scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Pascal Beuret

Bio: Pascal Beuret is an academic researcher from Hospital de Sant Pau. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intensive care & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 32 publications receiving 4660 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In patients with severe ARDS, early application of prolonged prone-positioning sessions significantly decreased 28-day and 90-day mortality.
Abstract: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial, we randomly as signed 466 patients with severe ARDS to undergo prone-positioning sessions of at least 16 hours or to be left in the supine position. Severe ARDS was defined as a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) of less than 150 mm Hg, with an F io2 of at least 0.6, a positive end-expira tory pressure of at least 5 cm of water, and a tidal volume close to 6 ml per kilogram of predicted body weight. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who died from any cause within 28 days after inclusion. Results A total of 237 patients were assigned to the prone group, and 229 patients were as signed to the supine group. The 28-day mortality was 16.0% in the prone group and 32.8% in the supine group (P<0.001). The hazard ratio for death with prone position ing was 0.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.63). Unadjusted 90-day mortal ity was 23.6% in the prone group versus 41.0% in the supine group (P<0.001), with a hazard ratio of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67). The incidence of complications did not differ significantly between the groups, except for the incidence of cardiac arrests, which was higher in the supine group. Conclusions In patients with severe ARDS, early application of prolonged prone-positioning ses sions significantly decreased 28-day and 90-day mortality. (Funded by the Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique National 2006 and 2010 of the French Ministry of Health; PROSEVA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527813.)

2,897 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
17 Nov 2004-JAMA
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors showed that placing patients with acute lung injury in the prone position did not increase survival; however, whether those results hold true for patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) is unclear.
Abstract: ContextA recent trial showed that placing patients with acute lung injury in the prone position did not increase survival; however, whether those results hold true for patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether prone positioning improves mortality in ARF patients.Design, Setting, and PatientsProspective, unblinded, multicenter controlled trial of 791 ARF patients in 21 general intensive care units in France using concealed randomization conducted from December 14, 1998, through December 31, 2002. To be included, patients had to be at least 18 years, hemodynamically stable, receiving mechanical ventilation, and intubated and had to have a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) ratio of 300 or less and no contraindications to lying prone.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to prone position placement (n = 413), applied as early as possible for at least 8 hours per day on standard beds, or to supine position placement (n = 378).Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary end point was 28-day mortality; secondary end points were 90-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and oxygenation.ResultsThe 2 groups were comparable at randomization. The 28-day mortality rate was 32.4% for the prone group and 31.5% for the supine group (relative risk [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.19; P = .77). Ninety-day mortality for the prone group was 43.3% vs 42.2% for the supine group (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .74). The mean (SD) duration of mechanical ventilation was 13.7 (7.8) days for the prone group vs 14.1 (8.6) days for the supine group (P = .93) and the VAP incidence was 1.66 vs 2.14 episodes per 100-patients days of intubation, respectively (P = .045). The PaO2/FIO2 ratio was significantly higher in the prone group during the 28-day follow-up. However, pressure sores, selective intubation, and endotracheal tube obstruction incidences were higher in the prone group.ConclusionsThis trial demonstrated no beneficial outcomes and some safety concerns associated with prone positioning. For patients with hypoxemic ARF, prone position placement may lower the incidence of VAP.

558 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Prone ventilation reduces mortality in patients with severe hypoxemia and should not be routine in all patients with AHRF, but may be considered for severely hypoxemic patients.
Abstract: Prone position ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) improves oxygenation but not survival, except possibly when AHRF is severe. To determine effects of prone versus supine ventilation in AHRF and severe hypoxemia [partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO2) <100 mmHg] compared with moderate hypoxemia (100 mmHg ≤ PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300 mmHg). Systematic review and meta-analysis. Electronic databases (to November 2009) and conference proceedings. Two authors independently selected and extracted data from parallel-group randomized controlled trials comparing prone with supine ventilation in mechanically ventilated adults or children with AHRF. Trialists provided subgroup data. The primary outcome was hospital mortality in patients with AHRF and PaO2/FiO2 <100 mmHg. Meta-analyses used study-level random-effects models. Ten trials (N = 1,867 patients) met inclusion criteria; most patients had acute lung injury. Methodological quality was relatively high. Prone ventilation reduced mortality in patients with PaO2/FiO2 <100 mmHg [risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–0.96; p = 0.01; seven trials, N = 555] but not in patients with PaO2/FiO2 ≥100 mmHg (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93–1.22; p = 0.36; seven trials, N = 1,169). Risk ratios differed significantly between subgroups (interaction p = 0.012). Post hoc analysis demonstrated statistically significant improved mortality in the more hypoxemic subgroup and significant differences between subgroups using a range of PaO2/FiO2 thresholds up to approximately 140 mmHg. Prone ventilation improved oxygenation by 27–39% over the first 3 days of therapy but increased the risks of pressure ulcers (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16–1.44), endotracheal tube obstruction (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.24–2.01), and chest tube dislodgement (RR 3.14, 95% CI 1.02–9.69). There was no statistical between-trial heterogeneity for most clinical outcomes. Prone ventilation reduces mortality in patients with severe hypoxemia. Given associated risks, this approach should not be routine in all patients with AHRF, but may be considered for severely hypoxemic patients.

