Dynamic assessment of prealbumin for nutrition support effectiveness in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Serum prealbumin is considered to be a sensitive predictor of clinical outcomes and a quality marker for nutrition support. However, its susceptibility to inflammation restricts its usage in critically ill patients according to current guidelines. We assessed the performance of the initial value of prealbumin and dynamic changes for predicting the ICU mortality and the effectiveness of nutrition support in critically ill patients. METHODS: This monocentric study included patients admitted to the ICU between 2009 and 2016, having at least one initial prealbumin value available. Prospectively recorded data were extracted from the electronic ICU charts. We used both univariable and multivariable logistic regressions to estimate the performance of prealbumin for the prediction of ICU mortality. Additionally, the association between prealbumin dynamic changes and nutrition support was assessed via a multivariable linear mixed-effects model and multivariable linear regression. Performing subgroup analysis assisted in identifying patients for whom prealbumin dynamic assessment holds specific relevance. RESULTS: We included 3136 patients with a total of 4942 prealbumin levels available. Both prealbumin measured at ICU admission (adjusted odds-ratio (aOR) 0.04, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.01-0.23) and its change over the first week (aOR 0.02, CI 95 0.00-0.19) were negatively associated with ICU mortality. Throughout the entire ICU stay, prealbumin dynamic changes were associated with both cumulative energy (estimate: 33.2, standard error (SE) 0.001, p < 0.01) and protein intakes (1.39, SE 0.001, p < 0.01). During the first week of stay, prealbumin change was independently associated with mean energy (6.03e-04, SE 2.32e-04, p < 0.01) and protein intakes (1.97e-02, SE 5.91e-03, p < 0.01). Notably, the association between prealbumin and energy intake was strongest among older or malnourished patients, those suffering from increased inflammation and those with high disease severity. Finally, prealbumin changes were associated with a positive mean nitrogen balance at day 7 only in patients with SOFA <4 (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Prealbumin measured at ICU admission and its change during the first-week serve as an accurate predictor of ICU mortality. Prealbumin dynamic assessment may be a reliable tool to estimate the effectiveness of nutrition support in the ICU, especially among high-risk patients.

Influence of COVID-19 on Stress at Work During the First Wave of the Pandemic Among Emergency Health Care Workers.

OBJECTIVES: For more than 2 years, coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has forced worldwide health care systems to adapt their daily practice. These adaptations add to the already stressful demands of providing timely medical care in an overcrowded health care system. Specifically, the COVID-19 pandemic added stress to an already overwhelmed emergency and critical care health care workers (HCWs) on the front lines during the first wave of the pandemic.This study assessed comparative subjective and objective stress among frontline HCWs using a visual analog scale and biometric data, specifically heart rate variability (HRV). METHODS: This is a prospective, observational study using surveys and heart rate monitoring among HCWs who work in 3 frontline health care units (emergency department, mobile intensive care unit, and intensive care unit) in the University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, France. Two sessions were performed: 1 during the first wave of the pandemic (April 10 to May 10, 2020) and 1 after the first wave of the pandemic (June 10 to July 15, 2020).The primary outcome is the difference in stress levels between the 2 time points. Secondary objectives were the impact of overcrowding, sociodemographics, and other variables on stress levels. We also assessed the correlation between subjective and objective stress levels. RESULTS: Among 199 HCWs, 98 participated in biometric monitoring, 84 had biometric and survey data, and 12 with only biometric data. Subjective stress was higher during the second time point compared to the first (4.39 ± 2.11 vs 3.16 ± 2.34, P = 0.23). There were higher objective stress levels with a decrease in HRV between the first and the second time points. Furthermore, we found higher patient volumes as a source of stress during the second time point. We did not find any significant correlation between subjective and objective stress levels. CONCLUSION: HCWs had higher stress levels between the 2 waves of the pandemic. Overcrowding in the emergency department is associated with higher stress levels. We did not find any correlation between subjective and objective stress among intensive care and emergency HCWs during the first wave of the pandemic.

