Impact of COVID-19 on posttraumatic stress disorder in ICU survivors: a prospective observational comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) can affect one in five ICU survivors. At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was stressful due to the severity of this disease. This study assessed whether admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with other causes of ICU admission after adjustment for pre-ICU psychological factors. METHODS: This prospective observational comparative cohort study included 31 ICUs. Eligible patients were adult ICU survivors hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, regardless of the reason for admission. The prevalence of presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Sociodemographics, clinical data, history of childhood trauma (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [CTQ]), and exposure to potentially traumatic events (Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 [LEC-5]) were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 778 ICU survivors included during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, 417 and 361 were assigned to the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Fourteen (4.9%) and 11 (4.9%), respectively, presented with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months (p = 0.976). After adjusting for age, sex, severity score at admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU duration, CTQ and LEC-5, COVID-19 status was not associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD using the PCL-5. Only female sex was associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD. However, COVID-19 patients reported significantly more intrusion and avoidance symptoms than non-COVID patients (39% vs. 29%, p = 0.015 and 27% vs. 19%, p = 0.030), respectively. The median PCL-5 score was higher in the COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 cohort (9 [3, 20] vs. 4 [2, 16], p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was not associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with admission for another cause during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. However, intrusion and avoidance symptoms were more frequent in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03991611, registered on June 19, 2019.

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.

Implementation of French Recommendations for the Prevention and the Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia: A Cluster-randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: We determined whether an audit on the adherence to guidelines for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) can improve the outcomes of patients in intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: This study was conducted at 35 ICUs in 30 hospitals. We included consecutive, adult patients hospitalized in ICUs for 3 days or more. After a 3-month baseline period followed by the dissemination of recommendations, an audit on the compliance to recommendations (audit period) was followed by a 3-month cluster-randomized trial. We randomly assigned ICUs to either receive audit and feedback (intervention group) or participate in a national registry (control group). The primary outcome was the duration of ICU stay. RESULTS: Among 1856 patients enrolled, 602, 669, and 585 were recruited in the baseline, audit, and intervention periods, respectively. The composite measures of compliance were 47% (interquartile range [IQR], 38-56%) in the intervention group and 42% (IQR, 25-53%) in the control group (P = .001). As compared to the baseline period, the ICU lengths of stay were reduced by 3.2 days in the intervention period (P = .07) and by 2.8 days in the control period (P = .02). The durations of ICU stay were 7 days (IQR, 5-14 days) in the control group and 9 days (IQR, 5-20 days) in the intervention group (P = .10). After adjustment for unbalanced baseline characteristics, the hazard ratio for being discharged alive from the ICU in the control group was 1.17 (95% confidence interval, .69-2.01; P = .10). CONCLUSIONS: The publication of French guidelines for HAP was associated with a reduction of the ICU length of stay. However, the realization of an audit to improve their application did not further improve outcomes. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03348579.

Risk factors and events in the adult intensive care unit associated with pain as self-reported at the end of the intensive care unit stay.

BACKGROUND: The short-term and long-term consequences of the most frequent painful procedures performed in the ICU are unclear. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with pain-related discomfort perceived by critically ill patients during the whole ICU stay as self-reported by patients at the end of their ICU stay. METHODS: The study involved 34 ICUs. Adult patients who survived an ICU stay of 3 calendar days or more were eligible for inclusion. Discomforts, including the pain-related discomfort, were assessed using the French 18-item questionnaire on discomfort in ICU patients, the "Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation" (IPREA). Patients scored each item from 0 (minimal discomfort) to 10 (maximal discomfort). Associations between patient characteristics at ICU admission, life support therapies and main potentially painful procedures performed during the ICU stay and pain-related discomfort scores assessed at the end of the ICU stay were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients with complete IPREA questionnaires (n = 2130) were included. The median pain-related discomfort score was 3 (IQR 0-5). From the univariate analysis, pain-related discomfort scores were negatively correlated with age and positively correlated with ICU stay duration; surgical patients reported significant higher pain-related discomfort scores than medical patients; chest drain insertion, chest drain removal, use of bladder catheter, central venous catheter (CVC) insertion, complex dressing change, and intra-hospital transport were associated with pain-related discomfort scores. From the multivariate analyses using generalized estimating equations models, only age, chest drain removal, use of a bladder catheter, CVC insertion, and intra-hospital transport were the main risk factors associated with pain-related discomfort scores. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent chest drain removal, bladder catheter, CVC insertion, and intra-hospital transport during their ICU stay reported higher pain-related discomfort scores (with respect to the whole ICU stay and assessed at the end of their ICU stay) than patients who did not experience these events. This study may pave the way for further targeted studies aiming at investigating a causal link between these common procedures in the ICU and adult critically ill patients' perceptions of their ICU stay regarding recalled pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02442934, retrospectively registered on May 13, 2015.

