) responded to the survey. We received a response from at least one of each of the French Medical Universities. Twenty-two (42%) had received specific training on how to conduct an OSCE. Twenty-eight (54%) of respondents used OSCEs for training purposes and 24 (46%) for assessment purposes, for less than 1 year in more than half of the participants. The average satisfaction scores out of 10 about OSCEs was 7.3 ± 1.7 for training and 7.4 ± 1.5 for students' assessment. Respondents were willing (8.9 ± 1.8 out of ten) to develop a common databank to share OSCEs subjects in respiratory medicine in France. CONCLUSIONS: This survey confirms heterogeneity in the training and the use of OSCEs among French respiratory teachers. However, a common national databank could be a useful tool to reduce these disparities.

External validation of a refined four-stratum risk assessment score from the French pulmonary hypertension registry.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary risk assessment tools categorise patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) as low, intermediate or high risk. A minority of patients achieve low risk status with most remaining intermediate risk. Our aim was to validate a four-stratum risk assessment approach categorising patients as low, intermediate-low, intermediate-high or high risk, as proposed by the Comparative, Prospective Registry of Newly Initiated Therapies for Pulmonary Hypertension (COMPERA) investigators. METHODS: We evaluated incident patients from the French PAH Registry and applied a four-stratum risk method at baseline and at first reassessment. We applied refined cut-points for three variables: World Health Organization functional class, 6-min walk distance and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. We used Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression to assess survival according to three-stratum and four-stratum risk approaches. RESULTS: At baseline (n=2879), the four-stratum approach identified four distinct risk groups and performed slightly better than a three-stratum method for predicting mortality. Four-stratum model discrimination was significantly higher than the three-stratum method when applied during follow-up and refined risk categories among subgroups with idiopathic PAH, connective tissue disease-associated PAH, congenital heart disease and portopulmonary hypertension. Using the four-stratum approach, 53% of patients changed risk category from baseline compared to 39% of patients when applying the three-stratum approach. Those who achieved or maintained a low risk status had the best survival, whereas there were more nuanced differences in survival for patients who were intermediate-low and intermediate-high risk. CONCLUSIONS: The four-stratum risk assessment method refined risk prediction, especially within the intermediate risk category of patients, performed better at predicting survival and was more sensitive to change than the three-stratum approach.