Thoracic epidural analgesia in intensive care unit patients with acute pancreatitis: the EPIPAN multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Findings from preclinical studies and one pilot clinical trial suggest potential benefits of epidural analgesia in acute pancreatitis. We aimed to assess the efficacy of thoracic epidural analgesia, in addition to usual care, in improving clinical outcomes of intensive care unit patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial including adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute pancreatitis upon admission to the intensive care unit. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a strategy combining thoracic epidural analgesia and usual care (intervention group) or a strategy of usual care alone (control group). The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 30. RESULTS: Between June 2014 and January 2019, 148 patients were enrolled, and 135 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 65 patients randomly assigned to the intervention group and 70 to the control group. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups (median [interquartile range], 30 days [15-30] and 30 days [18-30], respectively; median absolute difference of - 0.0 days, 95% CI - 3.3 to 3.3; p = 0.59). Epidural analgesia was significantly associated with longer duration of invasive ventilation (median [interquartile range], 14 days [5-28] versus 6 days [2-13], p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In a population of intensive care unit adults with acute pancreatitis and low requirement for intubation, this first multicenter randomized trial did not show the hypothesized benefit of epidural analgesia in addition to usual care. Safety of epidural analgesia in this setting requires further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02126332 , April 30, 2014.

Early non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy for preventing endotracheal intubation in hypoxemic blunt chest trauma patients: the OptiTHO randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit-risk ratio of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC-O2) during the early stage of blunt chest trauma remains controversial because of limited data. The main objective of this study was to compare the rate of endotracheal intubation between two NIV strategies in high-risk blunt chest trauma patients. METHODS: The OptiTHO trial was a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial over a two-year period. Every adult patients admitted in intensive care unit within 48 h after a high-risk blunt chest trauma (Thoracic Trauma Severity Score ≥ 8), an estimated PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 300 and no evidence of acute respiratory failure were eligible for study enrollment (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03943914). The primary objective was to compare the rate of endotracheal intubation for delayed respiratory failure between two NIV strategies: i) a prompt association of HFNC-O2 and "early" NIV in every patient for at least 48 h with vs. ii) the standard of care associating COT and "late" NIV, indicated in patients with respiratory deterioration and/or PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 200 mmHg. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of chest trauma-related complications (pulmonary infection, delayed hemothorax or moderate-to-severe ARDS). RESULTS: Study enrollment was stopped for futility after a 2-year study period and randomization of 141 patients. Overall, 11 patients (7.8%) required endotracheal intubation for delayed respiratory failure. The rate of endotracheal intubation was not significantly lower in patients treated with the experimental strategy (7% [5/71]) when compared to the control group (8.6% [6/70]), with an adjusted OR = 0.72 (95%IC: 0.20-2.43), p = 0.60. The occurrence of pulmonary infection, delayed hemothorax or delayed ARDS was not significantly lower in patients treated by the experimental strategy (adjusted OR = 1.99 [95%IC: 0.73-5.89], p = 0.18, 0.85 [95%IC: 0.33-2.20], p = 0.74 and 2.14 [95%IC: 0.36-20.77], p = 0.41, respectively). CONCLUSION: A prompt association of HFNC-O2 with preventive NIV did not reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation or secondary respiratory complications when compared to COT and late NIV in high-risk blunt chest trauma patients with non-severe hypoxemia and no sign of acute respiratory failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03943914, Registered 7 May 2019.

