Nadia Anguel

In mechanically ventilated patients with acute circulatory failure related to sepsis, we investigated whether the respiratory changes in arterial pressure could be related to the effects of volume expansion (VE) on cardiac index (CI). Forty patients instrumented with indwelling systemic and pulmonary artery catheters were studied before and after VE. Maximal and minimal values of pulse pressure (Pp(max) and Pp(min)) and systolic pressure (Ps(max) and Ps(min)) were determined over one respiratory cycle. The respiratory changes in pulse pressure (DeltaPp) were calculated as the difference between Pp(max) and Pp(min) divided by the mean of the two values and were expressed as a percentage. The respiratory changes in systolic pressure (DeltaPs) were calculated using a similar formula. The VE-induced increase in CI was >/= 15% in 16 patients (responders) and < 15% in 24 patients (nonresponders). Before VE, DeltaPp (24 +/- 9 versus 7 +/- 3%, p < 0.001) and DeltaPs (15 +/- 5 versus 6 +/- 3%, p < 0.001) were higher in responders than in nonresponders. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves analysis showed that DeltaPp was a more accurate indicator of fluid responsiveness than DeltaPs. Before VE, a DeltaPp value of 13% allowed discrimination between responders and nonresponders with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 96%. VE-induced changes in CI closely correlated with DeltaPp before volume expansion (r(2) = 0. 85, p < 0.001). VE decreased DeltaPp from 14 +/- 10 to 7 +/- 5% (p < 0.001) and VE-induced changes in DeltaPp correlated with VE-induced changes in CI (r(2) = 0.72, p < 0.001). It was concluded that in mechanically ventilated patients with acute circulatory failure related to sepsis, analysis of DeltaPp is a simple method for predicting and assessing the hemodynamic effects of VE, and that DeltaPp is a more reliable indicator of fluid responsiveness than DeltaPs.

BACKGROUND: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends targeting a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock. However, whether this blood-pressure target is more or less effective than a higher target is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 776 patients with septic shock to undergo resuscitation with a mean arterial pressure target of either 80 to 85 mm Hg (high-target group) or 65 to 70 mm Hg (low-target group). The primary end point was mortality at day 28. RESULTS: At 28 days, there was no significant between-group difference in mortality, with deaths reported in 142 of 388 patients in the high-target group (36.6%) and 132 of 388 patients in the low-target group (34.0%) (hazard ratio in the high-target group, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.38; P=0.57). There was also no significant difference in mortality at 90 days, with 170 deaths (43.8%) and 164 deaths (42.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.30; P=0.74). The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups (74 events [19.1%] and 69 events [17.8%], respectively; P=0.64). However, the incidence of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was higher in the high-target group than in the low-target group. Among patients with chronic hypertension, those in the high-target group required less renal-replacement therapy than did those in the low-target group, but such therapy was not associated with a difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a mean arterial pressure of 80 to 85 mm Hg, as compared with 65 to 70 mm Hg, in patients with septic shock undergoing resuscitation did not result in significant differences in mortality at either 28 or 90 days. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; SEPSISPAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149278.).

OBJECTIVE: Passive leg raising (PLR) represents a "self-volume challenge" that could predict fluid response and might be useful when the respiratory variation of stroke volume cannot be used for that purpose. We hypothesized that the hemodynamic response to PLR predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Medical intensive care unit of a university hospital. PATIENTS: We investigated 71 mechanically ventilated patients considered for volume expansion. Thirty-one patients had spontaneous breathing activity and/or arrhythmias. INTERVENTIONS: We assessed hemodynamic status at baseline, after PLR, and after volume expansion (500 mL NaCl 0.9% infusion over 10 mins). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recorded aortic blood flow using esophageal Doppler and arterial pulse pressure. We calculated the respiratory variation of pulse pressure in patients without arrhythmias. In 37 patients (responders), aortic blood flow increased by > or =15% after fluid infusion. A PLR increase of aortic blood flow > or =10% predicted fluid responsiveness with a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 94%. A PLR increase of pulse pressure > or =12% predicted volume responsiveness with significantly lower sensitivity (60%) and specificity (85%). In 30 patients without arrhythmias or spontaneous breathing, a respiratory variation in pulse pressure > or =12% was of similar predictive value as was PLR increases in aortic blood flow (sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 93%). In patients with spontaneous breathing activity, the specificity of respiratory variations in pulse pressure was poor (46%). CONCLUSIONS: The changes in aortic blood flow induced by PLR predict preload responsiveness in ventilated patients, whereas with arrhythmias and spontaneous breathing activity, respiratory variations of arterial pulse pressure poorly predict preload responsiveness.

Importance: Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Particpants: This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events. Results: Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] -9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], -21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI -28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04331808.

OBJECTIVE: Values of central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg and of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of 12-15 mm Hg have been proposed as volume resuscitation targets in recent international guidelines on management of severe sepsis. By analyzing a large number of volume challenges, our aim was to test the significance of the recommended target values in terms of prediction of volume responsiveness. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: A 24-bed medical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: All consecutive septic patients monitored with a pulmonary artery catheter who underwent a volume challenge between 2001 and 2004. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 150 volume challenges in 96 patients were reviewed. In 65 instances, the volume challenge resulted in an increase in cardiac index of > or =15% (responders). The pre-infusion central venous pressure was similar in responders and nonresponders (8 +/- 4 vs. 9 +/- 4 mm Hg). The pre-infusion pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was slightly lower in responders (10 +/- 4 vs. 11 +/- 4 mm Hg, p < .05). However, the significance of pulmonary artery occlusion pressure to predict fluid responsiveness was poor and similar to that of central venous pressure, as indicated by low values of areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (0.58 and 0.63, respectively). A central venous pressure of <8 mm Hg and a pulmonary artery occlusion pressure of <12 mm Hg predicted volume responsiveness with a positive predictive value of only 47% and 54%, respectively. With the knowledge of a low stroke volume index (<30 mL.m), their positive predictive values were still unsatisfactory: 61% and 69%, respectively. When the combination of central venous pressure and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure was considered instead of either pressure alone, the degree of prediction of volume responsiveness was not improved. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that cardiac filling pressures are poor predictors of fluid responsiveness in septic patients. Therefore, their use as targets for volume resuscitation must be discouraged, at least after the early phase of sepsis has concluded.