No abstract

BackgroundHaemorrhagic shock is the leading cause of early preventable death in severe trauma. Delayed treatment is a recognized prognostic factor that can be prevented by efficient organization of care. This study aimed to develop and validate Red Flag, a binary alert identifying blunt trauma patients with high risk of severe haemorrhage (SH), to be used by the pre-hospital trauma team in order to trigger an adequate intra-hospital standardized haemorrhage control response: massive transfusion protocol and/or immediate haemostatic procedures.MethodsA multicentre retrospective study of prospectively collected data from a trauma registry (Traumabase®) was performed. SH was defined as: packed red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in the trauma room, or transfusion ≥ 4 RBC in the first 6 h, or lactate ≥ 5 mmol/L, or immediate haemostatic surgery, or interventional radiology and/or death of haemorrhagic shock. Pre-hospital characteristics were selected using a multiple logistic regression model in a derivation cohort to develop a Red Flag binary alert whose performances were confirmed in a validation cohort.ResultsAmong the 3675 patients of the derivation cohort, 672 (18%) had SH. The final prediction model included five pre-hospital variables: Shock Index ≥ 1, mean arterial blood pressure ≤ 70 mmHg, point of care haemoglobin ≤ 13 g/dl, unstable pelvis and pre-hospital intubation. The Red Flag alert was triggered by the presence of any combination of at least two criteria. Its predictive performances were sensitivity 75% (72–79%), specificity 79% (77–80%) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.83 (0.81–0.84) in the derivation cohort, and were not significantly different in the independent validation cohort of 2999 patients.ConclusionThe Red Flag alert developed and validated in this study has high performance to accurately predict or exclude SH.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2026-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Background: Acute mesenteric ischaemia is a severe complication in critically ill patients, but has never been evaluated in patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO). This study was designed to determine the prevalence of mesenteric ischaemia in patients supported by V-A ECMO and to evaluate its risk factors, as well as to appreciate therapeutic modalities and outcome. Methods: In a retrospective single centre study (January 2013 to January 2017), all consecutive adult patients who underwent V-A ECMO were included, with exclusion of those dying in the first 24 hours. Diagnosis of mesenteric ischaemia was performed using digestive endoscopy, computed tomography scan or first-line laparotomy. Results: One hundred and fifty V-A ECMOs were implanted (65 for post-cardiotomy shock, 85 for acute cardiogenic shock, including 39 patients after refractory cardiac arrest). Overall, median age was 58 (48–69) years and mortality 56%. Acute mesenteric ischaemia was suspected in 38 patients, with a delay of four (2–7) days after ECMO implantation, and confirmed in 14 patients, that is, a prevalence of 9%. Exploratory laparotomy was performed in six out of 14 patients, the others being too unstable to undergo surgery. All patients with mesenteric ischaemia died. Independent risk factors for developing mesenteric ischaemia were renal replacement therapy (odds ratio (OR) 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3–15.7, p=0.02) and onset of a second shock within the first five days (OR 7.8, 95% CI 1.5–41.3, p=0.02). Conversely, early initiation of enteral nutrition was negatively associated with mesenteric ischaemia (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03–0.69, p=0.02). Conclusions: Acute mesenteric ischaemia is a relatively frequent but dramatic complication among patients on V-A ECMO.