Effect of non-invasive ventilation after extubation in critically ill patients with obesity in France: a multicentre, unblinded, pragmatic randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and oxygen therapy (high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO] or standard oxygen) following extubation have never been compared in critically ill patients with obesity. We aimed to compare NIV (alternating with HFNO or standard oxygen) and oxygen therapy (HFNO or standard oxygen) following extubation of critically ill patients with obesity. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial, conducted in 39 intensive care units in France, critically ill patients with obesity undergoing extubation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the NIV group or the oxygen therapy group. Two randomisations were performed: first, randomisation to either NIV or oxygen therapy, and second, randomisation to either HFNO or standard oxygen (also 1:1), which was nested within the first randomisation. Blinding of the randomisation was not possible, but the statistician was masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was treatment failure within 3 days after extubation, a composite of reintubation for mechanical ventilation, switch to the other study treatment, or premature discontinuation of study treatment. The primary outcome was analysed by intention to treat. Effect of medical and surgical status was assessed. The reintubation within 3 days was analysed by intention to treat and after a post-hoc crossover analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04014920. FINDINGS: From Oct 2, 2019, to July 17, 2021, of the 1650 screened patients, 981 were enrolled. Treatment failure occurred in 66 (13·5%) of 490 patients in the NIV group and in 130 (26·5%) of 491 patients in the oxygen-therapy group (relative risk 0·43; 95% CI 0·31-0·60, p<0·0001). Medical or surgical status did not modify the effect of NIV group on the treatment-failure rate. Reintubation within 3 days after extubation was similar in the non-invasive ventilation group and in the oxygen therapy group in the intention-to-treat analysis (48 (10%) of 490 patients and 59 (12%) of 491 patients, p=0·26) and lower in the NIV group than in the oxygen-therapy group in the post-hoc cross-over (51 (9%) of 560 patients and 56 (13%) of 421 patients, p=0·037) analysis. No severe adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults with obesity undergoing extubation, the use of NIV was effective to reduce treatment-failure within 3 days. Our results are relevant to clinical practice, supporting the use of NIV after extubation of critically ill patients with obesity. However, most of the difference in the primary outcome was due to patients in the oxygen therapy group switching to NIV, and more evidence is needed to conclude that an NIV strategy leads to improved patient-centred outcomes. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Use of volatile anesthetics for sedation in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey in France (VOL'ICU 2 study).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the number of patients in ICUs leading to a worldwide shortage of the intravenous sedative agents obligating physicians to find alternatives including inhaled sedation. Inhaled sedation in French ICU has been previously explored in 2019 (VOL'ICU study). This survey was designed to explore the use of inhaled sedation two years after our first survey and to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the use of inhaled sedation. METHODS: We designed a national survey, contacting medical directors of French ICUs between June and October 2021. Over a 50-item questionnaire, the survey covered the characteristics of the ICU, data on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Answers were compared with the previous survey, VOL'ICU. RESULTS: Among the 405 ICUs contacted, 25% of the questionnaires were recorded. Most ICU directors (87%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 63% of them have an inhaled sedation's device in their unit. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of inhaled sedation in French ICUs. The main reasons said by the respondent were "need for additional sedative" (62%), "shortage of intravenous sedatives" (38%) and "involved in a clinical trial" (30%). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were "device not available" (76%), "lack of familiarity" (60%) and "no training for the teams" (58%). More than 70% of respondents were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 80% of respondents stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation for management of COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The use of inhaled sedation in ICU has increased fastly in the last 2 years, and is frequently associated with a good satisfaction among the users. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted the widespread use of inhaled sedation, it represents an alternative to intravenous sedation for more and more physicians.

Impact of Macintosh blade size on endotracheal intubation success in intensive care units: a retrospective multicenter observational MacSize-ICU study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of Macintosh blade size used during direct laryngoscopy (DL) on first-attempt intubation success of orotracheal intubation in French intensive care units (ICUs). We hypothesized that success rate would be higher with Macintosh blade size No3 than with No4. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective observational study based on data from prospective trials conducted in 48 French ICUs of university, and general and private hospitals. After each intubation using Macintosh DL, patients' and operators' characteristics, Macintosh blade size, results of first DL and alternative techniques used, as well as the need of a second operator were collected. Complications rates associated with intubation were investigated. Primary outcome was success rate of first DL using Macintosh blade. RESULTS: A total of 2139 intubations were collected, 629 with a Macintosh blade No3 and 1510 with a No4. Incidence of first-pass intubation after first DL was significantly higher with Macintosh blade No3 (79.5 vs 73.3%, p = 0.0025), despite equivalent Cormack-Lehane scores (p = 0.48). Complications rates were equivalent between groups. Multivariate analysis concluded to a significant impact of Macintosh blade size on first DL success in favor of blade No3 (OR 1.44 [95% CI 1.14-1.84]; p = 0.0025) without any significant center effect on the primary outcome (p = 0.18). Propensity scores and adjustment analyses concluded to equivalent results. CONCLUSION: In the present study, Macintosh blade No3 was associated with improved first-passed DL in French ICUs. However, study design requires the conduct of a nationwide prospective multicenter randomized trial in different settings to confirm these results.

