Bruno Mégarbane

Paris Diderot University, Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France

Are you Bruno Mégarbane?

Claim your profile

Publications (348)1293.04 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unlike for septic shock, there are no specific international recommendations regarding the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) in critically ill patients. We present herein recommendations for the management of cardiogenic shock in adults, developed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system by an expert group of the French-Language Society of Intensive Care (Société de Réanimation de Langue Française (SRLF)), with the participation the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR), the French Cardiology Society (SFC), the French Emergency Medicine Society (SFMU), and the French Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (SFCTCV). The recommendations cover 15 fields of application such as: epidemiology, myocardial infarction, monitoring, vasoactive drugs, prehospital care, cardiac arrest, mechanical assistance, general treatments, cardiac surgery, poisoning, cardiogenic shock complicating end-stage cardiac failure, post-shock treatment, various etiologies, and medical care pathway. The experts highlight the fact that CS is a rare disease, the management of which requires a multidisciplinary technical platform as well as specialized and experienced medical teams. In particular, each expert center must be able to provide, at the same site, skills in a variety of disciplines, including medical and interventional cardiology, anesthesia, thoracic and vascular surgery, intensive care, cardiac assistance, radiology including for interventional vascular procedures, and a circulatory support mobile unit.
    Annals of Intensive Care 12/2015; 5(1):52. DOI:10.1186/s13613-015-0052-1 · 3.31 Impact Factor
  • Clinical Toxicology 10/2015; 53(9):1-2. DOI:10.3109/15563650.2015.1088158 · 3.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Three anatomical sites are commonly used to insert central venous catheters, but insertion at each site has the potential for major complications. Methods In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned nontunneled central venous catheterization in patients in the adult intensive care unit (ICU) to the subclavian, jugular, or femoral vein (in a 1:1:1 ratio if all three insertion sites were suitable [three-choice scheme] and in a 1:1 ratio if two sites were suitable [two-choice scheme]). The primary outcome measure was a composite of catheter-related bloodstream infection and symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis. Results A total of 3471 catheters were inserted in 3027 patients. In the three-choice comparison, there were 8, 20, and 22 primary outcome events in the subclavian, jugular, and femoral groups, respectively (1.5, 3.6, and 4.6 per 1000 catheter-days; P=0.02). In pairwise comparisons, the risk of the primary outcome was significantly higher in the femoral group than in the subclavian group (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 7.8; P=0.003) and in the jugular group than in the subclavian group (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.04), whereas the risk in the femoral group was similar to that in the jugular group (hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.1; P=0.30). In the three-choice comparison, pneumothorax requiring chest-tube insertion occurred in association with 13 (1.5%) of the subclavian-vein insertions and 4 (0.5%) of the jugular-vein insertions. Conclusions In this trial, subclavian-vein catheterization was associated with a lower risk of bloodstream infection and symptomatic thrombosis and a higher risk of pneumothorax than jugular-vein or femoral-vein catheterization. (Funded by the Hospital Program for Clinical Research, French Ministry of Health; number, NCT01479153 .).
    New England Journal of Medicine 09/2015; 373(13):1220-1229. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1500964 · 55.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study objective Salicylate poisoning is a challenging clinical entity associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The indications for extracorporeal treatments such as hemodialysis are poorly defined. We present a systematic review of the literature along with evidence-and consensus-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatment in salicylate poisoning. Methods The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning (EXTRIP) Workgroup is a multidisciplinary group with international representation whose aim is to provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of extracorporeal treatments in poisoning. We conducted a systematic literature review followed by data extraction and summarized findings, following a predetermined format. The entire work group voted by a 2-round modified Delphi method to reach consensus on voting statements, using a RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement. Anonymous votes were compiled, returned, and discussed in person. A second vote determined the final recommendations. Results Eighty-four articles met inclusion criteria, including 1 controlled clinical trial, 3 animal studies, and 80 case reports or case series, yielding an overall very low quality of evidence for all recommendations. Clinical data on 143 patients (130 sets of which could be analyzed for patient-level entry data), including 14 fatalities, were reviewed. Toxicokinetic data on 87 patients were also included. After the second round of voting, the workgroup concluded that salicylates are dialyzable by hemodialysis and hemoperfusion (level of evidence=B) and recommended extracorporeal treatment in patients with severe salicylate poisoning (1D), including any patient with altered mental status (1D), with acute respiratory distress syndrome requiring supplemental oxygen (1D), and for those in whom standard therapy is deemed to be failing (1D) regardless of the salicylate concentration. High salicylate concentrations warrant extracorporeal treatment regardless of signs and symptoms (>7.2 mmol/L [100 mg/dL] [1D]; and >6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [2D]), with lower thresholds applied for patients with impaired kidney function (>6.5 mmol/L [90 mg/dL] [1D]; >5.8 mmol/L [80 mg/dL] [2D]). Extracorporeal treatment is also suggested for patients with severe acidemia (pH ≤7.20 in the absence of other indications) (2D). Intermittent hemodialysis is the preferred modality (1D), although hemoperfusion (1D) and continuous renal replacement therapies (3D) are acceptable alternatives if hemodialysis is unavailable, as is exchange transfusion in neonates (1D). Conclusion Salicylates are readily removed by extracorporeal treatment, with intermittent hemodialysis being the preferred modality. The signs and symptoms of salicylate toxicity listed warrant extracorporeal treatment, as do high concentrations regardless of clinical status.
