APAdrien Pepin-Lehaleur

Adrien Pepin-Lehaleur

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article

Previous Organizations / Institutes

The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years


Adrien Pepin-Lehaleur has a total of 26 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:

  • Bruno Mégarbane

    Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, Lariboisière Hospital, Paris Cité University, Paris, France

    3 shared publications
  • Isabelle Malissin

    Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, Lariboisière Hospital, INSERM UMRS-1144, Paris-University, 75010 Paris, France

    3 shared publications
  • Nicolas Deye

    Réanimation Médicale et Toxicologique, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire Lariboisière, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; Université Paris Cité, Paris, France; INSERM UMRS-942, MASCOT, Paris, France

    3 shared publications
  • Sebastian Voicu

    Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN, United States

    3 shared publications
  • Thomas Lacoste-Palasset

    Université Paris-Saclay, School of Medicine, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; INSERM UMR_S1358 "Pulmonary hypertension: pathophysiology and novel therapies", HPPIT, Marie Lannelongue Hospital and Bicêtre Hospital, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Department of Respiratory and Intensive Care Medicine, Pulmonary Hypertension National Referral Center, FHU André Cournand, ERN-LUNG, Bicêtre Hospital, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France

    3 shared publications
  • Aymen M’Rad

    Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, Lariboisière Hospital, INSERM UMRS-1144, Paris-University, 75010 Paris, France

    2 shared publications

Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Impact of Early Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in Elderly COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit—A Cohort Study

    by Thomas Lacoste-Palasset, Laetitia Sutterlin, Aymen M’rad, Louis Modestin, Vianney Mourman, Adrien Pepin-Lehalleur, Isabelle Malissin, Giulia Naim, Caroline Grant, Emmanuelle Guérin, et al.

    (1) Background: Admission to the ICU and intensity of care provided to elderly COVID-19 patients are difficult choices guided by the expected patient-centered benefits. However, the impact of an early discussion of limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) has been poorly investigated. (2) Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective cohort study including all ≥70-year-old COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Factors associated with early LTE discussion (defined as before or up to 2 days post-ICU admission) and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. (3) Results: Eighty-two patients (59 M/23 F; 78 years (74–82) [median (interquartile range)]; 43/82 with LTE) were included. The in-hospital mortality rate was 55%. Early LTE was decided upon for 22/82 patients (27%), more frequently in older (p < 0.001) and frailer patients (p = 0.004). Using a multivariable logistic regression model including clinical frailty scale grade ≥4, hospital acquisition of COVID-19, ventilation support modality and SOFA score on admission, early LTE was not associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.57 (0.15–2.00), p = 0.39). LTE resulted in less frequent invasive mechanical ventilation (23% versus 65%, p = 0.001), renal replacement therapy (5% versus 27%, p = 0.03) and norepinephrine infusion (23% versus 60%, p = 0.005), and shorter ICU stay (6 days (2–12) versus 14 days (7–24), p = 0.001). (4) Conclusions: In this small sample exploratory study, we were unable to demonstrate any increase in in-hospital mortality associated with early LTE discussion in elderly COVID-19 patients while reducing the use of organ support techniques. These findings require confirmation in larger studies.


  • Open Access

    Outcome of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients According to the Setting of Corticosteroid Initiation—A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

    by Sebastian Voicu, Thomas Lacoste-Palasset, Isabelle Malissin, Shana Bekhit, Eléonore Cauchois, Sirine Dahmani, Melkir Saib, Caroline Grant, Giulia Naim, Aymen M’rad, et al.

    (1) Background: Corticosteroids lower 28-day all-cause mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, the outcome of COVID-19 patients referred to the intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory deterioration despite corticosteroids initiated during hospitalization before ICU admission has been poorly investigated. Our objective was to determine survival according to corticosteroid initiation setting. (2) Methods: We conducted a cohort study including all successive critically ill COVID-19 patients treated with corticosteroids and managed in our ICU. We compared survival, whether corticosteroids were initiated before (Cb-group) or after ICU admission (Ca-group), using a propensity score matching. (3) Results: Overall, 228 patients (67 years (56–74); 168M/60F; invasive mechanical ventilation on admission, 17%) were included with 63 patients in the Cb-group and 165 patients in the Ca-group. Survival to hospital discharge was 43% versus 69%, respectively (p = 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, factors associated with death were age (odds ratio, 1.07; 95%-confidence interval, (1.04–1.11); p < 0.0001), the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score on ICU admission (1.30 (1.14–1.50); p = 0.0001) and corticosteroid initiation before ICU admission (2.64 (1.30–5.43); p = 0.007). No significant differences in outcome related to corticosteroid regimen were found. (4) Conclusions: Critically ill COVID-19 patients transferred to the ICU with deterioration despite corticosteroids initiated before admission have a less favorable outcome than patients receiving corticosteroids initiated after ICU admission.


  • Open Access

    Dismal Survival in COVID-19 Patients Requiring ECMO as Rescue Therapy after Corticosteroid Failure

    by Sebastian Voicu, Antoine Goury, Thomas Lacoste-Palasset, Isabelle Malissin, Lucie Fanet, Samar Souissi, Julia Busto, Vincent Legros, Laetitia Sutterlin, Giulia Naim, et al.

    (1) Background: COVID-19 may lead to refractory hypoxemia requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Survival rate if ECMO is implemented as rescue therapy after corticosteroid failure is unknown. We aimed to investigate if ECMO implemented after failure of the full-recommended 10-day corticosteroid course can improve outcome. (2) Methods: We conducted a three-center cohort study including consecutive dexamethasone-treated COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO between 03/2020 and 05/2021. We compared survival at hospital discharge between patients implemented after (ECMO-after group) and before the end of the 10-day dexamethasone course (ECMO-before group). (3) Results: Forty patients (28M/12F; age, 57 years (51–62) (median (25th–75th percentiles)) were included, 28 (70%) in the ECMO-before and 12 (30%) in the ECMO-after group. In the ECMO-before group, 9/28 patients (32%) received the 6 mg/day dexamethasone regimen versus 12/12 (100%) in the ECMO-after group (p < 0.0001). The rest of the patients received an alternative dexamethasone regimen consisting of 20 mg/day during 5 days followed by 10 mg/day during 5 days. Patients in the ECMO-before group tended to be younger (57 years (51–59) versus 62 years (57–67), p = 0.053). In the ECMO-after group, no patient (0%) survived while 12 patients (43%) survived in the ECMO-before group (p = 0.007). (4) Conclusions: Survival is poor in COVID-19 patients requiring ECMO implemented after the full-recommended 10-day dexamethasone course. Since these patients may have developed a particularly severe presentation, new therapeutic strategies are urgently required.