Lung Ultrasound to Assist ICU Admission Decision-Making Process of COVID-19 Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure.

There is only low-certainty evidence on the use of predictive models to assist COVID-19 patient's ICU admission decision-making process. Accumulative evidence suggests that lung ultrasound (LUS) assessment of COVID-19 patients allows accurate bedside evaluation of lung integrity, with the added advantage of repeatability, absence of radiation exposure, reduced risk of virus dissemination, and low cost. Our goal is to assess the performance of a quantified indicator resulting from LUS data compared with standard clinical practice model to predict critical respiratory illness in the 24 hours following hospital admission. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Critical Care Unit from University Hospital Purpan (Toulouse, France) between July 2020 and March 2021. PATIENTS: Adult patients for COVID-19 who were in acute respiratory failure (ARF), defined as blood oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry less than 90% while breathing room air or respiratory rate greater than or equal to 30 breaths/min at hospital admission. Linear multivariate models were used to identify factors associated with critical respiratory illness, defined as death or mild/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (Pao2/Fio2 < 200) in the 24 hours after patient's hospital admission. INTERVENTION: LUS assessment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and forty COVID-19 patients with ARF were studied. This cohort was split into two independent groups: learning sample (first 70 patients) and validation sample (last 70 patients). Interstitial lung water, thickening of the pleural line, and alveolar consolidation detection were strongly associated with patient's outcome. The LUS model predicted more accurately patient's outcomes than the standard clinical practice model (DeLong test: Testing: z score = 2.50, p value = 0.01; Validation: z score = 2.11, p value = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: LUS assessment of COVID-19 patients with ARF at hospital admission allows a more accurate prediction of the risk of critical respiratory illness than standard clinical practice. These results hold the promise of improving ICU resource allocation process, particularly in the case of massive influx of patients or limited resources, both now and in future anticipated pandemics.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome and risk of AKI among critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Increasing experimental evidence suggests that acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may promote AKI. The primary objective of this study was to assess ARDS as a risk factor for AKI in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was an observational study on a prospective database fed by 18 intensive care units (ICUs). Patients with ICU stays >24 hours were enrolled over a 14-year period. ARDS was defined using the Berlin criteria and AKI was defined using the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, and End-stage kidney disease criteria. Patients with AKI before ARDS onset were excluded. RESULTS: This study enrolled 8029 patients, including 1879 patients with ARDS. AKI occurred in 31.3% of patients and was more common in patients with ARDS (44.3% versus 27.4% in patients without ARDS; P<0.001). After adjustment for confounders, both mechanical ventilation without ARDS (odds ratio [OR], 4.34; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 3.71 to 5.10) and ARDS (OR, 11.01; 95% CI, 6.83 to 17.73) were independently associated with AKI. Hospital mortality was 14.2% (n=1140) and was higher in patients with ARDS (27.9% versus 10.0% in patients without ARDS; P<0.001) and in patients with AKI (27.6% versus 8.1% in those without AKI; P<0.001). AKI was associated with higher mortality in patients with ARDS (42.3% versus 20.2%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ARDS was independently associated with AKI. This study suggests that ARDS should be considered as a risk factor for AKI in critically ill patients.

Influence of early dysnatremia correction on survival of critically ill patients.

Increasing evidence suggests that dysnatremia at intensive care unit (ICU) admission may predict mortality. Little information is available, however, on the potential effect of dysnatremia correction. This is an observational multicenter cohort study in patients admitted between 2005 and 2012 to 18 French ICUs. Hyponatremia and hypernatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration less than 135 and more than 145 mmol/L, respectively. We assessed the influence on day 28 mortality of dysnatremia correction by day 3 and of the dysnatremia correction rate. Of 7,067 included patients, 1,830 (25.9%) had hyponatremia and 634 (9.0%) had hypernatremia at ICU admission (day 1). By day 3, hyponatremia had been corrected in 1,019 (1,019/1,830; 55.7%) and hypernatremia in 393 (393/634; 62.0%) patients. After adjustment for confounders, persistent hyponatremia or hypernatremia on day 3 was independently associated with higher day 28 mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06 - 1.61; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.37 - 2.54; respectively). Hyponatremia corrected by day 3, hypernatremia corrected by day 3, and ICU-acquired hyponatremia were not associated with day 28 mortality. Median correction rate from days 1 to 3 was 2.58 mmol/L per day (interquartile range, 0.67 - 4.55). Higher natremia correction rate was associated with lower crude and adjusted day 28 mortality rates (OR per mmol/L per day, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94 - 1.00; P = 0.04; and OR per mmol/L per day, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90 - 0.97; P = 0.0003, respectively). Our results indicate that dysnatremia correction is independently associated with survival, with the effect being greater with faster correction rates of up to 12 mmol/L per day.

Prognostic consequences of borderline dysnatremia: pay attention to minimal serum sodium change.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the prevalence of dysnatremia, including borderline changes in serum sodium concentration, and to estimate the impact of these dysnatremia on mortality after adjustment for confounders. METHODS: Observational study on a prospective database fed by 13 intensive care units (ICUs). Unselected patients with ICU stay longer than 48 h were enrolled over a 14-year period were included in this study. Mild to severe hyponatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration < 135, < 130, and < 125 mmol/L respectively. Mild to severe hypernatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration > 145, > 150, and > 155 mmol/L respectively. Borderline hyponatremia and hypernatremia were defined as serum sodium concentration between 135 and 137 mmol/L or 143 and 145 respectively. RESULTS: A total of 11,125 patients were included in this study. Among these patients, 3,047 (27.4%) had mild to severe hyponatremia at ICU admission, 2,258 (20.3%) had borderline hyponatremia at ICU admission, 1,078 (9.7%) had borderline hypernatremia and 877 (7.9%) had mild to severe hypernatremia. After adjustment for confounder, both moderate and severe hyponatremia (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 1.82, 95% CI 1.002 to 1.395 and 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.60 respectively) were associated with day-30 mortality. Similarly, mild, moderate and severe hypernatremia (sHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.57; 1.51, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.99; and 2.64, 95% CI 2.00 to 3.81 respectively) were independently associated with day-30 mortality. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of critically ill patients had a mild to moderate dysnatremia at ICU admission. Dysnatremia, including mild changes in serum sodium concentration, is an independent risk factor for hospital mortality and should not be neglected.