  • B. Mégarbane
    06/2015; 27(2). DOI:10.1016/j.toxac.2015.04.011
  • B. Megarbane
    06/2015; 27(2). DOI:10.1016/j.toxac.2015.03.022
  • I. Malissin · E. Bourgogne · M. Soichot · S. Voicu · B. Megarbane
    06/2015; 27(2). DOI:10.1016/j.toxac.2015.03.009
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: -Targeted temperature management is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Whether advanced internal cooling is superior to basic external cooling remains presently unknown. The aim of this multicenter controlled trial was to evaluate the benefit of endovascular versus basic surface cooling. -Inclusion criteria were: age 18-79, OHCA related to a presumed cardiac cause, time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) <60min, delay between ROSC and inclusion <240min, unconscious patient after ROSC and prior to start cooling. Exclusion criteria were: terminal disease, pregnancy, known coagulopathy, uncontrolled bleeding, temperature on admission <30°C, in-hospital CA, immediate need for extracorporeal life support or hemodialysis. Patients were randomized between two cooling strategies: endovascular femoral devices (Icy catheter, Coolgard(TM), Zoll, formerly Alsius, USA, n=203) or basic external cooling using fans, a home-made tent, and ice packs (n=197). The primary endpoint, i.e. favorable outcome evaluated by survival without major neurological damages (Cerebral Performance Categories 1-2) at day 28, was not significantly different between groups (odds ratio 1.41 [0.93-2.16], P=0.107). Improvement of favorable outcome at day 90 in favor of endovascular group did not reach significance (odds ratio 1.51 [0.96-2.35], P=0.07). Time to target temperature (33°C) was significantly shorter, and target hypothermia was more strictly maintained in the endovascular versus the surface group (P<0.001). Minor side effects directly related to the cooling method were more frequently observed in the endovascular group (P=0.009). -Despite better hypothermia induction and maintenance, endovascular cooling was not significantly superior to basic external cooling regarding favorable outcome. Clinical Trial Registration Identifier: NCT00392639.
    Circulation 06/2015; 132(3). DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012805 · 14.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) therapy is a novel treatment that was discovered in the last decade. Despite unclear understanding of its mechanisms of action, numerous and diverse publications attested to its clinical use. However, current evidence supporting its use is unclear and recommendations are inconsistent. To assist clinicians in decision-making, the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology created a workgroup composed of international experts from various clinical specialties, which includes representatives of major clinical toxicology associations. Rigorous methodology using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation or AGREE II instrument was developed to provide a framework for the systematic reviews for this project and to formulate evidence-based recommendations on the use of ILE in poisoning. Systematic reviews on the efficacy of ILE in local anesthetic toxicity and non-local anesthetic poisonings as well as adverse effects of ILE are planned. A comprehensive review of lipid analytical interferences and a survey of ILE costs will be developed. The evidence will be appraised using the GRADE system. A thorough and transparent process for consensus statements will be performed to provide recommendations, using a modified Delphi method with two rounds of voting. This process will allow for the production of useful practice recommendations for this therapy.
