Dataset Information

French multicentre observational study on SARS-CoV-2 infections intensive care initial management: the FRENCH CORONA study.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Describing acute respiratory distress syndrome patterns, therapeutics management, and outcomes of ICU COVID-19 patients and indentifying risk factors of 28-day mortality.

Methods

Prospective multicentre, cohort study conducted in 29 French ICUs. Baseline characteristics, comorbidities, adjunctive therapies, ventilatory support at ICU admission and survival data were collected.

Results

From March to July 2020, 966 patients were enrolled with a median age of 66 (interquartile range 58-73) years and a median SAPS II of 37 (29-48). During the first 24 h of ICU admission, COVID-19 patients received one of the following respiratory supports: mechanical ventilation for 559 (58%), standard oxygen therapy for 228 (24%) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for 179 (19%) patients. Overall, 721 (75%) patients were mechanically ventilated during their ICU stay. Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 494 (51%) and 460 (48%) patients, respectively. Bacterial co-infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia were diagnosed in 79 (3%) and 411 (43%) patients, respectively. The overall 28-day mortality was 18%. Age, pre-existing comorbidities, severity of respiratory failure and the absence of antiviral therapy on admission were identified as independent predictors of 28-day outcome.

Conclusion

Severity of hypoxaemia on admission, older age (> 70 years), cardiovascular and renal comorbidities were associated with worse outcome in COVID-19 patients. Antiviral treatment on admission was identified as a protective factor for 28-day mortality. Ascertaining the outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients is crucial to optimise hospital and ICU resources and provide the appropriate intensity level of care.

SUBMITTER: Roger C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272066 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPost-intensive care syndrome (PICS), defined as physical, cognitive, and mental-health symptoms persisting long after intensive-care-unit (ICU) discharge, is increasingly recognised as a healthcare priority. Data on screening for PICS are sparse. Our objective here was to describe post-ICU screening in France, with special attention to visit availability and evaluations done during visits.MethodsWe conducted an online multicentre survey by emailing an anonymous 43-item questionnaire to French ICUs. For each ICU, a single survey was sent to either the head or the intensivist in charge of follow-up visits.ResultsOf 252 ICUs invited to participate, 161 (63.9%) returned the completed survey. Among them, 46 (28.6%) offered follow-up visits. Usually, a single visit led by an intensivist was scheduled 3 to 6 months after ICU discharge. Approximately 50 patients/year/ICU, that is, about 5% of admitted patients, attended post-ICU visits. The main criteria used to select patients for follow-up were ICU stay and/or invasive mechanical ventilation duration longer than 48 h, cardiac arrest, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among ICUs offering visits, 80% used validated instruments to screen for PICS. Of the 115 ICUs not offering follow-up, 50 (43.5%) indicated an intention to start follow-up within the next year. The main barriers to offering follow-up were lack of available staff and equipment or not viewing PICS screening as a priority. Half the ICUs offering visits worked with an established network of post-ICU care professionals, and another 17% were setting up such a network. Obstacles to network creation were lack of interest among healthcare professionals and lack of specific training in PICS.ConclusionOnly a small minority of ICU survivors received follow-up designed to detect PICS. Less than a third of ICUs offered follow-up visits but nearly another third planned to set up such visits within the next year. Recommendations issued by French health authorities in 2023 can be expected to improve the availability and standardisation of post-ICU follow-up.

Project description:PurposeDeciding not to re-admit a patient to the intensive care unit (ICU) poses an ethical dilemma for ICU physicians. We aimed to describe and understand the attitudes and perceptions of ICU physicians regarding non-readmission of patients to the ICU.Materials and methodsMulticenter, qualitative study using semi-directed interviews between January and May 2019. All medical staff working full-time in the ICU of five participating centres (two academic and three general, non-academic hospitals) were invited to participate. Participants were asked to describe how they experienced non-readmission decisions in the ICU, and to expand on the manner in which the decision was made, but also on the traceability and timing of the decision. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using textual content analysis.ResultsIn total, 22 physicians participated. Interviews lasted on average 26±7 minutes. There were 14 men and 8 women, average age was 35±9 years, and average length of ICU experience was 7±5 years. The majority of respondents said that they regretted that the question of non-readmission was not addressed before the initial ICU admission. They acknowledged that the ICU stay did lead to more thorough contemplation of the overall goals of care. Multidisciplinary team meetings could help to anticipate the question of readmission within the patient's care pathway. Participants reported that there is a culture of collegial decision-making in the ICU, although the involvement of patients, families and other healthcare professionals in this process is not systematic. The timing and traceability of non-readmission decisions are heterogeneous.ConclusionsNon-readmission decisions are a major issue that raises ethical questions surrounding the fact that there is no discussion of the patient's goals of care in advance. Better anticipation, and better communication with the patients, families and other healthcare providers are suggested as areas that could be targeted for improvement.

