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.).

Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 With Acute Encephalopathy and Coma: An International Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To report the prevalence of acute encephalopathy and outcomes in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to identify determinants of 90-day outcomes. METHODS: Data from adults with severe COVID-19 and acute encephalopathy were prospectively collected for patients requiring intensive care unit management in 31 university or university-affiliated intensive care units in 6 countries (France, United States, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, and Brazil) between March and September of 2020. Acute encephalopathy was defined, as recently recommended, as subsyndromal delirium or delirium or as a comatose state in case of severely decreased level of consciousness. Logistic multivariable regression was performed to identify factors associated with 90-day outcomes. A Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) score of 1-4 was considered a poor outcome (indicating death, vegetative state, or severe disability). RESULTS: Of 4,060 patients admitted with COVID-19, 374 (9.2%) experienced acute encephalopathy at or before the intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A total of 199/345 (57.7%) patients had a poor outcome at 90-day follow-up as evaluated by the GOS-E (29 patients were lost to follow-up). On multivariable analysis, age older than 70 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.01, 95% CI 2.25-7.15), presumed fatal comorbidity (OR 3.98, 95% CI 1.68-9.44), Glasgow coma scale score <9 before/at ICU admission (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.22-3.98), vasopressor/inotrope support during ICU stay (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.97-7.76), renal replacement therapy during ICU stay (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.21-4.50), and CNS ischemic or hemorrhagic complications as acute encephalopathy etiology (OR 3.22, 95% CI 1.41-7.82) were independently associated with higher odds of poor 90-day outcome. Status epilepticus, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome were associated with lower odds of poor 90-day outcome (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.83). DISCUSSION: In this observational study, we found a low prevalence of acute encephalopathy at ICU admission in patients with COVID-19. More than half of patients with COVID-19 presenting with acute encephalopathy had poor outcomes as evaluated by GOS-E. Determinants of poor 90-day outcome were dominated by older age, comorbidities, degree of impairment of consciousness before/at ICU admission, association with other organ failures, and acute encephalopathy etiology. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04320472.

