Dorothée Carpentier

BACKGROUND: The timing of renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients who have acute kidney injury but no potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure is a subject of debate. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized trial, we assigned patients with severe acute kidney injury (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] classification, stage 3 [stages range from 1 to 3, with higher stages indicating more severe kidney injury]) who required mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both and did not have a potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure to either an early or a delayed strategy of renal-replacement therapy. With the early strategy, renal-replacement therapy was started immediately after randomization. With the delayed strategy, renal-replacement therapy was initiated if at least one of the following criteria was met: severe hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, pulmonary edema, blood urea nitrogen level higher than 112 mg per deciliter, or oliguria for more than 72 hours after randomization. The primary outcome was overall survival at day 60. RESULTS: A total of 620 patients underwent randomization. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality at day 60 did not differ significantly between the early and delayed strategies; 150 deaths occurred among 311 patients in the early-strategy group (48.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 42.6 to 53.8), and 153 deaths occurred among 308 patients in the delayed-strategy group (49.7%, 95% CI, 43.8 to 55.0; P=0.79). A total of 151 patients (49%) in the delayed-strategy group did not receive renal-replacement therapy. The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections was higher in the early-strategy group than in the delayed-strategy group (10% vs. 5%, P=0.03). Diuresis, a marker of improved kidney function, occurred earlier in the delayed-strategy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In a trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury, we found no significant difference with regard to mortality between an early and a delayed strategy for the initiation of renal-replacement therapy. A delayed strategy averted the need for renal-replacement therapy in an appreciable number of patients. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01932190.).

BACKGROUND: Adult-onset Still disease (AOSD) is a rare systemic inflammatory disorder. A few patients develop organ complications that can be life-threatening. Our objectives were to describe the disease course and phenotype of life-threatening AOSD, including response to therapy and long-term outcome. METHODS: A multicenter case series of intensive care medicine (ICU) patients with life-threatening AOSD and a systematic literature review. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included. ICU admission mostly occurred at disease onset (90%). Disease manifestations included fever (100%), sore throat (65%), skin rash (65%), and arthromyalgia (55%). Serum ferritin was markedly high (median: 29,110 ng/mL). Acute respiratory failure, shock and multiple organ failure occurred in 15 (75%), 10 (50%), and 7 (35%) cases, respectively. Hemophagocytosis was demonstrated in eight cases. Two patients died. Treatment delay was significant. All patients received corticosteroids. Response rate was 50%. As second-line, intravenous immunoglobulins were ineffective. Anakinra was highly effective. After ICU discharge, most patients required additional treatment. Literature analysis included 79 cases of AOSD with organ manifestations, which mainly included reactive hemophagocytic syndrome (42%), acute respiratory failure (34%), and cardiac complications (23%). Response rate to corticosteroids was 68%. Response rates to IVIgs, cyclosporin, and anakinra were 50%, 80%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: AOSD should be recognized as a rare cause of sepsis mimic in patients with fever of unknown origin admitted to the ICU. The diagnosis relies on a few simple clinical clues. Early intensive treatment may be discussed. IVIgs should be abandoned. Long-term prognosis is favorable.

RATIONAL: To evaluate the respective impact of standard oxygen, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on oxygenation failure rate and mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Multicenter, prospective cohort study (COVID-ICU) in 137 hospitals in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, oxygenation failure, and survival data were collected. Oxygenation failure was defined as either intubation or death in the ICU without intubation. Variables independently associated with oxygenation failure and Day-90 mortality were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: From February 25 to May 4, 2020, 4754 patients were admitted in ICU. Of these, 1491 patients were not intubated on the day of ICU admission and received standard oxygen therapy (51%), HFNC (38%), or NIV (11%) (P < 0.001). Oxygenation failure occurred in 739 (50%) patients (678 intubation and 61 death). For standard oxygen, HFNC, and NIV, oxygenation failure rate was 49%, 48%, and 60% (P < 0.001). By multivariate analysis, HFNC (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.99, P = 0.013) but not NIV (OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.78-3.21) was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure). Overall 90-day mortality was 21%. By multivariable analysis, HFNC was not associated with a change in mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61-1.33), while NIV was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.79-4.21, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19, HFNC was associated with a reduction in oxygenation failure without improvement in 90-day mortality, whereas NIV was associated with a higher mortality in these patients. Randomized controlled trials are needed.

Importance: Prone positioning may improve outcomes in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but it is unknown whether prone positioning improves clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS who are undergoing venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) compared with supine positioning. Objective: To test whether prone positioning vs supine positioning decreases the time to successful ECMO weaning in patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of patients with severe ARDS undergoing VV-ECMO for less than 48 hours at 14 intensive care units (ICUs) in France between March 3, 2021, and December 7, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to prone positioning (at least 4 sessions of 16 hours) (n = 86) or to supine positioning (n = 84). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to successful ECMO weaning within 60 days following randomization. Secondary outcomes included ECMO and mechanical ventilation-free days, ICU and hospital length of stay, skin pressure injury, serious adverse events, and all-cause mortality at 90-day follow-up. Results: Among 170 randomized patients (median age, 51 [IQR, 43-59] years; n = 60 women [35%]), median respiratory system compliance was 15.0 (IQR, 10.7-20.6) mL/cm H2O; 159 patients (94%) had COVID-19-related ARDS; and 164 (96%) were in prone position before ECMO initiation. Within 60 days of enrollment, 38 of 86 patients (44%) had successful ECMO weaning in the prone ECMO group compared with 37 of 84 (44%) in the supine ECMO group (risk difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -14.9% to 15.2%]; subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.71-1.75]; P = .64). Within 90 days, no significant difference was observed in ECMO duration (28 vs 32 days; difference, -4.9 [95% CI, -11.2 to 1.5] days; P = .13), ICU length of stay, or 90-day mortality (51% vs 48%; risk difference, 2.4% [95% CI, -13.9% to 18.6%]; P = .62). No serious adverse events were reported during the prone position procedure. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO, prone positioning compared with supine positioning did not significantly reduce time to successful weaning of ECMO. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04607551.

RATIONALE: The optimal strategy for initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with severe acute kidney injury in the context of septic shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of an early compared with a delayed RRT initiation strategy on 60-day mortality according to baseline sepsis status, ARDS status, and severity. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of the AKIKI (Artificial Kidney Initiation in Kidney Injury) trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Subgroups were defined according to baseline characteristics: sepsis status (Sepsis-3 definition), ARDS status (Berlin definition), Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3), and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA). Of 619 patients, 348 (56%) had septic shock and 207 (33%) had ARDS. We found no significant influence of the baseline sepsis status (P = 0.28), baseline ARDS status (P = 0.94), and baseline severity scores (P = 0.77 and P = 0.46 for SAPS 3 and SOFA, respectively) on the comparison of 60-day mortality according to RRT initiation strategy. A delayed RRT initiation strategy allowed 45% of patients with septic shock and 46% of patients with ARDS to escape RRT. Urine output was higher in the delayed group. Renal function recovery occurred earlier with the delayed RRT strategy in patients with septic shock or ARDS (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). Time to successful extubation in patients with ARDS was not affected by RRT strategy (P = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Early RRT initiation strategy was not associated with any improvement of 60-day mortality in patients with severe acute kidney injury and septic shock or ARDS. Unnecessary and potentially risky procedures might often be avoided in these fragile populations. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01932190).