Hydrocortisone in Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Whether the antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of glucocorticoids may decrease mortality among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe community-acquired pneumonia to receive intravenous hydrocortisone (200 mg daily for either 4 or 7 days as determined by clinical improvement, followed by tapering for a total of 8 or 14 days) or to receive placebo. All the patients received standard therapy, including antibiotics and supportive care. The primary outcome was death at 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients had undergone randomization when the trial was stopped after the second planned interim analysis. Data from 795 patients were analyzed. By day 28, death had occurred in 25 of 400 patients (6.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.9 to 8.6) in the hydrocortisone group and in 47 of 395 patients (11.9%; 95% CI, 8.7 to 15.1) in the placebo group (absolute difference, -5.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.6 to -1.7; P = 0.006). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, endotracheal intubation was performed in 40 of 222 (18.0%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 65 of 220 (29.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.86). Among the patients who were not receiving vasopressors at baseline, such therapy was initiated by day 28 in 55 of 359 (15.3%) of the hydrocortisone group and in 86 of 344 (25.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.82). The frequencies of hospital-acquired infections and gastrointestinal bleeding were similar in the two groups; patients in the hydrocortisone group received higher daily doses of insulin during the first week of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia being treated in the ICU, those who received hydrocortisone had a lower risk of death by day 28 than those who received placebo. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; CAPE COD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517489.).

Inhaled Amikacin to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Whether preventive inhaled antibiotics may reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia is unclear. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial, we assigned critically ill adults who had been undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours to receive inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of ideal body weight once daily or to receive placebo for 3 days. The primary outcome was a first episode of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients underwent randomization, and 847 were included in the analyses (417 assigned to the amikacin group and 430 to the placebo group). All three daily nebulizations were received by 337 patients (81%) in the amikacin group and 355 patients (83%) in the placebo group. At 28 days, ventilator-associated pneumonia had developed in 62 patients (15%) in the amikacin group and in 95 patients (22%) in the placebo group (difference in restricted mean survival time to ventilator-associated pneumonia, 1.5 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 2.5; P = 0.004). An infection-related ventilator-associated complication occurred in 74 patients (18%) in the amikacin group and in 111 patients (26%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89). Trial-related serious adverse effects were seen in 7 patients (1.7%) in the amikacin group and in 4 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had undergone mechanical ventilation for at least 3 days, a subsequent 3-day course of inhaled amikacin reduced the burden of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; AMIKINHAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03149640; EUDRA Clinical Trials number, 2016-001054-17.).

Effects of Losartan on Patients Hospitalized for Acute COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) down-regulates angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, potentially increasing angiotensin II. We hypothesized that losartan compared to usual care decreases mortality and is safe in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the effect of losartan versus usual care on 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included adults admitted for acute COVID-19. Exclusion criteria were hypotension, hyperkalemia, acute kidney injury, and use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors within 7 days. Participants were randomized to losartan 25-100 mg/day orally for the hospital duration or 3 months or the control arm (usual care) in 29 hospitals in Canada and France. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, organ support, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: The trial was stopped early because of a serious safety concern with losartan. In 341 patients, any SAE and hypotension were significantly higher in the losartan versus usual care groups (any SAE: 39.8% vs 27.2%, respectively, P = .01; hypotension: 30.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, P < .001) in both ward and intensive care patients. The 28-day mortality did not differ between losartan (6.5%) versus usual care (5.9%) (odds ratio, 1.11 [95% confidence interval, .47-2.64]; P = .81), nor did organ dysfunction or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is needed in deciding which patients to start or continue using ARBs in patients hospitalized with pneumonia to mitigate risk of hypotension, acute kidney injury, and other side effects. ARBs should not be added to care of patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04606563.

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.

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.

A randomised trial of anti-GM-CSF otilimab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (OSCAR).

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. RESULTS: In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile.