Personalised mechanical ventilation tailored to lung morphology versus low positive end-expiratory pressure for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in France (the LIVE study): a multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of personalised mechanical ventilation on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain and needs to be evaluated. We aimed to test whether a mechanical ventilation strategy that was personalised to individual patients' lung morphology would improve the survival of patients with ARDS when compared with standard of care. METHODS: We designed a multicentre, single-blind, stratified, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS in 20 university or non-university intensive care units in France. Patients older than 18 years with early ARDS for less than 12 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the control group or the personalised group using a minimisation algorithm and stratified according to the study site, lung morphology, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Only the patients were masked to allocation. In the control group, patients received a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg per predicted bodyweight and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was selected according to a low PEEP and fraction of inspired oxygen table, and early prone position was encouraged. In the personalised group, the treatment approach was based on lung morphology; patients with focal ARDS received a tidal volume of 8 mL/kg, low PEEP, and prone position. Patients with non-focal ARDS received a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg, along with recruitment manoeuvres and high PEEP. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality as established by intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02149589. FINDINGS: From June 12, 2014, to Feb 2, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. 11 patients were excluded in the personalised group and nine patients were excluded in the control group; 196 patients in the personalised group and 204 in the control group were included in the analysis. In a multivariate analysis, there was no difference in 90-day mortality between the group treated with personalised ventilation and the control group in the intention-to-treat analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01; 95% CI 0·61-1·66; p=0·98). However, misclassification of patients as having focal or non-focal ARDS by the investigators was observed in 85 (21%) of 400 patients. We found a significant interaction between misclassification and randomised group allocation with respect to the primary outcome (p<0·001). In the subgroup analysis, the 90-day mortality of the misclassified patients was higher in the personalised group (26 [65%] of 40 patients) than in the control group (18 [32%] of 57 patients; HR 2·8; 95% CI 1·5-5·1; p=0·012. INTERPRETATION: Personalisation of mechanical ventilation did not decrease mortality in patients with ARDS, possibly because of the misclassification of 21% of patients. A ventilator strategy misaligned with lung morphology substantially increases mortality. Whether improvement in ARDS phenotyping can decrease mortality should be assessed in a future clinical trial. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique InterRégional 2013).

Tailored multicomponent program for discomfort reduction in critically ill patients may decrease post-traumatic stress disorder in general ICU survivors at 1 year.

PURPOSE: Reducing discomfort in the intensive care unit (ICU) should have a positive effect on long-term outcomes. This study assessed whether a tailored multicomponent program for discomfort reduction was effective in reducing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms at 1 year in general ICU survivors. METHODS: This study is a prospective observational comparative effectiveness cohort study involving 30 ICUs. It was an extension of the IPREA3 study, a cluster-randomized controlled trial designed to assess the efficacy of a tailored multicomponent program to reduce discomfort in critically ill patients. The program included assessment of ICU-related self-perceived discomforts, immediate and monthly feedback to the healthcare team, and site-specific tailored interventions. The exposure was the implementation of this program. The eligible patients were exposed versus unexposed general adult ICU survivors. The prevalence of substantial PTSD symptoms at 1 year was assessed based on the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). RESULTS: Of the 1537 ICU survivors included in the study, 475 unexposed patients and 344 exposed patients had follow-up data at 1 year: 57 (12.0%) and 21 (6.1%) presented with PTSD at 1 year, respectively (p = 0.004). Considering the clustering and after adjusting for age, gender, McCabe classification, and ICU-related self-perceived overall discomfort score, exposed patients were significantly less likely than unexposed patients to have substantial PTSD symptoms at 1 year (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a tailored multicomponent program in the ICU that has proved to be effective for reducing self-perceived discomfort in general adult ICU survivors also reduced the prevalence of substantial PTSD symptoms at 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02762409.

Assessment of patients' self-perceived intensive care unit discomforts: Validation of the 18-item version of the IPREA.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We reported the validation of the 18-item version of the 'Inconforts des Patients de REAnimation (IPREA)' questionnaire that includes 2 new items exploring feeling depressed and shortness of breath during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. METHODS: The validation process was integrated in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled, two-parallel group study built to assess the effectiveness of a tailored multicomponent program for reducing self-perceived discomfort in the ICU. All patients aged 18 years or older who survived an ICU stay of 3 calendar days or more were eligible for inclusion. Data collection included demographics (sex, age), type of admission (medical and surgical), health status scores at admission (Knaus score and McCabe index, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II), specific ICU therapeutics such as mechanical ventilation (MV), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), use of vasopressors, or renal replacement therapy (RRT), and ICU stay duration. RESULTS: A total of 994 patients were included. The initial structure of IPREA was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis showing satisfactory fit (RMSEA at 0.042, CFI at 0.912). No multidimensional structure was identified, allowing the calculation of an overall discomfort score. The three highest discomforts were sleep deprivation, thirst, and perfusion lines and other devices, and the 3 lowest discomforts were limited visiting hours, hunger, and isolation. The overall discomfort score of the 18-item version of IPREA did not differ between men and women. Higher age was significantly correlated with a lower overall discomfort score. While MV was not linked to self-reported discomfort, patients treated by NIV reported higher overall discomfort scores than patients not treated by NIV. CONCLUSION: The 18-item version of IPREA is easy to use and possesses satisfactory psychometric properties. The availability of a reliable and valid French questionnaire asking about patients' self-perceived ICU discomforts enables feedback from the health care team to be incorporated in a continuous quality health care improvement strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrial.gov NCT02442934 (registration date: May 18, 2015, retrospectively registered).