High-flow nasal oxygen alone or alternating with non-invasive ventilation in critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended for immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU), it might have deleterious effects in the most severe patients. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) alone might be an alternative method to reduce mortality. We aimed to determine whether HFNO alone could reduce the rate of mortality at day 28 compared with HFNO alternated with NIV. METHODS: FLORALI-IM is a multicentre, open-label, randomised clinical trial conducted in 29 ICUs (28 in France and one in Italy). Adult immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, defined as respiratory rate of 25 breaths per min or more and a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspired fraction of oxygen ratio of 300 mm Hg or lower, were randomly assigned (1:1) to HFNO alone (HFNO alone group) or NIV alternating with HFNO (NIV group). Key exclusion criteria were severe hypercapnia above 50 mm Hg, patients who could strongly benefit from NIV (ie, those with underlying chronic lung disease, with cardiogenic pulmonary oedema, or who were postoperative), severe shock, impaired consciousness defined as Glasgow coma score ≤12, urgent need for intubation, do not intubate order, and contraindication to NIV. Patients were assigned using computer-generated permuted blocks and were stratified according to centre and to the type of immunosuppression using a centralised web-based management system. In the HFNO alone group, patients were continuously treated by HFNO with a gas flow rate of 60 L/min or the highest tolerated. In the NIV group, patients were treated with NIV with a first session of at least 4 h, and then by sessions for a minimal duration of 12 h a day, with a dedicated ventilator, targeting a tidal volume below 8 mL/kg of predicted bodyweight, and with a positive end-expiratory level of at least 8 cm H2O. NIV sessions were interspaced with HFNO delivered as in the HFNO alone group. The primary outcome was mortality at day 28 and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were mortality in the ICU, in hospital, at day 90 and at day 180, intubation at day 28, length of stay in the ICU and in hospital, number of ventilator-free days at day 28, number of oxygenation technique-free days at day 28, and efficacy and tolerance of oxygenation techniques. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02978300, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 21, 2017 to March 4, 2019, of 497 eligible patients, 300 were randomly assigned but one patient withdrew consent, leaving 299 patients included in the intention-to-treat analysis (154 assigned to the HFNO alone group and 145 assigned to NIV group). Mortality rate at day 28 was 36% (95% CI 29·2 to 44·2; 56 of 154 patients) in the HFNO alone group and 35% (27·9 to 43·2; 51 of 145 patients) in the NIV group (absolute difference 1·2% [95% CI -9·6 to 11·9]; p=0·83). None of the other prespecified secondary outcomes were different between groups except for greater decreased discomfort after initiation of HFNO than with NIV (-4 mm on visual analogic scale [IQR -18 to 4] vs 0 mm [-16 to 17]; p=0·040). INTERPRETATION: In critically ill immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure, the mortality rate did not differ between HFNO alone and NIV alternating with HFNO. However, study power was limited, so results should be interpreted with caution. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Effect of a Musical Intervention During the Implantation of a Central Venous Catheter or a Dialysis Catheter in the Intensive Care Unit: A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Listening to music may reduce anxiety during medical procedures. However, the magnitude of any effect may differ with respect to patient and procedure. We evaluated the effect of a musical intervention on patient anxiety during a central venous catheter or dialysis catheter implantation in an intensive care unit. METHODS: A prospective single-center controlled open-label 2-arm randomized trial was conducted in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) from February 2018 to February 2019. Patients undergoing central venous catheterization were randomized to listening to music or not during the procedure. Patients randomized to music listened to the Music Care application via headphones. The primary outcome was the change in anxiety assessed on a 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale between the beginning and end of the catheterization procedure. Secondary outcomes included postprocedural pain. RESULTS: We included 37 patients in the musical intervention group and 35 in the standard care group. The primary reasons for intensive care unit admission were the need for a central catheter for chemotherapy for hematologic malignancy and sepsis and/or septic shock in both groups. Postprocedural anxiety and pain assessments were missing in 1 (2.7%) and 4 (11.4%) patients in the intervention and standard care groups. We found no between-group difference in change in anxiety score: median -1 (interquartile range, -3 to 0) vs 0 (-3 to 0) in the musical intervention and standard care groups (median difference, -1 [-2 to 0]) (P = .24). Postprocedural pain score did not differ between the groups: median 0 (0-2) and 0 (0-3.75) in the musical intervention and standard care groups (median difference, -0 [0-0]) (P = .40). To account for missing outcome assessments, sensitivity analyses were performed using 2 extreme scenarios, one favoring the standard care group (scenario 1) and the other favoring the intervention group (scenario 2). In either scenario, change in anxiety score did not differ between the intervention and standard care groups: -1 (-3 to 0) vs 0 (-4 to 0) (P = .88) in scenario 1 and -1 (-3 to 0) vs 0 (-2.75 to 1) (P = .07) in scenario 2. CONCLUSIONS: In this first randomized pilot study of musical intervention for central venous catheterization in awake patients in the intensive care unit, the musical intervention did not reduce patients' anxiety as compared with usual care.

High-flow nasal oxygen therapy alone or with non-invasive ventilation in immunocompromised patients admitted to ICU for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: the randomised multicentre controlled FLORALI-IM protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended as first-line therapy in respiratory failure of critically ill immunocompromised patients as it can decrease intubation and mortality rates as compared with standard oxygen. However, its recommendation is only conditional. Indeed, the use of NIV in this setting has been challenged recently based on results of trials finding similar outcomes with or without NIV or even deleterious effects of NIV. To date, NIV has been compared with standard oxygen but not to high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFOT) in immunocompromised patients. Several studies have found lower mortality rates using HFOT alone than when using HFOT with NIV sessions in patients with de novo respiratory failure, and even in immunocompromised patients. We are hypothesising that HFOT alone is more effective than HFOT with NIV sessions and reduces mortality of immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing HFOT alone or with NIV in immunocompromised patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Around 280 patients will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The primary outcome is the mortality rate at day 28 after inclusion. Secondary outcomes include the rate of intubation in each group, length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality up to day 180. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the ethics committee and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02978300.