Prevention of Early Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia after Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Patients who are treated with targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with shockable rhythm are at increased risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia. The benefit of preventive short-term antibiotic therapy has not been shown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving adult patients (>18 years of age) in intensive care units (ICUs) who were being mechanically ventilated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest related to initial shockable rhythm and treated with targeted temperature management at 32 to 34°C. Patients with ongoing antibiotic therapy, chronic colonization with multidrug-resistant bacteria, or moribund status were excluded. Either intravenous amoxicillin-clavulanate (at doses of 1 g and 200 mg, respectively) or placebo was administered three times a day for 2 days, starting less than 6 hours after the cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was early ventilator-associated pneumonia (during the first 7 days of hospitalization). An independent adjudication committee determined diagnoses of ventilator-associated pneumonia. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients underwent randomization, and 194 were included in the analysis. After adjudication, 60 cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia were confirmed, including 51 of early ventilator-associated pneumonia. The incidence of early ventilator-associated pneumonia was lower with antibiotic prophylaxis than with placebo (19 patients [19%] vs. 32 [34%]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.92; P = 0.03). No significant differences between the antibiotic group and the control group were observed with respect to the incidence of late ventilator-associated pneumonia (4% and 5%, respectively), the number of ventilator-free days (21 days and 19 days), ICU length of stay (5 days and 8 days if patients were discharged and 7 days and 7 days if patients had died), and mortality at day 28 (41% and 37%). At day 7, no increase in resistant bacteria was identified. Serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A 2-day course of antibiotic therapy with amoxicillin-clavulanate in patients receiving a 32-to-34°C targeted temperature management strategy after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with initial shockable rhythm resulted in a lower incidence of early ventilator-associated pneumonia than placebo. No significant between-group differences were observed for other key clinical variables, such as ventilator-free days and mortality at day 28. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; ANTHARTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02186951.).

Targeted Temperature Management for Cardiac Arrest with Nonshockable Rhythm.

BACKGROUND: Moderate therapeutic hypothermia is currently recommended to improve neurologic outcomes in adults with persistent coma after resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the effectiveness of moderate therapeutic hypothermia in patients with nonshockable rhythms (asystole or pulseless electrical activity) is debated. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing moderate therapeutic hypothermia (33°C during the first 24 hours) with targeted normothermia (37°C) in patients with coma who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after resuscitation from cardiac arrest with nonshockable rhythm. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable neurologic outcome, assessed on day 90 after randomization with the use of the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) scale (which ranges from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). We defined a favorable neurologic outcome as a CPC score of 1 or 2. Outcome assessment was blinded. Mortality and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: From January 2014 through January 2018, a total of 584 patients from 25 ICUs underwent randomization, and 581 were included in the analysis (3 patients withdrew consent). On day 90, a total of 29 of 284 patients (10.2%) in the hypothermia group were alive with a CPC score of 1 or 2, as compared with 17 of 297 (5.7%) in the normothermia group (difference, 4.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1 to 8.9; P = 0.04). Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between the hypothermia group and the normothermia group (81.3% and 83.2%, respectively; difference, -1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.0 to 4.3). The incidence of prespecified adverse events did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with coma who had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest with nonshockable rhythm, moderate therapeutic hypothermia at 33°C for 24 hours led to a higher percentage of patients who survived with a favorable neurologic outcome at day 90 than was observed with targeted normothermia. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and others; HYPERION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01994772.).

Spontaneous pneumomediastinum: a surrogate of P-SILI in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Spontaneous pneumomediastinum (SP) has been described early during the COVID-19 pandemic in large series of patients with severe pneumonia, but most patients were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) at the time of SP diagnosis. In this retrospective multicenter observational study, we aimed at describing the prevalence and outcomes of SP during severe COVID-19 with pneumonia before any IMV, to rule out mechanisms induced by IMV in the development of pneumomediastinum.Among 549 patients, 21 patients (4%) developed a SP while receiving non-invasive respiratory support, after a median of 6 days [4-12] from ICU admission. The proportion of patients requiring IMV was similar. However, the time to tracheal intubation was longer in patients with SP (6 days [5-13] vs. 2 days [1-4]; P = 0.00002), with a higher first-line use of non-invasive ventilation (n = 11; 52% vs. n = 150; 28%; P = 0.02). The 21 patients who developed a SP had persisting signs of severe lung disease and respiratory failure with lower ROX index between ICU admission and occurrence of SP (3.94 [3.15-5.55] at admission vs. 3.25 [2.73-4.02] the day preceding SP; P = 0.1), which may underline potential indirect signals of Patient-self inflicted lung injury (P-SILI).In this series of critically ill COVID-19 patients, the prevalence of SP without IMV was not uncommon, affecting 4% of patients. They received more often vasopressors and had a longer ICU length of stay, as compared with their counterparts. One pathophysiological mechanism may potentially be carried out by P-SILI related to a prolonged respiratory failure, as underlined by a delayed use of IMV and the evolution of the ROX index between ICU admission and the day preceding SP.

Treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS with mesenchymal stromal cells: a multicenter randomized double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) causes high mortality. Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) have potentially relevant immune-modulatory properties, whose place in ARDS treatment is not established. This phase 2b trial was undertaken to assess the efficacy of UC-MSCs in patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STROMA-CoV-2) recruited adults (≥ 18 years) with SARS-CoV-2-induced early (< 96 h) mild-to-severe ARDS in 10 French centres. Patients were randomly assigned to receive three intravenous infusions of 106 UC-MSCs/kg or placebo (0.9% NaCl) over 5 days after recruitment. For the modified intention-to-treat population, the primary endpoint was the partial pressure of oxygen to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2)-ratio change between baseline (day (D) 0) and D7. RESULTS: Among the 107 patients screened for eligibility from April 6, 2020, to October 29, 2020, 45 were enrolled, randomized and analyzed. PaO2/FiO2 changes between D0 and D7 did not differ significantly between the UC-MSCs and placebo groups (medians [IQR] 54.3 [- 15.5 to 93.3] vs 25.3 [- 33.3 to 104.6], respectively; ANCOVA estimated treatment effect 7.4, 95% CI - 44.7 to 59.7; P = 0.77). Six (28.6%) of the 21 UC-MSCs recipients and six of 24 (25%) placebo-group patients experienced serious adverse events, none of which were related to UC-MSCs treatment. CONCLUSIONS: D0-to-D7 PaO2/FiO2 changes for intravenous UC-MSCs-versus placebo-treated adults with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS did not differ significantly. Repeated UC-MSCs infusions were not associated with any serious adverse events during treatment or thereafter (until D28). Larger trials enrolling patients earlier during the course of their ARDS are needed to further assess UC-MSCs efficacy in this context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04333368. Registered 01 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04333368 .

Relationship between corticosteroid use and incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in COVID-19 patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The aim of this ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter observational retrospective study is to assess the relationship between adjuvant corticosteroid use and the incidence of VAP. METHODS: Planned ancillary analysis of a multicenter retrospective European cohort in 36 ICUs. Adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were consecutively included between February and May 2020. VAP diagnosis required strict definition with clinical, radiological and quantitative microbiological confirmation. We assessed the association of VAP with corticosteroid treatment using univariate and multivariate cause-specific Cox's proportional hazard models with adjustment on pre-specified confounders. RESULTS: Among the 545 included patients, 191 (35%) received corticosteroids. The proportional hazard assumption for the effect of corticosteroids on the incidence of VAP could not be accepted, indicating that this effect varied during ICU stay. We found a non-significant lower risk of VAP for corticosteroid-treated patients during the first days in the ICU and an increased risk for longer ICU stay. By modeling the effect of corticosteroids with time-dependent coefficients, the association between corticosteroids and the incidence of VAP was not significant (overall effect p = 0.082), with time-dependent hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 0.47 (0.17-1.31) at day 2, 0.95 (0.63-1.42) at day 7, 1.48 (1.01-2.16) at day 14 and 1.94 (1.09-3.46) at day 21. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association was found between adjuvant corticosteroid treatment and the incidence of VAP, although a time-varying effect of corticosteroids was identified along the 28-day follow-up.