Management of urgent invasive procedures in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants: An observational registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may require urgent procedures. Managing these patients is challenging due to different bleeding risks and may include laboratory testing, procedural delays, or haemostatic/reversal agent administration. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated management strategies and outcomes of urgent, non-haemostatic invasive procedures in patients treated with DOACs. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a descriptive cohort study, we prospectively evaluated 478 patients in the GIHP-NACO registry, from June 2013 to November 2015. Hospitalised patients receiving dabigatran (n = 160), rivaroxaban (n = 274), or apixaban (n = 44) requiring urgent, procedural interventions were evaluated, of which 384/478 (80 %) were surgical procedures. Orthopaedic surgery included 216/384 patients (56 %), while gastrointestinal surgery included 75/384 (20 %) patients. On admission, the median age was 79 (70-85), and creatinine clearance was <60 mL·min-1 in 316/478 (66 %) patients. DOAC concentration was determined in 277 (58 %) patients and was 85 ng·mL-1 (median; range 0-764), 61 ng·mL-1 (3-541), and 81 ng·mL-1 (26-354) for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. Procedures were delayed in 194/455 (43 %) of the cases. Excessive bleeding was observed in 62/478 (13 %) procedures, and haemostatic agents were administered in 76/478 (16 %) procedures. By day 30, major cerebral and cardiovascular events were observed in 38/478 (7.9 %) patients, and mortality was 28/478 (5.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: In the GIHP-NACO registry, before specific antidotes were available, DOAC treated patients undergoing urgent invasive procedures were delayed in nearly half of the cases, and showed a low rate of excessive bleeding, suggesting that most urgent procedures can be performed safely without DOAC reversal. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Identifier: NCT02185027.

One-year patient outcomes based on lung morphology in acute respiratory distress syndrome: secondary analysis of LIVE trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has different phenotypes and distinct short-term outcomes. Patients with non-focal ARDS have a higher short-term mortality than focal ones. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the morphological phenotypes of ARDS on long-term outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the LIVE study, a prospective, randomised control trial, assessing the usefulness of a personalised ventilator setting according to lung morphology in moderate-to-severe ARDS. ARDS was classified as focal (consolidations only in the infero-posterior part of the lungs) or non-focal. Outcomes were assessed using mortality and functional scores for quality of life at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 124 focal ARDS and 236 non-focal ARDS cases were included. The 1-year mortality was higher for non-focal ARDS than for focal ARDS (37% vs. 24%, p = 0.012). Non-focal ARDS (hazard ratio, 3.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-6.59; p < 0.001), age, McCabe score, haematological cancers, SAPS II, and renal replacement therapy were independently associated with 1-year mortality. This difference was driven by mortality during the first 90 days (28 vs. 16%, p = 0.010) but not between 90 days and 1 year (7 vs. 6%, p = 0.591), at which point only the McCabe score was independently associated with mortality. Morphological phenotypes had no impact on patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Lung morphologies reflect the acute phase of ARDS and its short-term impact but not long-term outcomes, which seem only influenced by comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02149589; May 29, 2014.

Design and Rationale of the Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SESAR) Randomized Controlled Trial.

Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics may have beneficial effects on injured lungs, and pilot clinical data support improved arterial oxygenation, attenuated inflammation, and decreased lung epithelial injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving inhaled sevoflurane compared to intravenous midazolam. Whether sevoflurane is effective in improving clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS is unknown, and the benefits and risks of inhaled sedation in ARDS require further evaluation. Here, we describe the SESAR (Sevoflurane for Sedation in ARDS) trial designed to address this question. SESAR is a two-arm, investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment designed to test the efficacy of sedation with sevoflurane compared to intravenous propofol in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and off the ventilator at 28 days, considering death as a competing event, and the key secondary outcome is 90 day survival. The planned enrollment is 700 adult participants at 37 French academic and non-academic centers. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated, and biomarker measurements will help better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and Sedana Medical.

Intraoperative protective mechanical ventilation in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery: the multicentre prospective randomised IMPROVE-2 study protocol.

IntroductionEmergency abdominal surgery is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications. One of the most serious is postoperative respiratory failure (PRF), with reported rates up to 20%-30% and attributable 30-day mortality that can exceed 20%.Lung-protective ventilation, especially the use of low tidal volume, may help reducing the risk of lung injury. The role of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvre (RM) remains however debated. We aim to evaluate whether a strategy aimed at increasing alveolar recruitment by using higher PEEP levels and RM could be more effective at reducing PRF and mortality after emergency abdominal surgery than a strategy aimed at minimising alveolar distension by using lower PEEP levels without RM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The IMPROVE-2 study is a multicentre randomised, parallel-group clinical trial of 680 patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either low PEEP levels (≤5 cm H2O) without RM or high PEEP levels individually adjusted according to driving pressure in addition to RM, stratified by centre and according to the presence of shock and hypoxaemia at randomisation. The primary endpoint is a composite of PRF and all-cause mortality by day 30 or hospital discharge. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle and a per-protocol basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: IMPROVE-2 trial has been approved by an independent ethics committee for all study centres. Participant recruitment began in February 2021. Results will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03987789.