A tailored multicomponent program to reduce discomfort in critically ill patients: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Critically ill patients are exposed to stressful conditions and experience several discomforts. The primary objective was to assess whether a tailored multicomponent program is effective for reducing self-perceived discomfort. METHODS: In a cluster-randomized two-arm parallel trial, 34 French adult intensive care units (ICUs) without planned interventions to reduce discomfort were randomized, 17 to the arm including a 6-month period of program implementation followed by a 6-month period without the program (experimental group), and 17 to the arm with an inversed sequence (control group). The tailored multicomponent program consisted of assessment of ICU-related self-perceived discomforts, immediate and monthly feedback to healthcare teams, and site-specific tailored interventions. The primary outcome was the overall discomfort score derived from the 16-item IPREA questionnaire (0, minimal, 100, maximal overall discomfort) and the secondary outcomes were the discomfort scores of each IPREA item. IPREA was administered on the day of ICU discharge with a considered timeframe from the ICU admission until ICU discharge. RESULTS: During a 1-month assessment period, 398 and 360 patients were included in the experimental group and the control group, respectively. The difference (experimental minus control) of the overall discomfort score between groups was - 7.00 (95% CI - 9.89 to - 4.11, p < 0.001). After adjustment (age, gender, ICU duration, mechanical ventilation duration, and type of admission), the program effect was still positive for the overall discomfort score (difference - 6.35, SE 1.23, p < 0.001) and for 12 out of 16 items. CONCLUSIONS: This tailored multicomponent program decreased self-perceived discomfort in adult critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT02442934.

Epidural analgesia in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis: the multicentre randomised controlled EPIPAN study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality in its most severe forms. Most patients with severe AP require intubation and invasive mechanical ventilation, frequently for more than 7 days, which is associated with the worst outcome. Recent increasing evidence from preclinical and clinical studies support the beneficial effects of epidural analgesia (EA) in AP, such as increased gut barrier function and splanchnic, pancreatic and renal perfusion, decreased liver damage and inflammatory response, and reduced mortality. Because recent studies suggest that EA might be a safe procedure in the critically ill, we sought to determine whether EA reduced AP-associated respiratory failure and other major clinical outcomes in patients with AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Epidural Analgesia for Pancreatitis (EPIPAN) trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled two-arm trial with assessor-blinded outcome assessment. The EPIPAN trial will randomise 148 patients with AP requiring admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) to receive EA (with patient-controlled epidural administration of ropivacaine and sufentanil) combined with standard care based on current recommendations on the treatment of AP (interventional group), or standard care alone (reference group). The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days at day 30. Secondary outcomes include main complications of AP (eg, organ failure and mortality, among others), levels of biological markers of systemic inflammation, epithelial lung injury, renal failure, and healthcare-associated costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee (CPP Sud-Est VI). Informed consent is required. If the combined application of EA and standard care proves superior to standard care alone in patients with AP in the ICU, the use of EA may become standard practice in experienced centres, thereby decreasing potential complications related to AP and its burden in critically ill patients. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02126332.

Epidural analgesia in the intensive care unit: An observational series of 121 patients.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia (EA) has been more investigated during the perioperative period than in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Recent studies support beneficial effects for EA beyond analgesia itself. However, data on feasibility and safety are still lacking in the ICU. Our goal was to assess the feasibility and practice of EA in ICU patients. METHODS: Multicentre observational study in 3 ICUs over a 10-month period. Goals were to report the incidence of EA-related complications and EA duration. All ICU patients receiving EA were included, whether EA was initiated in the ICU or elsewhere, e.g. in the operating room. Demographics, clinical and biological data were prospectively recorded. Epidural catheter tips were sent to the microbiology laboratory for culture. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one patients were included (mean age 60 years), with mean SOFA and median SAPS II scores of 3.2 and 32, respectively. Reasons for EA initiation included trauma (14%), postoperative pain management after major surgery (42%), and pancreatitis (31%). No EA-related neurologic complication was recorded, and one case of epidural abscess is discussed. No other EA-related infectious complications were observed. Median duration of EA was 11 days. Reasons for EA discontinuation included efficient analgesia without EA (60%) and accidental catheter removal (17%). 22% of epidural catheter cultures were positive for skin flora bacteria. CONCLUSION: EA seems feasible in the ICU. Its apparent safety should be further validated in larger cohorts, but these preliminary results may stimulate more interest in the assessment of potential benefits associated with EA in the ICU setting.