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis among intubated patients with SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia: a European multicenter comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Recent multicenter studies identified COVID-19 as a risk factor for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA). However, no large multicenter study has compared the incidence of IPA between COVID-19 and influenza patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of putative IPA in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared with influenza patients. METHODS: This study was a planned ancillary analysis of the coVAPid multicenter retrospective European cohort. Consecutive adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for > 48 h for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia or influenza pneumonia were included. The 28-day cumulative incidence of putative IPA, based on Blot definition, was the primary outcome. IPA incidence was estimated using the Kalbfleisch and Prentice method, considering extubation (dead or alive) within 28 days as competing event. RESULTS: A total of 1047 patients were included (566 in the SARS-CoV-2 group and 481 in the influenza group). The incidence of putative IPA was lower in SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia group (14, 2.5%) than in influenza pneumonia group (29, 6%), adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio (cHR) 3.29 (95% CI 1.53-7.02, p = 0.0006). When putative IPA and Aspergillus respiratory tract colonization were combined, the incidence was also significantly lower in the SARS-CoV-2 group, as compared to influenza group (4.1% vs. 10.2%), adjusted cHR 3.21 (95% CI 1.88-5.46, p < 0.0001). In the whole study population, putative IPA was associated with significant increase in 28-day mortality rate, and length of ICU stay, compared with colonized patients, or those with no IPA or Aspergillus colonization. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the incidence of putative IPA was low. Its incidence was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than in those with influenza pneumonia. Clinical trial registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04359693 .

Early Bacterial Identification among Intubated Patients with COVID-19 or Influenza Pneumonia: A European Multicenter Comparative Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Early empirical antimicrobial treatment is frequently prescribed to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) based on Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.Objectives: We aimed to determine the prevalence of early bacterial identification in intubated patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pneumonia, as compared with influenza pneumonia, and to characterize its microbiology and impact on outcomes.Methods: A multicenter retrospective European cohort was performed in 36 ICUs. All adult patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation >48 hours were eligible if they had SARS-CoV-2 or influenza pneumonia at ICU admission. Bacterial identification was defined by a positive bacterial culture within 48 hours after intubation in endotracheal aspirates, BAL, blood cultures, or a positive pneumococcal or legionella urinary antigen test.Measurements and Main Results: A total of 1,050 patients were included (568 in SARS-CoV-2 and 482 in influenza groups). The prevalence of bacterial identification was significantly lower in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia compared with patients with influenza pneumonia (9.7 vs. 33.6%; unadjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.30; adjusted odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.16-0.33; P < 0.0001). Gram-positive cocci were responsible for 58% and 72% of coinfection in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pneumonia, respectively. Bacterial identification was associated with increased adjusted hazard ratio for 28-day mortality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (1.57; 95% CI, 1.01-2.44; P = 0.043). However, no significant difference was found in the heterogeneity of outcomes related to bacterial identification between the two study groups, suggesting that the impact of coinfection on mortality was not different between patients with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza.Conclusions: Bacterial identification within 48 hours after intubation is significantly less frequent in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia than patients with influenza pneumonia.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359693).

Epidemiology and outcome of patients admitted to intensive care after anaphylaxis in France: a retrospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on patients who have experienced anaphylaxis and were admitted to ICUs. The purpose of this observational study was to describe the epidemiology and management of these patients. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study carried out in 23 French ICUs between 2012 and 2017. All patients who suffered anaphylaxis and were transferred to an ICU were included. Data were collected using an electronic database after approval by an ethics committee. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients were included, and 17 (5%) died secondary to anaphylaxis. The main triggers were drugs (77%), contrast media (11%), and food (7%). Epinephrine was administered before ICU admission in 88% of patients with Grade III anaphylaxis and 100% of patients with Grade IV anaphylaxis. Most patients with Grades III and IV anaphylaxes did not receive the recommended dose of i.v. fluid of 30 ml kg-1 within the first 4 h of ICU admission. The time to epinephrine administration was not statistically different between survivors and non-survivors, but non-survivors received a higher dose of epinephrine (median: 5 [3-10] vs 3 [2-7] mg; P<0.0001), which suggests that some forms of anaphylactic shock may be resistant to epinephrine. In multivariate analysis, only lactate concentration at ICU admission was a predictor of death (odds ratio: 1.47 [1.15-1.88]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Lactate concentration at ICU admission appeared to be the most reliable criterion for assessing prognosis. Epinephrine is widely used during anaphylaxis, but the volume of fluid resuscitation was consistently lower than recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04290507.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on 21-Day Mortality or Respiratory Support Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe lung damage. Corticosteroids are a possible therapeutic option. Objective: To determine the effect of hydrocortisone on treatment failure on day 21 in critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized double-blind sequential trial conducted in France, with interim analyses planned every 50 patients. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure were enrolled from March 7 to June 1, 2020, with last follow-up on June 29, 2020. The study intended to enroll 290 patients but was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive low-dose hydrocortisone (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, was defined as death or persistent dependency on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the need for tracheal intubation (among patients not intubated at baseline); cumulative incidences (until day 21) of prone position sessions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inhaled nitric oxide; Pao2:Fio2 ratio measured daily from day 1 to day 7, then on days 14 and 21; and the proportion of patients with secondary infections during their ICU stay. Results: The study was stopped after 149 patients (mean age, 62.2 years; 30.2% women; 81.2% mechanically ventilated) were enrolled. One hundred forty-eight patients (99.3%) completed the study, and there were 69 treatment failure events, including 11 deaths in the hydrocortisone group and 20 deaths in the placebo group. The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, occurred in 32 of 76 patients (42.1%) in the hydrocortisone group compared with 37 of 73 (50.7%) in the placebo group (difference of proportions, -8.6% [95.48% CI, -24.9% to 7.7%]; P = .29). Of the 4 prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference. No serious adverse events were related to the study treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, low-dose hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce treatment failure (defined as death or persistent respiratory support) at day 21. However, the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517489.

