Saving lives by ventilating two patients with specific pressure-controlled ventilation from a single ICU-ventilator during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In late December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 was discovered, which is responsible for a new human disease called COVID-19. Among all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, 14% were hospitalized, with 2% admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation [1]. SARS-CoV-2 has spread quickly across the world, with more than one hundred million confirmed cases and more than 2,500,000 dead. In March 2020, the Hospital of Valenciennes had to admit hundreds of COVID-19 patients, and its capacity was almost exceeded [2]. More recently, in France, thousands of critically ill patients had to be admitted to ICUs. In Europe, the next wave of COVID-19 pandemic could be more severe than the first one, and we already know that, in the case of increasing numbers of critically ill, some of them will die as a result of the unavailability of mechanical ventilators [3]. This shortage may be lessened if one ventilator could service more than one patient. The main worry is that this concept could be not useful and systematically deleterious for the patient. Some concepts have already been proposed to ventilate differently two circuits with a single ventilator, with several limitations like the lack of individualization of ventilation of each circuit [4-6]. More recently, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Clarke et al. [7] described a new concept able to deliver specific ventilation for two different lung tests with a single ventilator. Again, Levin et al. [8] have recently shown that a similar concept of differential ventilation using a single ventilator with flow control valves is feasible in humans.

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.

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in COVID-19 critically ill patients: Results of a French monocentric cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19 is a new infectious disease responsible for potentially severe respiratory impairment associated with initial immunosuppression. Similarly to influenza, several authors have described a higher risk of fungal infection after COVID-19, in particular for invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. The main objective here is to define the prevalence of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA) in a cohort of COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a large monocentric retrospective study investigating all the ventilated COVID-19 patients with ARDS hospitalized at Valenciennes' general hospital, France, between March 15, 2020 and April 30, 2020. In the center a systematic IPA screening strategy was carried out for all ARDS patients, with weekly tests of serum galactomannan and beta-D-glucan. Bronchoalveolar lavage with culture and chest CT scan were performed when the serum assays were positives. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were studied. Their median age was 65 years, and 37 of the patients (71%) were male. Two patients had chronic immunosuppression and among all the patients, only 2 non-immunocompromised presented a putative IPA during their stay. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of IPA in this cohort of COVID-19 patients (3.7%) is not higher than what is described in the other ARDS populations in the literature. These results are however different from the previous publications on COVID-19 patients and must therefore be confirmed by larger and multicentric studies.

Therapeutic management of severe hypothermia with veno-arterial ECMO: where do we stand? Case report and review of the current literature.

BACKGROUND: Severe accidental hypothermia is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides an efficient rewarming method with complete cardiopulmonary support. The use of VA-ECMO for this indication has greatly improved the vital and functional prognosis of patients. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 46-year-old patient who was treated for severe hypothermia with a temperature of 22.4 °C along with initial cardiac arrest, whose progression was favorable after the implementation of VA-ECMO support. Two months after initial cardiac arrest, the patient was reassessed and showed signs of complete recovery with regard to his mental and physical capacities. CONCLUSIONS: The recent international publications and groups of experts recommend the use of VA ECMO as the gold standard therapy to treat severe hypothermia. Therefore, it seems suitable to update the current knowledge on the topic by analysing the latest international publications. The performance of this technique calls into question ethical and economic factors. Two distinct medical teams tried to identify and regroup prognosis factors in predictive survival scores. They raise the question of the utility of these scores in clinical practice. Indeed, according to which survival rate should we proceed to prolonged resuscitation and implement VA-ECMO? Additional studies will be needed for external approval of these survival scores, and additional reflection by experts will be required.