    Clinical Toxicology 06/2015; 53(6):1-8. DOI:10.3109/15563650.2015.1052498 · 3.67 Impact Factor
  • Critical care medicine 06/2015; 43(6):e211-e212. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001006 · 6.31 Impact Factor
  • A.S. Migeot · M. Soichot · B. Megarbane · O. Laprevote · E. Bourgogne
    06/2015; 27(2):S57-S58. DOI:10.1016/j.toxac.2015.03.089
  • D. Vodovar · M. Soichot · E. Bourgogne · N. Deye · B. Megarbane
    06/2015; 27(2):S51-S52. DOI:10.1016/j.toxac.2015.03.077
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To characterize etiology, clinical course and outcomes of patients in prolonged refractory status epilepticus (PRSE) and looking for prognostic factors. Retrospective study conducted in patients hospitalized from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2011 in 19 polyvalent intensive care units in French university and general hospitals. Patients were adults with a generalized convulsive refractory status epilepticus that lasted more than seven days, despite treatment including an anesthetic drug and mechanical ventilation. Patients with anoxic encephalopathy were excluded. Follow-up phone call was used to determine functional outcome using modified Rankin Scale (mRS) with mRS 0-3 defining good and mRS 4-6 poor outcome. 78 patients (35 female) were included. Median age was 57 years. Causes of status epilepticus were various, mainly including prior epilepsy (14.1%), CNS infection (12.8%), and stroke (12.8%). No etiology was found in 27 (34.6%) patients. PRSE was considered controlled in only 53 (67.9%) patients after a median duration of 17 (IQR 12-26) days. The median length of ICU stay was 28 (19-48) days. Forty-one (52.5%) patients died in the ICU, 26 from multiple organ failure, 8 from care withdrawal, 2 from sudden cardiac arrest, 1 from brain death and 4 from unknown causes. PRSE was previously resolved in 20 patients who died in the ICU. At one-year follow-up, there were 12 patients with good outcome and 58 with poor outcome and 8 lost of follow-up. On multivariate analysis, only vasopressor use was a predictor of poor outcome (OR 6.54; 95%CI 1.09-39.29; p = 0.04). Poor outcome was observed in about 80% of this population of PRSE. Most patients died from systemic complications linked to their ICU stay. Some patients can recover satisfactorily over time though we did not identify any robust factor of good outcome.
    Critical care (London, England) 04/2015; 19(1):199. DOI:10.1186/s13054-015-0914-9 · 4.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: There is currently no validated strategy for the timing of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit (ICU) when short-term life-threatening metabolic abnormalities are absent. No adequately powered prospective randomized study has addressed this issue to date. As a result, significant practice heterogeneity exists and may expose patients to either unnecessary hazardous procedures or undue delay in RRT. Methods/design: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label parallel-group clinical trial that compares the effect of two RRT initiation strategies on overall survival of critically ill patients receiving intravenous catecholamines or invasive mechanical ventilation and presenting with AKI classification stage 3 (KDIGO 2012). In the 'early' strategy, RRT is initiated immediately. In the 'delayed' strategy, clinical and metabolic conditions are closely monitored and RRT is initiated only when one or more events (severity criteria) occur, including: oliguria or anuria for more than 72 hours after randomization, serum urea concentration >40 mmol/l, serum potassium concentration >6 mmol/l, serum potassium concentration >5.5 mmol/l persisting despite medical treatment, arterial blood pH <7.15 in a context of pure metabolic acidosis (PaCO2 < 35 mmHg) or in a context of mixed acidosis with a PaCO2 ≥ 50 mmHg without possibility of increasing alveolar ventilation, acute pulmonary edema due to fluid overload despite diuretic therapy leading to severe hypoxemia requiring oxygen flow rate >5 l/min to maintain SpO2 > 95% or FiO2 > 50% under invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome measure is overall survival, measured from randomization (D0) until death, regardless of the cause. The minimum follow-up duration for each patient will be 60 days. Two interim analyses are planned, blinded to group allocation. It is expected that there will be 620 subjects in all. Discussion: The AKIKI study will be one of the very few large randomized controlled trials evaluating mortality according to the timing of RRT in critically ill patients with AKI classification stage 3 (KDIGO 2012). Results should help clinicians decide when to initiate RRT. Trial registration: NCT01932190.