Safety and tolerability of non-neutralizing adrenomedullin antibody adrecizumab (HAM8101) in septic shock patients: the AdrenOSS-2 phase 2a biomarker-guided trial.

PURPOSE: Investigate safety and tolerability of adrecizumab, a humanized monoclonal adrenomedullin antibody, in septic shock patients with high adrenomedullin. METHODS: Phase-2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled biomarker-guided trial with a single infusion of adrecizumab (2 or 4 mg/kg b.w.) compared to placebo. Patients with adrenomedullin above 70 pg/mL, < 12 h of vasopressor start for septic shock were eligible. Randomization was 1:1:2. Primary safety (90-day mortality, treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE)) and tolerability (drug interruption, hemodynamics) endpoints were recorded. Efficacy endpoints included the Sepsis Support Index (SSI, reflecting ventilator- and shock-free days alive), change in Sequential-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: 301 patients were enrolled (median time of 8.5 h after vasopressor start). Adrecizumab was well tolerated (one interruption, no hemodynamic alteration) with no differences in frequency and severity in TEAEs between treatment arms (TEAE of grade 3 or higher: 70.5% in the adrecizumab group and 71.1% in the placebo group) nor in 90-day mortality. Difference in change in SSI between adrecizumab and placebo was 0.72 (CI -1.93-0.49, p = 0.24). Among various secondary endpoints, delta SOFA score (defined as maximum versus minimum SOFA) was more pronounced in the adrecizumab combined group compared to placebo [difference at 0.76 (95% CI 0.18-1.35); p = 0.007]. 28-day mortality in the adrecizumab group was 23.9% and 27.7% in placebo with a hazard ratio of 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.53-1.31, log-rank p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we successfully completed a randomized trial evaluating selecting patients for enrolment who had a disease-related biomarker. There were no overt signals of harm with using two doses of the adrenomedullin antibody adrecizumab; however, further randomized controlled trials are required to confirm efficacy and safety of this agent in septic shock patients.

Changes in Plasma Soluble Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-Products Are Associated with Survival in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

The plasma soluble receptor for advanced glycation end-products (sRAGE) is a marker of lung epithelial injury with prognostic value when measured at baseline in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, whether changes in plasma sRAGE could inform prognosis in ARDS remains unknown. In this secondary analysis of the Lung Imaging for Ventilator Setting in ARDS (LIVE) multicenter randomized controlled trial, which evaluated a personalized ventilation strategy tailored to lung morphology, plasma sRAGE was measured upon study entry (baseline) and on days one, two, three, four and six. The association between changes in plasma sRAGE over time and 90-day survival was evaluated. Higher baseline plasma sRAGE (HR per-one log increment, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.16-2.03; p = 0.003) and an increase in sRAGE over time (HR for each one-log increment in plasma sRAGE per time unit, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; p < 10-3) were both associated with increased 90-day mortality. Each 100-unit increase in the plasma sRAGE level per unit of time increased the risk of death at day 90 by 1% in joint modeling. Plasma sRAGE increased over time when a strategy of maximal alveolar recruitment was applied in patients with focal ARDS. Current findings suggest that the rate of change in plasma sRAGE over time is associated with 90-day survival and could be helpful as a surrogate outcome in ARDS.

Effect of dexamethasone on complications or all cause mortality after major non-cardiac surgery: multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of dexamethasone on complications or all cause mortality after major non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Phase III, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. SETTING: 34 centres in France, December 2017 to March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 1222 adults (>50 years) requiring major non-cardiac surgery with an expected duration of more than 90 minutes. The anticipated time frame for recruitment was 24 months. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive either dexamethasone (0.2 mg/kg immediately after the surgical procedure, and on day 1) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified on the two prespecified criteria of cancer and thoracic procedure. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative complications or all cause mortality within 14 days after surgery, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (at least one treatment administered). RESULTS: Of the 1222 participants who underwent randomisation, 1184 (96.9%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 14 days after surgery, 101 of 595 participants (17.0%) in the dexamethasone group and 117 of 589 (19.9%) in the placebo group had complications or died (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.08; P=0.15). In the stratum of participants who underwent non-thoracic surgery (n=1038), the primary outcome occurred in 69 of 520 participants (13.3%) in the dexamethasone group and 93 of 518 (18%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 0.50 to 0.99). Adverse events were reported in 288 of 613 participants (47.0%) in the dexamethasone group and 296 of 609 (48.6%) in the placebo group (P=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone was not found to significantly reduce the incidence of complications and death in patients 14 days after major non-cardiac surgery. The 95% confidence interval for the main result was, however, wide and suggests the possibility of important clinical effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03218553.

