Search

Introduction: Understanding hypoxemia, with and without the clinical signs of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in COVID-19, is key for management. Hence, from a population of critical patients admitted to the emergency department (ED), we aimed to study silent hypoxemia (Phenotype I) in comparison to symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF (Phenotype II). Methods: This multicenter study was conducted between 1 March and 30 April 2020. Adult patients who were presented to the EDs of nine Great-Eastern French hospitals for confirmed severe or critical COVID-19, who were then directly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), were retrospectively included. Results: A total of 423 critical COVID-19 patients were included, out of whom 56.1% presented symptomatic hypoxemia with clinical signs of ARF, whereas 43.9% presented silent hypoxemia. Patients with clinical phenotype II were primarily intubated, initially, in the ED (46%, p < 0.001), whereas those with silent hypoxemia (56.5%, p < 0.001) were primarily intubated in the ICU. Initial univariate analysis revealed higher ICU mortality (29.2% versus 18.8%, p < 0.014) and in-hospital mortality (32.5% versus 18.8%, p < 0.002) in phenotype II. However, multivariate analysis showed no significant differences between the two phenotypes regarding mortality and hospital or ICU length of stay. Conclusions: Silent hypoxemia is explained by various mechanisms, most physiological and unspecific to COVID-19. Survival was found to be comparable in both phenotypes, with decreased survival in favor of Phenotype II. However, the spectrum of silent to symptomatic hypoxemia appears to include a continuum of disease progression, which can brutally evolve into fatal ARF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Patients with malignancies (solid tumors or hematological diseases) are at high risk of developing sepsis and are increasingly admitted to ICU due to their long-term prognosis improvement. The main objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term prognoses of patients with and without cancer admitted to the ICU for septic shock. In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission. Introduction: Cancer patients are at high risk of developing septic shock (SSh) and are increasingly admitted to ICU given their improved long-term prognosis. We, therefore, compared the prognosis of cancer and non-cancer patients with SSh. Methods: We conducted a monocentric, retrospective cohort study (2013–2019) on patients admitted to ICU for SSh. We compared the clinical characteristics and management and studied short- and long-term mortality with ICU and in-hospital mortality and 1-year survival according to cancer status. Results: We analyzed 239 ICU stays in 210 patients, 59.5% of whom were men (n = 125), with a median age of 66.5 (IQR 56.3–77.0). Of the 121 cancer patients (57.6% of all patients), 70 had solid tumors (33.3%), and 51 had hematological malignancies (24.3%). When comparing ICU stays of patients with versus without cancer (n = 148 vs. n = 91 stays, respectively), mortality reached 30.4% (n = 45) vs. 30.0% (n = 27) in the ICU (p = 0.95), and 41.6% (n = 59) vs. 35.6% (n = 32) in hospital (p = 0.36), respectively. ICU length of stay (LOS) was 5.0 (2.0–11.3) vs. 6.0 (3.0–15.0) days (p = 0.27), whereas in-hospital LOS was 25.5 (13.8–42.0) vs. 19.5 (10.8–41.0) days (p = 0.33). Upon multivariate analysis, renal replacement therapy (OR = 2.29, CI95%: 1.06–4.93, p = 0.03), disseminated intravascular coagulation (OR = 5.89, CI95%: 2.49–13.92, p < 0.01), and mechanical ventilation (OR = 7.85, CI95%: 2.90–21.20, p < 0.01) were associated with ICU mortality, whereas malignancy, hematological, or solid tumors were not (OR = 1.41, CI95%: 0.65–3.04; p = 0.38). Similarly, overall cancer status was not associated with in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.99, CI95%: 0.98–4.03, p = 0.06); however, solid cancers were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (OR = 2.52, CI95%: 1.12–5.67, p = 0.03). Lastly, mortality was not significantly different at 365-day follow-up between patients with and without cancer. Conclusions: In-hospital and ICU mortality, as well as LOS, were not different in SSh patients with and without cancer, suggesting that malignancies should no longer be considered a barrier to ICU admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The allocation of liver transplants to patients with acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) with multi-organ failure who are admitted in ICU remains controversial due to their high post-transplant mortality rate and the absence of identified mortality risk factors. Methods We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study to determine the post-transplant mortality rate of patients with ALF and ACLF requiring ICU care prior to liver transplant (LT) and identified pretransplant factors of post-transplant mortality. Results Eighty-four patients (29 with ALF and 55 with ACLF) received a liver transplant while they were hospitalized at the ICU. Their mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 41, and their mean sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) was 15 the day before transplant. The overall 1-year survival rate was 66%. In multivariate analysis, pretransplant lactate level and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) were the only two independent factors associated with post-transplant mortality. The absence of ARDS and a pretransplant lactate level< 5 mmol/L led to the identification of a subgroup of ICU patients with a good 1-year post-transplant survival (>80%). Conclusions Low lactatemia lactate level and the absence of ARDS could be useful criteria in selecting those patients in ICU who could be eligible for liver transplant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. Our study aims to describe the characteristics and therapeutic emergency mobile service (EMS) management of patients with vital distress due to COVID-19, their in-hospital care pathway and their in-hospital outcome. Methods: This retrospective and multicentric study was conducted in the six main centers of the French Greater East region, an area heavily impacted by the pandemic. All patients requiring EMS dispatch and who were admitted straight to the intensive care unit (ICU) were included. Clinical data from their pre-hospital and hospital management were retrieved. Results: We included a total of 103 patients (78.6% male, median age 68). In the initial stage, patients were in a critical condition (median oxygen saturation was 72% (60–80%)). In the field, 77.7% (CI 95%: 71.8–88.3%) were intubated. Almost half of our population (45.6%, CI 95%: 37.1–56.9%) had clinical Phenotype 1 (silent hypoxemia), while the remaining half presented Phenotype 2 (acute respiratory failure). In the ICU, a great number had ARDS (77.7%, CI 95% 71.8–88.3% with a PaO2/FiO2 < 200). In-hospital mortality was 33% (CI 95%: 24.6–43.3%). The two phenotypes showed clinical and radiological differences (respiratory rate, OR = 0.98, p = 0.02; CT scan lesion extension >50%, OR = 0.76, p < 0.03). However, no difference was found in terms of overall in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.07, p = 0.74). Conclusion: The clinical phenotypes appear to be very distinguishable in the pre-hospital field, yet no difference was found in terms of mortality. This leads us to recommend an identical management in the initial phase, despite the two distinct presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]