    Trials 04/2015; 16(1):170. DOI:10.1186/s13063-015-0718-x · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New psychoactive substances (NPS) have completely modified the drug scene and the current landscape of addiction. Synthetic substances, such as substituted or synthetic cathinones, also known as « legal highs », are often produced and used to mimic the effects of controlled drugs such as cocaine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ecstasy), and methamphetamine. The overwhelming majority of synthetic cathinones are produced in China and South East Asian countries. The Internet has emerged as the new marketplace for NPS, playing a major role in providing information on acquisition, synthesis, extraction, identification, and substance use. All these compounds are intentionally mislabeled and sold on-line under slang terms such as bath salts, plant food, plant feeders and research chemicals. They are sometimes labeled « not for human use » or « not tested for hazards or toxicity ». The rapid spread of NPS forces member countries of the European Union to adapt their response to the potential new dangers that may cause. To date, not only health actors but also the general public need to be clearly informed and aware of dangers resulting from NPS spread and use. Here, we review the major clinical effects of synthetic cathinones to highlight their impact on public health. A literature search was conducted from 2009 to 2014 based on PubMed, Google Scholar, Erowid, and governmental websites, using the following keywords alone or in combination: “new psychoactive substances”, “synthetic cathinones”, “substituted cathinones”, “mephedrone”, “methylone”, “MDPV”, “4-MEC”, “addiction”, and “substance use disorder”.
    Current Neuropharmacology 04/2015; 13(1). DOI:10.2174/1570159X13666141210224137 · 3.05 Impact Factor
  • La Presse Médicale 01/2015; 44(4). DOI:10.1016/j.lpm.2014.09.020 · 1.08 Impact Factor
  • SRLF; 01/2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Context: A position paper on the use of whole bowel irrigation (WBI) was first published in 1997 by the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (AACT) and the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists (EAPCCT) and updated in 2004. The aims of this paper are to briefly summarize the content of the 2004 Position Paper and to present any new data and recommendations. Methods: A systematic review of the literature from January 2003 to February 28, 2013 was conducted using multiple online databases for articles concerning WBI for gastrointestinal decontamination. An evidence table was created for applicable articles. The authors produced the initial draft that was reviewed by AACT and EAPCCT. Results: The literature search produced 60 articles with the possibility of applicable human data. Based mainly on volunteer studies, WBI can be considered for potentially toxic ingestions of sustained-release or enteric-coated drugs particularly for those patients presenting later than 2 h after drug ingestion when activated charcoal is less effective. WBI can be considered for patients who have ingested substantial amounts of iron, lithium, or potassium as the morbidity is high and there is a lack of other potentially effective options for gastrointestinal decontamination. WBI can be considered for removal of ingested packets of illicit drugs in "body packers." However, controlled data documenting improvement in clinical outcome after WBI are lacking. WBI is contraindicated in patients with bowel obstruction, perforation, or ileus, and in patients with hemodynamic instability or compromised unprotected airways. WBI should be used cautiously in debilitated patients and in patients with medical conditions that might be further compromised by its use. The concurrent administration of activated charcoal and WBI might decrease the effectiveness of the charcoal. The clinical relevance of this interaction is uncertain. Conclusion: WBI can facilitate removal of select toxicants from the gastrointestinal tract in some patients, but there is no convincing evidence from clinical studies that it improves the outcome of poisoned patients. There is no new evidence that would require a major revision of the conclusions of the 2004 position statement.