Effect of the use of an endotracheal tube and stylet versus an endotracheal tube alone on first-attempt intubation success: a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 999 patients.

PURPOSE: The effect of the routine use of a stylet during tracheal intubation on first-attempt intubation success is unclear. We hypothesised that the first-attempt intubation success rate would be higher with tracheal tube + stylet than with tracheal tube alone. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, conducted in 32 intensive care units, we randomly assigned patients to tracheal tube + stylet or tracheal tube alone (i.e. without stylet). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with first-attempt intubation success. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with complications related to tracheal intubation. Serious adverse events, i.e., traumatic injuries related to tracheal intubation, were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 999 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 501 (50%) to tracheal tube + stylet and 498 (50%) to tracheal tube alone. First-attempt intubation success occurred in 392 patients (78.2%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group and in 356 (71.5%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, 6.7; 95%CI 1.4-12.1; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 1.02-1.18; P = 0.01). A total of 194 patients (38.7%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group had complications related to tracheal intubation, as compared with 200 patients (40.2%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, - 1.5; 95%CI - 7.5 to 4.6; relative risk, 0.96; 95%CI 0.83-1.12; P = 0.64). The incidence of serious adverse events was 4.0% and 3.6%, respectively (absolute risk difference, 0.4; 95%CI, - 2.0 to 2.8; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 0.59-2.06. P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, using a stylet improves first-attempt intubation success.

Use of volatile agents for sedation in the intensive care unit: A national survey in France.

BACKGROUND: Current intensive care unit (ICU) sedation guidelines recommend strategies using non-benzodiazepine sedatives. This survey was undertaken to explore inhaled ICU sedation practice in France. METHODS: In this national survey, medical directors of French adult ICUs were contacted by phone or email between July and August 2019. ICU medical directors were questioned about the characteristics of their department, their knowledge on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled sedation use in their department. RESULTS: Among the 374 ICUs contacted, 187 provided responses (50%). Most ICU directors (73%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 21% used inhaled sedation in their unit, mostly with the Anaesthetic Conserving Device (AnaConDa, Sedana Medical). Most respondents had used volatile agents for sedation for <5 years (63%) and in <20 patients per year (75%), with their main indications being: failure of intravenous sedation, severe asthma or bronchial obstruction, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sevoflurane and isoflurane were mainly used (88% and 20%, respectively). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were: "device not available" (40%), "lack of medical interest" (37%), "lack of familiarity or knowledge about the technique" (35%) and "elevated cost" (21%). Most respondents (80%) were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 75% stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation. CONCLUSION: This survey highlights the widespread knowledge about inhaled ICU sedation in France but shows its limited use to date. Differences in education and knowledge, as well as the recent and relatively scarce literature on the use of volatile agents in the ICU, might explain the diverse practices that were observed. The low rate of mild adverse effects, as perceived by respondents, and the users' satisfaction, are promising for this potentially important tool for ICU sedation.

Blunt Chest Trauma and Regional Anesthesia for Analgesia of Multitrauma Patients in French Intensive Care Units: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Chest injuries are associated with mortality among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and require multimodal pain management strategies, including regional anesthesia (RA). We conducted a survey to determine the current practices of physicians working in ICUs regarding RA for the management of chest trauma in patients with multiple traumas. METHODS: An online questionnaire was sent to medical doctors (n = 1230) working in French ICUs, using the Société Française d'Anesthésie Réanimation (SFAR) mailing list of its members. The questionnaire addressed 3 categories: general characteristics, practical aspects of RA, and indications and contraindications. RESULTS: Among the 333 respondents (response rate = 27%), 78% and 40% of 156 respondents declared that they would consider using thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and thoracic paravertebral blockade (TPB), respectively. The main benefits declared for performing RA were the ability to have effective analgesia, a more effective cough, and early rehabilitation. For 70% of the respondents, trauma patients with a theoretical indication of RA did not receive TEA or TPB for the following reasons: the ICU had no experience of RA (62%), no anesthesiologist-intensivist working in the ICU (46%), contraindications (27%), ignorance of the SFAR guidelines (19%), and no RA protocol available (13%). In this survey, 95% of the respondents thought the prognosis of trauma patients could be influenced by the use of RA. CONCLUSIONS: While TEA and TPB are underused because of several limitations related to the patterns of injuries in multitrauma patients, lack of both experience and confidence in combination with the absence of available protocols appear to be the major restraining factors, even if physicians are aware that patients' outcomes could be improved by RA. These results suggest the need to strengthen initial training and provide continuing education about RA in the ICU.