Risk factors and outcomes for airway failure versus non-airway failure in the intensive care unit: a multicenter observational study of 1514 extubation procedures.

BACKGROUND: Patients liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation are at risk of extubation failure, including inability to breathe without a tracheal tube (airway failure) or without mechanical ventilation (non-airway failure). We sought to identify respective risk factors for airway failure and non-airway failure following extubation. METHODS: The primary endpoint of this prospective, observational, multicenter study in 26 intensive care units was extubation failure, defined as need for reintubation within 48 h following extubation. A multinomial logistic regression model was used to identify risk factors for airway failure and non-airway failure. RESULTS: Between 1 December 2013 and 1 May 2015, 1514 patients undergoing extubation were enrolled. The extubation-failure rate was 10.4% (157/1514), including 70/157 (45%) airway failures, 78/157 (50%) non-airway failures, and 9/157 (5%) mixed airway and non-airway failures. By multivariable analysis, risk factors for extubation failure were either common to airway failure and non-airway failure: intubation for coma (OR 4.979 (2.797-8.864), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.067 (1.217-3.510), P = 0.003, respectively, intubation for acute respiratory failure (OR 3.395 (1.877-6.138), P < 0.0001 and OR 2.067 (1.217-3.510), P = 0.007, respectively, absence of strong cough (OR 1.876 (1.047-3.362), P = 0.03 and OR 3.240 (1.786-5.879), P = 0.0001, respectively, or specific to each specific mechanism: female gender (OR 2.024 (1.187-3.450), P = 0.01), length of ventilation > 8 days (OR 1.956 (1.087-3.518), P = 0.025), copious secretions (OR 4.066 (2.268-7.292), P < 0.0001) were specific to airway failure, whereas non-obese status (OR 2.153 (1.052-4.408), P = 0.036) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 8 (OR 1.848 (1.100-3.105), P = 0.02) were specific to non-airway failure. Both airway failure and non-airway failure were associated with ICU mortality (20% and 22%, respectively, as compared to 6% in patients with extubation success, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Specific risk factors have been identified, allowing us to distinguish between risk of airway failure and non-airway failure. The two conditions will be managed differently, both for prevention and curative strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 02450669 . Registered on 21 May 2015.

Perivalvular Mitral Abscess Fistulised to the Pericardial Cavity Revealing Staphylococcal Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Fistula to the pericardial cavity is a very rare complication of perivalvular abscess during infective endocarditis, with Staphylococcus aureus being the most commonly associated microorganism. METHODS: We report a fatal septic shock due to a mitral endocarditis revealed by a myocardial abscess fistulised toward the pericardial cavity. RESULTS: A 66-year-old female without previous valvular disease was admitted to intensive care for severe sepsis. A few hours after admission, an unexpected cardiac arrest occurred. Chest computed tomographic-scan and transoesophageal echocardiography revealed a pericardial effusion due to a perivalvular mitral abscess fistulised toward the pericardial cavity. Despite prompt management including surgical debridement and appropriate antibiotics, death occurred 36hours after intensive care admission. All blood cultures as well as native mitral valve and pericardial fluid grew methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. CONCLUSIONS: Intensivists should consider this rare complication in patients with staphylococcal infective endocarditis and perivalvular abscess.