    Clinical Toxicology 12/2014; 53(1):1-8. DOI:10.3109/15563650.2014.989326 · 3.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methanol poisoning can induce death and disability. Treatment includes the administration of antidotes (ethanol or fomepizole and folic/folinic acid) and consideration of extracorporeal treatment for correction of acidemia and/or enhanced elimination. The Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning workgroup aimed to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for extracorporeal treatment in methanol poisoning. Utilizing predetermined methods, we conducted a systematic review of the literature. Two hundred seventy-two relevant publications were identified but publication and selection biases were noted. Data on clinical outcomes and dialyzability were collated and a two-round modified Delphi process was used to reach a consensus. Recommended indications for extracorporeal treatment: Severe methanol poisoning including any of the following being attributed to methanol: coma, seizures, new vision deficits, metabolic acidosis with blood pH ≤7.15, persistent metabolic acidosis despite adequate supportive measures and antidotes, serum anion gap higher than 24 mmol/L; or, serum methanol concentration 1) greater than 700 mg/L (21.8 mmol/L) in the context of fomepizole therapy, 2) greater than 600 mg/L or 18.7 mmol/L in the context of ethanol treatment, 3) greater than 500 mg/L or 15.6 mmol/L in the absence of an alcohol dehydrogenase blocker; in the absence of a methanol concentration, the osmolal/osmolar gap may be informative; or, in the context of impaired kidney function. Intermittent hemodialysis is the modality of choice and continuous modalities are acceptable alternatives. Extracorporeal treatment can be terminated when the methanol concentration is <200 mg/L or 6.2 mmol/L and a clinical improvement is observed. Extracorporeal Treatments in Poisoning inhibitors and folic/folinic acid should be continued during extracorporeal treatment. General considerations: Antidotes and extracorporeal treatment should be initiated urgently in the context of severe poisoning. The duration of extracorporeal treatment extracorporeal treatment depends on the type of extracorporeal treatment used and the methanol exposure. Indications for extracorporeal treatment are based on risk factors for poor outcomes. The relative importance of individual indications for the triaging of patients for extracorporeal treatment, in the context of an epidemic when need exceeds resources, is unknown. In the absence of severe poisoning but if the methanol concentration is elevated and there is adequate alcohol dehydrogenase blockade, extracorporeal treatment is not immediately required. Systemic anticoagulation should be avoided during extracorporeal treatment because it may increase the development or severity of intracerebral hemorrhage. Extracorporeal treatment has a valuable role in the treatment of patients with methanol poisoning. A range of clinical indications for extracorporeal treatment is provided and duration of therapy can be guided through the careful monitoring of biomarkers of exposure and toxicity. In the absence of severe poisoning, the decision to use extracorporeal treatment is determined by balancing the cost and complications of extracorporeal treatment to that of fomepizole or ethanol. Given regional differences in cost and availability of fomepizole and extracorporeal treatment, these decisions must be made at a local level.
    Critical Care Medicine 12/2014; 43(2). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000708 · 6.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Il existe plusieurs modes d’intoxication par la colchicine : aiguë par dose unique, chronique lors d’une insuffisance rénale ou un blocage du métabolisme hépatique. L’intoxication aiguë peut engager le pronostic vital. Les défaillances d’organe conduisant au décès sont connues. À la phase précoce, il s’agit le plus fréquemment d’un choc cardiogénique et plus rarement d’un SDRA. L’assistance circulatoire périphérique (ACP) a été récemment proposée. Nous rapportons une cohorte de 4 intoxications faisant état de l’échec de l’ACP artério-veineuse (a-v).
    12/2014; 26(4). DOI:10.1016/j.toxac.2014.09.006

Publication Stats

3k Citations
1,293.04 Total Impact Points


  • 2007–2015
    • Paris Diderot University
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
  • 2014
    • Hôpitaux Universitaires La Pitié salpêtrière - Charles Foix
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
  • 2009–2014
    • Hôpital Lariboisière - Fernand-Widal (Hôpitaux Universitaires Sant-Louis, Lariboisière, Fernand-Widal)
      • Service d'Anesthésie Réanimation
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
  • 2006–2014
    • Université René Descartes - Paris 5
      • Faculté des Sciences Pharmaceutiques et Biologiques de Paris
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
  • 2002–2014
    • Hôpital Ambroise Paré – Hôpitaux universitaires Paris Ile-de-France Ouest
      Billancourt, Île-de-France, France
  • 2013
    • Brussels University Association
      Bruxelles, Brussels Capital, Belgium
  • 2002–2012
    • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris
      • • Department of Cardiology
      • • Service d'Accueil des Urgences
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
  • 2011
    • University Hospital Brussels
      Bruxelles, Brussels Capital Region, Belgium
  • 2001–2010
    • Université Paris-Sud 11
      Orsay, Île-de-France, France
  • 2008
    • University of Paris-Est
      La Haye-Descartes, Centre, France
    • Unité Inserm U1077
      Caen, Lower Normandy, France
  • 2005–2007
    • French National Centre for Scientific Research
      Lutetia Parisorum, Île-de-France, France
  • 2000–2005
    • Hôpital Antoine-Béclère – Hôpitaux universitaires Paris-Sud
      Clamart, Île-de-France, France