Balanced Opioid-free Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine versus Balanced Anesthesia with Remifentanil for Major or Intermediate Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is speculated that opioid-free anesthesia may provide adequate pain control while reducing postoperative opioid consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support the speculation. The authors hypothesized that opioid-free balanced anesthetic with dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative opioid-related adverse events compared with balanced anesthetic with remifentanil. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive a standard balanced anesthetic with either intraoperative remifentanil plus morphine (remifentanil group) or dexmedetomidine (opioid-free group). All patients received intraoperative propofol, desflurane, dexamethasone, lidocaine infusion, ketamine infusion, neuromuscular blockade, and postoperative lidocaine infusion, paracetamol, nefopam, and patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative opioid-related adverse events (hypoxemia, ileus, or cognitive dysfunction) within the first 48 h after extubation. The main secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: The study was stopped prematurely because of five cases of severe bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group. The primary composite outcome occurred in 122 of 156 (78%) dexmedetomidine group patients compared with 105 of 156 (67%) in the remifentanil group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33; P = 0.031). Hypoxemia occurred 110 of 152 (72%) of dexmedetomidine group and 94 of 155 (61%) of remifentanil group patients (relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.40; P = 0.030). There were no differences in ileus or cognitive dysfunction. Cumulative 0 to 48 h postoperative morphine consumption (11 mg [5 to 21] versus 6 mg [0 to 17]) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (58 of 157 [37%] versus 37 of 157 [24%]; relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.90) were both less in the dexmedetomidine group, whereas measures of analgesia were similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients had more delayed extubation and prolonged postanesthesia care unit stay. CONCLUSIONS: This trial refuted the hypothesis that balanced opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, compared with remifentanil, would result in fewer postoperative opioid-related adverse events. Conversely, it did result in a greater incidence of serious adverse events, especially hypoxemia and bradycardia.

Nasopharyngeal swab-induced pain for SARS-CoV-2 screening: A randomised controlled trial of conventional and self-swabbing.

BACKGROUND: Massive screening campaigns for SARS-CoV-2 are currently carried out throughout the world, relying on reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) following nasopharyngeal swabbing performed by a healthcare professional. Yet, due to the apprehension of pain induced by nasopharyngeal probing, poor adhesion to those screening campaigns can be observed. To enhance voluntary participation and to avoid unnecessary exposition to SARS-CoV-2, self-swabbing could be proposed. To date, no data have been published concerning pain induced by conventional- or self-swabbing. Thus, the primary objective of the present study was to evaluate pain induced with the conventional swabbing method and compare it to self-swabbing. Secondary objectives focused on swabbing-induced discomfort and acceptability of the two methods. METHODS: The study was conducted in Clermont-Ferrand medical school (France). Overall, 190 students were randomised into two groups and experienced either self- or conventional-swabbing. Each subject had to rate pain, discomfort and acceptability of such swabbing on a 0-10 numeric rating scale. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two methods. The mean pain level was 2.5 ± 1.9, 28% rating pain as ≥4/10. Discomfort was 4.8 ± 2.2, 66% indicating significant (≥4/10) discomfort. Higher pain and discomfort were associated with female sex. Acceptability was ≥8/10 for 89.0% of the subjects and all would have accepted to undergo a new test with the same technique if necessary. CONCLUSION: Both conventional and self-swabbing induce low levels of pain for most young healthy volunteers whereas discomfort is very frequent. Nonetheless, both methods are indifferently well-accepted in medical students. Future studies amongst symptomatic subjects are awaited. SIGNIFICANCE: Using the thinnest available swabs, procedural pain induced by nasopharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 screening is very low for most subjects and should not limit voluntary participation in screening campaigns. Self-swabbing does not lead to more pain or discomfort compared to conventional swabbing, is well-accepted, and could be proposed to optimize screening campaigns, at least in healthcare professionals.