Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose To describe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity, ventilation management, and the outcomes of ICU patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and to determine risk factors of 90-day mortality post-ICU admission. Methods COVID-ICU is a multi-center, prospective cohort study conducted in 138 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, adjunctive interventions, ICU length-of-stay, and survival data were collected. Results From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4643 patients (median [IQR] age 63 [54–71] years and SAPS II 37 [28–50]) were admitted in ICU, with day-90 post-ICU admission status available for 4244. On ICU admission, standard oxygen therapy, high-flow oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation were applied to 29%, 19%, and 6% patients, respectively. 2635 (63%) patients were intubated during the first 24 h whereas overall 3376 (80%) received invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) at one point during their ICU stay. Median (IQR) positive end-expiratory and plateau pressures were 12 (10–14) cmH 2 O, and 24 (21–27) cmH 2 O, respectively. The mechanical power transmitted by the MV to the lung was 26.5 (18.6–34.9) J/min. Paralyzing agents and prone position were applied to 88% and 70% of patients intubated at Day-1, respectively. Pulmonary embolism and ventilator-associated pneumonia were diagnosed in 207 (9%) and 1209 (58%) of these patients. On day 90, 1298/4244 (31%) patients had died. Among patients who received invasive or non-invasive ventilation on the day of ICU admission, day-90 mortality increased with the severity of ARDS at ICU admission (30%, 34%, and 50% for mild, moderate, and severe ARDS, respectively) and decreased from 42 to 25% over the study period. Early independent predictors of 90-day mortality were older age, immunosuppression, severe obesity, diabetes, higher renal and cardiovascular SOFA score components, lower PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio and a shorter time between first symptoms and ICU admission. Conclusion Among more than 4000 critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to our ICUs, 90-day mortality was 31% and decreased from 42 to 25% over the study period. Mortality was higher in older, diabetic, obese and severe ARDS patients.

On admittance she had a temperature of 38·6°C, pulse of 108 beats per min, arterial blood pressure of 118/54 mm Hg, and reactive anisocoria. The presence of subdural empyema should always be investigated when a patient has neurological degradation concomitant with a sinusitis, and MRI is well adapted for the diagnosis of intracranial infections.

Background Sedation/analgesia is a daily challenge faced by intensivists managing patients with brain injury (BI) in intensive care units (ICUs). The optimization of sedation in patients with BI presents particular challenges. A choice must be made between the potential benefit of a rapid clinical evaluation and the potential exacerbation of intracranial hypertension in patients with impaired cerebral compliance. In the ICU, a pragmatic approach to the use of sedation/analgesia, including the optimal titration, management of multiple drugs, and use of any type of brain monitor, is needed. Our research question was as follows: the aim of the study is to identify what is the current daily practice regarding sedation/analgesia in the management of patients with BI in the ICU in France? Methods This study was composed of two parts. The first part was a descriptive survey of sedation practices and characteristics in 30 French ICUs and 27 academic hospitals specializing in care for patients with BI. This first step validates ICU participation in data collection regarding sedation-analgesia practices. The second part was a 1-day prospective cross-sectional snapshot of all characteristics and prescriptions of patients with BI. Results On the study day, among the 246 patients with BI, 106 (43%) had a brain monitoring device and 74 patients (30%) were sedated. Thirty-nine of the sedated patients (53%) suffered from intracranial hypertension, 14 patients (19%) suffered from agitation and delirium, and 7 patients (9%) were sedated because of respiratory failure. Fourteen patients (19%) no longer had a formal indication for sedation. In 60% of the sedated patients, the sedatives were titrated by nurses based on sedation scales. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was used in 80% of the patients, and the Behavioral Pain Scale was used in 92%. The common sedatives and opioids used were midazolam (58.1%), propofol (40.5%), and sufentanil (67.5%). The cerebral monitoring devices available in the participating ICUs were transcranial Doppler ultrasound (100%), intracranial and intraventricular pressure monitoring (93.3%), and brain tissue oxygenation (60%). Cerebral monitoring by one or more monitoring devices was performed in 62% of the sedated patients. This proportion increased to 74% in the subgroup of patients with intracranial hypertension, with multimodal cerebral monitoring in 43.6%. The doses of midazolam and sufentanil were lower in sedated patients managed based on a sedation/analgesia scale. Conclusions Midazolam and sufentanil are frequently used, often in combination, in French ICUs instead of alternative drugs. In our study, cerebral monitoring was performed in more than 60% of the sedated patients, although that proportion is still insufficient. Future efforts should stress the use of multiple monitoring modes and adherence to the indications for sedation to improve care of patients with BI. Our study suggests that the use of sedation and analgesia scales by nurses involved in the management of patients with BI could decrease the dosages of midazolam and sufentanil administered. Updated guidelines are needed for the management of sedation/analgesia in patients with BI.