510 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The use of NPPV reduces the risk of VAP and NI, compared to ETI, irrespective of the severity of the patient's illness, according to the kind of control of the upper airways.
Abstract: Objective: To observe the nosocomial infection (NI) distribution in ventilated patients of a single intensive care unit (ICU) according to the kind of control of the upper airways: noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) versus endotracheal intubation (ETI). Setting: ICU of a general hospital. Design: Prospective clinical and epidemiologic survey. Patients: In the period December 1994–March 1997, 761 patients were included who needed mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h: 129 were ventilated by NPPV (NPPV group), 607 were intubated (ETI group) and 25 required intubation after a period of NPPV (NPPV-ETI group). Measurements and results: The data used were prospectively collected according to the NI epidemiologic surveillance protocol of “C. CLIN Sud Est, Rea Sud Est”, France. NI included a ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-related infection, urinary tract infection and bacteremia. Occurrence of NI was estimated by the density of incidence. Covariate-adjusted NI and VAP risk factors were assessed by the Cox model. The incidence density of total NI was lower for NPPV than for ETI (14.2 versus 30.3 per 1000 patient-days, p < 0.01). The Cox model showed that the use of noninvasive ventilation, adjusted to the severity of illness (SAPS II), reduced not only the VAP risk (hazard ratio (HR) = 4.07) but also the NI risk (HR = 1.95). Conclusion: The use of NPPV reduces the risk of VAP and NI, compared to ETI, irrespective of the severity of the patient's illness.

273 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An analysis of high-quality evidence showed that use of the prone position during mechanical ventilation improved survival among patients with ARDS who received protective lung ventilation.
Abstract: Background: Mechanical ventilation in the prone position is used to improve oxygenation and to mitigate the harmful effects of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We sought to determine the effect of prone positioning on mortality among patients with ARDS receiving protective lung ventilation. Methods: We searched electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through August 2013. We included RCTs that compared prone and supine positioning during mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS. We assessed risk of bias and obtained data on all-cause mortality (determined at hospital discharge or, if unavailable, after longest follow-up period). We used random-effects models for the pooled analyses. Results: We identified 11 RCTs ( n = 2341) that met our inclusion criteria. In the 6 trials ( n = 1016) that used a protective ventilation strategy with reduced tidal volumes, prone positioning significantly reduced mortality (risk ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.59–0.95; I 2 = 29%) compared with supine positioning. The mortality benefit remained in several sensitivity analyses. The overall quality of evidence was high. The risk of bias was low in all of the trials except one, which was small. Statistical heterogeneity was low ( I 2 Interpretation: Our analysis of high-quality evidence showed that use of the prone position during mechanical ventilation improved survival among patients with ARDS who received protective lung ventilation.

197 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008 is provided.
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

9,137 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened in 2008 to provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock".
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.

6,283 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: 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 these critically ill patients with high mortality.
Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with 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 these critically ill patients with high mortality.

4,303 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, published in 2004.
Abstract: Objective To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004.

3,928 citations

01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, the GRADE system was used to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations.
Abstract: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004. Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. We used the GRADE system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation [1] indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost), or clearly do not. Weak recommendations [2] indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. Key recommendations, listed by category, include: early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures prior to antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7–10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for post-operative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7–9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B) targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization ( 2C ); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper GI bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

3,824 citations