Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on gas exchange and inflammation in acute respiratory distress syndrome due or not to Covid-19 pneumonia. Trial design This is a prospective monocentric, randomized, quadruple-blinded and placebo-controlled superiority trial. This phase 3 clinical study is based on two parallel groups received either intravenous lidocaine 2% or intravenous NaCl 0.9%. Participants This study has been conducted at the University Hospitals of Strasbourg (medical and surgical Intensive Care Units in Hautepierre Hospital) since the 4th November 2020. The participants are 18 years-old and older, hospitalized in ICU for a moderate to severe ARDS according to the Berlin definition; they have to be intubated and sedated for mechanical protective ventilation. All participants are affiliated to the French Social security system and a dosage of beta HCG has to be negative for women of child bearing age . For the Covid-19 subgroup, the SARS-CoV2 infection is proved by RT-PCR <7 days before admission and/or another approved diagnostic technique and/or typical CT appearance pneumonia. The data are prospectively collected in e-Case Report Forms and extracted from clinical files. Intervention and comparator The participants are randomised in two parallel groups with a 1:1 ratio. In the experimental group, patients receive intravenous lidocaine 2% (20mg/mL) (from FRESENIUS KABI France); the infusion protocol provide a bolus of 1 mg/kg (ideal weight), followed by 3 mg/kg/h for the first hour, 1.5 mg/kg/h for the second hour, 0.72 mg/kg/h for the next 22 hours and then 0.6 mg/kg/h for 14 days at most or 24 hours after extubation or ventilator-weaning. The patients in the control group receive intravenous NaCl 0.9% (9 mg/mL) (from Aguettant, France) as placebo comparator; the infusion protocol provide a bolus of 0.05 mL/kg (ideal weight), followed by 0.15 mL/kg/h for the first hour, 0.075 mL/kg/h for the second hour, 0.036 mL/kg/h for the next 22 hours, and the 0.03 mL/kg/h for up to 14 days or 24 hours after extubation or ventilator-weaning. Lidocaine level is assessed at H4, D2, D7 and D14 to prevent local anesthetics systemic toxicity. Clinical data and biological samples are collected to assess disease progression. Main outcomes The primary outcome is the evolution of alveolar-capillary gas exchange measured by the PaO2/FiO2 ratio after two days of treatment. The secondary endpoints of the study include the following: Evolution of PaO2/FiO2 ratio at admission and after 21 days of treatment Number of ventilator-free days Anti-inflammatory effects by dosing inflammatory markers at different timepoints (ferritin, bicarbonate, CRP, PCT, LDH, IL-6, Troponin HS, triglycerides, complete blood count, lymphocytes) Anti-thrombotic effects by dosing platelets, aPTT, fibrinogen, D-dimers, viscoelastic testing and identification of all thromboembolic events up to 4 weeks. Plasmatic concentration of lidocaine and albumin Incidence of adverse events like cardiac rhythm disorders, need of vasopressors, any modification of the QRS, QTc or PR intervals every day Ileus recovery time Consumption of hypnotics, opioids, neuromuscular blockers. Lengths of stay in the ICU, incidence of reintubation and complications due to intensive care unit care (mortality until 90 days, pneumothorax, bacterial pneumopathy, bronchospasm, cardiogenic shock, acute renal failure, need of renal dialysis, delirium, atrial fibrillation, stroke (CAM-ICU score), tetraplegia (MCR score)). Incidence of cough and sore throat at extubation or ventilator-weaning and within 24 hours. All these outcomes will be evaluated according to positivity to Sars-Cov-2. Randomisation The participants who meet the inclusion criteria and have signed written informed consent will be randomly allocated using a computer-generated random number to either intervention group or control group. The distribution ratio of the two groups will be 1:1, with a stratification according to positivity to Sars-Cov-2. Blinding (masking) All participants, care providers, investigator and outcomes assessor are blinded. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) We planned to randomize fifty participants in each group, 100 participants total. Trial Status The amended protocol version 2.1 was approved by the Ethics Committee “Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Méditerranée II on January 8, 2021 and by the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) on November 10, 2020. The study is currently recruiting participants; the recruitment started in November 2020 and the planned recruitment period is three years. Trial registration The trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on October 30, 2020 and identified by number NCT04609865 . Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Abstract We developed a score, with easily accessible data (age, sex, body mass index, dyspnea, inflammatory parameters), to predict the risk of rapid progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019. Using a cutoff of >6 points, the negative predictive value was 87%.

Objective To compare continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and proportional assist ventilation (PAV) as modes of noninvasive ventilatory support in patients with severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Design and setting A prospective multicenter randomized study in the medical ICUs of three teaching hospitals. Patients Thirty-six adult patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPA) with unresolving dyspnea, respiratory rate above 30/min and/or SpO 2 above 90% with O 2 higher than 10 l/min despite conventional therapy with furosemide and nitrates. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo either CPAP (with PEEP 10 cmH 2 O) or PAV (with PEEP 5–6 cmH 2 O) noninvasive ventilation through a full face mask and the same ventilator. Measurements and results The main outcome measure was the failure rate as defined by the onset of predefined intubation criteria, severe arrythmias or patient's refusal. On inclusion CPAP ( n  = 19) and PAV ( n  = 17) groups were similar with regard to age, sex ratio, type of heart disease, SAPS II, physiological parameters (mean arterial pressure, heart rate, blood gases), amount of infused nitrates and furosemide. Failure was observed in 7 (37%) CPAP and 7 (41%) PAV patients. Among these, 4 (21%) CPAP and 5 (29%) PAV patients required endotracheal intubation. Changes in physiological parameters were similar in the two groups. Myocardial infarction and ICU mortality rates were strictly similar in the two groups. Conclusions In the present study PAV was not superior to CPAP for noninvasive ventilation in severe cardiogenic pulmonary edema with regard to either efficacy and tolerance.

PurposeTo assess the benefit-to-risk balance of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsIn 16 ICUs, we prospectively collected adverse events during or within 24 h after BAL and assessed the BAL input for decision making in consecutive adult patients. The occurrence of a clinical adverse event at least of grade 3, i.e., sufficiently severe to need therapeutic action(s), including modification(s) in respiratory support, defined poor BAL tolerance. The BAL input for decision making was declared satisfactory if it allowed to interrupt or initiate one or several treatments.ResultsWe included 483 BAL in 483 patients [age 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53–72); female gender: 162 (33.5%); simplified acute physiology score II: 48 (IQR 37-61); immunosuppression 244 (50.5%)]. BAL was begun in non-intubated patients in 105 (21.7%) cases. Sixty-seven (13.9%) patients reached the grade 3 of adverse event or higher. Logistic regression showed that a BAL performed by a non-experienced physician (non-pulmonologist, or intensivist with less than 10 years in the specialty or less than 50 BAL performed) was the main predictor of poor BAL tolerance in non-intubated patients [OR: 3.57 (95% confidence interval 1.04–12.35); P = 0.04]. A satisfactory BAL input for decision making was observed in 227 (47.0%) cases and was not predictable using logistic regression.ConclusionsAdverse events related to BAL in ICU patients are not infrequent nor necessarily benign. Our findings call for an extreme caution, when envisaging a BAL in ICU patients and for a mandatory accompaniment of the less experienced physicians.