Project description:BackgroundTocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the interleukin-6 receptor, has been proposed to mitigate the cytokine storm syndrome associated with severe COVID-19. We aimed to investigate the association between tocilizumab exposure and hospital-related mortality among patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) support for COVID-19.MethodsWe did a retrospective observational cohort study at 13 hospitals within the Hackensack Meridian Health network (NJ, USA). We included patients (aged ≥18 years) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who needed support in the ICU. We obtained data from a prospective observational database and compared outcomes in patients who received tocilizumab with those who did not. We applied a multivariable Cox model with propensity score matching to reduce confounding effects. The primary endpoint was hospital-related mortality. The prospective observational database is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04347993.FindingsBetween March 1 and April 22, 2020, 764 patients with COVID-19 required support in the ICU, of whom 210 (27%) received tocilizumab. Factors associated with receiving tocilizumab were patients' age, gender, renal function, and treatment location. 630 patients were included in the propensity score-matched population, of whom 210 received tocilizumab and 420 did not receive tocilizumab. 358 (57%) of 630 patients died, 102 (49%) who received tocilizumab and 256 (61%) who did not receive tocilizumab. Overall median survival from time of admission was not reached (95% CI 23 days-not reached) among patients receiving tocilizumab and was 19 days (16-26) for those who did not receive tocilizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·56-0·89; p=0·0027). In the primary multivariable Cox regression analysis with propensity matching, an association was noted between receiving tocilizumab and decreased hospital-related mortality (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·47-0·87; p=0·0040). Similar associations with tocilizumab were noted among subgroups requiring mechanical ventilatory support and with baseline C-reactive protein of 15 mg/dL or higher.InterpretationIn this observational study, patients with COVID-19 requiring ICU support who received tocilizumab had reduced mortality. Results of ongoing randomised controlled trials are awaited.FundingNone.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Limited data are available regarding antiviral therapy efficacy in most severe patients under mechanical ventilation for Covid-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS:Comparison of antiviral strategies (none, hydroxychloroquine (OHQ), lopinavir/ritonavir (L/R), others (combination or remdesivir) in an observational multicentre cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe Covid-19 ARDS. The primary endpoint was the number of day 28 ventilator-free days (VFD). Patients who died before d28 were considered as having 0 VFD. The variable was dichotomized into "patients still ventilated or dead at day 28" versus "patients weaned and alive at day 28". RESULTS:We analyzed 415 patients (85 treated with standard of care (SOC), 57 with L/R, 220 with OHQ, and 53 others). The median number of d28-VFD was 0 (IQR 0-13) and differed between groups (P?=?0.03), SOC patients having the highest d28-VFD. After adjustment for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, PaO2/FiO2 ratio and plateau pressure and accounting for center effect with a generalized linear mixed model, none of the antiviral strategies increased the chance of being alive and weaned from MV at day 28 compared to the SOC strategy (OR 0.48 CI95% (0.18-1.25); OR 0.96 (0.47-2.02) and OR 1.43 (0.53-4.04) for L/R, OHQ and other treatments, respectively). Acute kidney injury during ICU stay was frequent (55%); its incidence was higher in patients receiving lopinavir (66 vs 53%, P?=?0.03). After adjustment for age, sex, BMI, chronic hypertension and chronic renal disease, the use of L/R was associated with an increased risk of renal replacement therapy (RRT). (OR 2.52 CI95% 1.16-5.59). CONCLUSION:In this multicentre observational study of moderate-to-severe Covid-19 ARDS patients, we did not observe any benefit among patients treated with OHQ or L/R compared with SOC. The use of L/R treatment was associated with an increased need for RRT. Take home message Neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir/ritonavir as COVID-19 antiviral treatment is associated with higher ventilator-free days at day 28 when compared with standard of care (no antiviral treatment) in ICU patients under invasive mechanical ventilation. Lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with an increased risk of renal replacement therapy requirement. Tweet COVID-19: Insights from ARDS cohort: no signal of efficacy of any antiviral drugs. Lopinavir/ritonavir may be associated with need for RRT.