Minimally invasive drainage in critically ill patients with severe necrotizing pancreatitis is associated with better outcomes: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Infected pancreatic necrosis, which occurs in about 40% of patients admitted for acute necrotizing pancreatitis, requires combined antibiotic therapy and local drainage. Since 2010, drainage by open surgical necrosectomy has been increasingly replaced by less invasive methods such as percutaneous radiological drainage, endoscopic necrosectomy, and laparoscopic surgery, which proved effective in small randomized controlled trials in highly selected patients. Few studies have evaluated minimally invasive drainage methods used under the conditions of everyday hospital practice. The aim of this study was to determine whether, compared with conventional open surgery, minimally invasive drainage was associated with improved outcomes of critically ill patients with infection complicating acute necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: A single-center observational study was conducted in patients admitted to the intensive care unit for severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis to compare the characteristics, drainage techniques, and outcomes of the 62 patients managed between September 2006 and December 2010, chiefly with conventional open surgery, and of the 81 patients managed between January 2011 and August 2015 after the introduction of a minimally invasive drainage protocol. RESULTS: Surgical necrosectomy was more common in the early period (74% versus 41%; P <0.001), and use of minimally invasive drainage increased between the early and late periods (19% and 52%, respectively; P <0.001). The numbers of ventilator-free days and catecholamine-free days by day 30 were higher during the later period. The proportions of patients discharged from intensive care within the first 30 days and from the hospital within the first 90 days were higher during the second period. Hospital mortality was not significantly different between the early and late periods (19% and 22%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In our study, the implementation of a minimally invasive drainage protocol in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis was associated with shorter times spent with organ dysfunction, in the intensive care unit, and in the hospital. Mortality was not significantly different. These results should be interpreted bearing in mind the limitations inherent in the before-after study design.

Delayed inflammation decrease is associated with mortality in Tocilizumab-treated critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients: A retrospective matched-cohort analysis.

Little is known about the immuno-inflammatory response to Tocilizumab and its association with outcome in critically-ill SARS-CoV2 pneumonia. In this multicenter retrospective cohort of SARS-CoV-2 patients admitted to three intensive care units between March and April 2020, we matched on gender and SAPS II 21 Tocilizumab-treated patients to 42 non-treated patients. Need for mechanical ventilation was 76% versus 79%. IL-6, C-reactive protein, and fibrinogen had been collected within the first days of admission (T1), 3 d (T2) and 7 d (T3) later. Tocilizumab-treated patients had persistently higher IL-6 plasma levels and persistently lower C-Reactive protein and fibrinogen levels. Among Tocilizumab-treated patients, baseline levels of inflammatory biomarkers were not different according to outcome. Conversely, C-reactive protein and fibrinogen decrease was delayed in non-survivors. C-Reactive protein decreased at T1 in survivors (45 [30-98] vs 170 [69-204] mg/l, P < 0.001) but only at T2 in non-survivors (37 [13-74] vs 277 [235-288], P = 0.03). Fibrinogen decreased at T2 in survivors (4.11 [3.58-4.69] vs 614 [5.61-7.85] g/l, P = 0.005) but not in non-survivors (4.79 [4.12-7.58] vs 7.24 [6.22-9.24] g/l, P = 0.125). Tocilizumab treatment was thus associated with a persistent both increase in plasma IL-6, and decrease in C-reactive protein and fibrinogen. Among Tocilizumab-treated patients, the decrease in inflammatory biomarkers was delayed in non-survivors.

Guidelines for the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidelines for the management of the intensive care patient with severe acute pancreatitis. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 22 experts was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the beginning of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline construction process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were required to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. METHODS: The most recent SFAR and SNFGE guidelines on the management of the patient with severe pancreatitis were published in 2001. The literature now is sufficient for an update. The committee studied 14 questions within 3 fields. Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) format and the relevant evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The experts' synthesis work and their application of the GRADE® method resulted in 24 recommendations. Among the formalised recommendations, 8 have high levels of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 have moderate levels of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 4 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert opinions. Four questions did not find any response in the literature. After one round of scoring, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among experts for 24 recommendations to improve practices for the management of intensive care patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

SARS-CoV-2 Renal Impairment in Critical Care: An Observational Study of 42 Cases (Kidney COVID).

