Christian Richard

Bio: Christian Richard is an academic researcher from University of Paris-Sud. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intensive care & Cardiac output. The author has an hindex of 55, co-authored 135 publications receiving 12614 citations. Previous affiliations of Christian Richard include Université Paris-Saclay & French Institute of Health and Medical Research.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Abstract: Background The efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains controversial. Methods In an int...

Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure.

Abstract: 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.

Passive leg raising predicts fluid responsiveness in the critically ill.

Abstract: 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 mechan

Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge

Abstract: 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 t

Early Use of the Pulmonary Artery Catheter and Outcomes in Patients With Shock and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract: ContextMany physicians believe that the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) is useful for the diagnosis and treatment of cardiopulmonary disturbances; however, observational studies suggest that its use may be harmful.ObjectiveTo determine the effects on outcome of the early use of a PAC in patients with shock mainly of septic origin, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or both.Design, Setting, and PatientsA multicenter randomized controlled study of 676 patients aged 18 years or older who fulfilled the standard criteria for shock, ARDS, or both conducted in 36 intensive care units in France from January 30, 1999, to June 29, 2001.InterventionPatients were randomly assigned to either receive a PAC (n = 335) or not (n = 341). The treatment was left to the discretion of each individual physician.Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary end point was mortality at 28 days. The principal secondary end points were day 14 and 90 mortality; day 14 organ system, renal support, and vasoactive agents–free days; hospital, intensive care unit, and mechanical ventilation–free days at day 28.ResultsThe 2 groups were similar at baseline. There were no significant differences in mortality with or without the PAC at day 14: 49.9% vs 51.3% (mortality relative risk [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.13; P = .70); day 28: 59.4% vs 61.0% (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.86-1.10; P = .67); or day 90: 70.7% vs 72.0% (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08; P = .71). At day 14, the mean (SD) number of days free of organ system failures with or without the PAC (2.3 [3.6] vs 2.4 [3.5]), renal support (7.4 [6.0] vs 7.5 [5.9]), and vasoactive agents (3.8 [4.8] vs 3.9 [4.9]) did not differ. At day 28, mean (SD) days in hospital with or without the PAC (0.9 [3.6] vs 0.9 [3.3]), in the intensive care unit (3.4 [6.8] vs 3.3 [6.9]), or mechanical ventilation use (5.2 [8.5] vs 5.0 [8.5]) did not differ.ConclusionClinical management involving the early use of a PAC in patients with shock, ARDS, or both did not significantly affect mortality and morbidity.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at ke

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

Abstract: To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao 2/Fi o 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

Abstract: tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

Acute renal failure - definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group.

Abstract: There is no consensus definition of acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients. More than 30 different definitions have been used in the literature, creating much confusion and making comparisons difficult. Similarly, strong debate exists on the validity and clinical relevance of animal models of ARF; on choices of fluid management and of end-points for trials of new interventions in this field; and on how information technology can be used to assist this process. Accordingly, we sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies. We undertook a systematic review of the literature using Medline and PubMed searches. We determined a list of key questions and convened a 2-day consensus conference to develop summary statements via a series of alternating breakout and plenary sessions. In these sessions, we identified supporting evidence and generated recommendations and/or directions for future research. We found sufficient consensus on 47 questions to allow the development of recommendations. Importantly, we were able to develop a consensus definition for ARF. In some cases it was also possible to issue useful consensus recommendations for future investigations. We present a summary of the findings. (Full versions of the six workgroups' findings are available on the internet at http://www.ADQI.net ) Despite limited data, broad areas of consensus exist for the physiological and clinical principles needed to guide the development of consensus recommendations for defining ARF, selection of animal models, methods of monitoring fluid therapy, choice of physiological and clinical end-points for trials, and the possible role of information technology.

Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis.

Abstract: Background Drotrecogin alfa (activated), or recombinant human activated protein C, has antithrombotic, antiinflammatory, and profibrinolytic properties. In a previous study, drotrecogin alfa activated produced dose-dependent reductions in the levels of markers of coagulation and inflammation in patients with severe sepsis. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed whether treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated reduced the rate of death from any cause among patients with severe sepsis. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Patients with systemic inflammation and organ failure due to acute infection were enrolled and assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of either placebo or drotrecogin alfa activated (24 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) for a total duration of 96 hours. The prospectively defined primary end point was death from any cause and was assessed 28 days after the start of the infusion. Patients were monitored for adverse events; changes i...