Adrien Pepin-Lehaleur
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
Research Subjects
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
- 14 September 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Personalized Medicine
- Vol. 12 (9) , 1501
Impact of Early Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in Elderly COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit—A Cohort Study
(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.
- 14 September 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Personalized Medicine
- Vol. 12 (9) , 1501
Open AccessImpact of Early Limitation of Therapeutic Effort in Elderly COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit—A Cohort Study
(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
- 13 December 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Personalized Medicine
- Vol. 11 (12) , 1359
Outcome of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients According to the Setting of Corticosteroid Initiation—A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study
(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.
- 13 December 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Personalized Medicine
- Vol. 11 (12) , 1359
Open AccessOutcome of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients According to the Setting of Corticosteroid Initiation—A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study
(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
- 22 November 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Personalized Medicine
- Vol. 11 (11) , 1238
Dismal Survival in COVID-19 Patients Requiring ECMO as Rescue Therapy after Corticosteroid Failure
(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.
- 22 November 2021
- Published by MDPI AG in Journal of Personalized Medicine
- Vol. 11 (11) , 1238
Open AccessDismal Survival in COVID-19 Patients Requiring ECMO as Rescue Therapy after Corticosteroid Failure
(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.