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection leads to 5% to 16% hospitalization in intensive care units (ICU) and is associated with 23% to 75% of kidney impairments, including acute kidney injury (AKI). The current work aims to precisely characterize the renal impairment associated to SARS-CoV-2 in ICU patients. Forty-two patients consecutively admitted to the ICU of a French university hospital who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 25 March 2020, and 29 April 2020, were included and classified in categories according to their renal function. Complete renal profiles and evolution during ICU stay were fully characterized in 34 patients. Univariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors associated with AKI. In a second step, we conducted a logistic regression model with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses to assess major comorbidities as predictors of AKI. Thirty-two patients (94.1%) met diagnostic criteria for intrinsic renal injury with a mixed pattern of tubular and glomerular injuries within the first week of ICU admission, which lasted upon discharge. During their ICU stay, 24 patients (57.1%) presented AKI which was associated with increased mortality (p = 0.007), hemodynamic failure (p = 0.022), and more altered clearance at hospital discharge (p = 0.001). AKI occurrence was associated with lower pH (p = 0.024), higher PaCO2 (CO2 partial pressure in the arterial blood) (p = 0.027), PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) (p = 0.027), procalcitonin (p = 0.015), and CRP (C-reactive protein) (p = 0.045) on ICU admission. AKI was found to be independently associated with chronic kidney disease (adjusted OR (odd ratio) 5.97 (2.1-19.69), p = 0.00149). Critical SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with persistent intrinsic renal injury and AKI, which is a risk factor of mortality. Mechanical ventilation settings seem to be a critical factor of kidney impairment.

Elevated plasma IL-6 and CRP levels are associated with adverse clinical outcomes and death in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients: inflammatory response of SARS-CoV-2 patients.

BACKGROUND: SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for high morbidity and mortality worldwide, mostly due to the exacerbated inflammatory response observed in critically ill patients. However, little is known about the kinetics of the systemic immune response and its association with survival in SARS-CoV-2+ patients admitted in ICU. We aimed to compare the immuno-inflammatory features according to organ failure severity and in-ICU mortality. METHODS: Six-week multicentre study (N = 3) including SARS-CoV-2+ patients admitted in ICU. Analysis of plasma biomarkers at days 0 and 3-4 according to organ failure worsening (increase in SOFA score) and 60-day mortality. RESULTS: 101 patients were included. Patients had severe respiratory diseases with PaO2/FiO2 of 155 [111-251] mmHg), SAPS II of 37 [31-45] and SOFA score of 4 [3-7]. Eighty-three patients (83%) required endotracheal intubation/mechanical ventilation and among them, 64% were treated with prone position. IL-1ß was barely detectable. Baseline IL-6 levels positively correlated with organ failure severity. Baseline IL-6 and CRP levels were significantly higher in patients in the worsening group than in the non-worsening group (278 [70-622] vs. 71 [29-153] pg/mL, P < 0.01; and 178 [100-295] vs. 100 [37-213] mg/L, P < 0.05, respectively). Baseline IL-6 and CRP levels were significantly higher in non-survivors compared to survivors but fibrinogen levels and lymphocyte counts were not different between groups. After adjustment on SOFA score and time from symptom onset to first dosage, IL-6 and CRP remained significantly associated with mortality. IL-6 changes between Day 0 and Day 3-4 were not different according to the outcome. A contrario, kinetics of CRP and lymphocyte count were different between survivors and non-survivors. CONCLUSIONS: In SARS-CoV-2+ patients admitted in ICU, a systemic pro-inflammatory signature was associated with clinical worsening and 60-day mortality.

[Erratum to "Acute renal failure during COVID-19 epidemic" [Prat. Anesth. Reanim. 24 (2020) 207-11]]. / Erratum à « COVID-19 et insuffisance rénale aiguë en réanimation ¼ [Prat. Anesth. Reanim. 24 (2020) 207­11].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.pratan.2020.07.004.].