INTRODUCTION: While prone positioning (PP) has been shown to improve patient survival in moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, the rate of application of PP in clinical practice still appears low.AIM: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of use of PP in ARDS patients (primary endpoint), the physiological effects of PP, and the reasons for not using it (secondary endpoints).METHODS: The APRONET study was a prospective international 1-day prevalence study performed four times in April, July, and October 2016 and January 2017. On each study day, investigators in each ICU had to screen every patient. For patients with ARDS, use of PP, gas exchange, ventilator settings and plateau pressure (Pplat) were recorded before and at the end of the PP session. Complications of PP and reasons for not using PP were also documented. Values are presented as median (1st-3rd quartiles).RESULTS: Over the study period, 6723 patients were screened in 141 ICUs from 20 countries (77% of the ICUs were European), of whom 735 had ARDS and were analyzed. Overall 101 ARDS patients had at least one session of PP (13.7%), with no differences among the 4 study days. The rate of PP use was 5.9% (11/187), 10.3% (41/399) and 32.9% (49/149) in mild, moderate and severe ARDS, respectively (P = 0.0001). The duration of the first PP session was 18 (16-23) hours. Measured with the patient in the supine position before and at the end of the first PP session, PaO2/FIO2 increased from 101 (76-136) to 171 (118-220) mmHg (P = 0.0001) driving pressure decreased from 14 [11-17] to 13 [10-16] cmH2O (P = 0.001), and Pplat decreased from 26 [23-29] to 25 [23-28] cmH2O (P = 0.04). The most prevalent reason for not using PP (64.3%) was that hypoxemia was not considered sufficiently severe. Complications were reported in 12 patients (11.9%) in whom PP was used (pressure sores in five, hypoxemia in two, endotracheal tube-related in two ocular in two, and a transient increase in intracranial pressure in one).CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this prospective international prevalence study found that PP was used in 32.9% of patients with severe ARDS, and was associated with low complication rates, significant increase in oxygenation and a significant decrease in driving pressure.
DOCUMENT
Background: Ventilation management may differ between COVID–19 ARDS (COVID–ARDS) patients and patients with pre–COVID ARDS (CLASSIC–ARDS); it is uncertain whether associations of ventilation management with outcomes for CLASSIC–ARDS also exist in COVID–ARDS. Methods: Individual patient data analysis of COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS patients in six observational studies of ventilation, four in the COVID–19 pandemic and two pre–pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to compare epidemiology and ventilation characteristics. The primary endpoint were key ventilation parameters; other outcomes included mortality and ventilator–free days and alive (VFD–60) at day 60. Results: This analysis included 6702 COVID–ARDS patients and 1415 CLASSIC–ARDS patients. COVID–ARDS patients received lower median VT (6.6 [6.0 to 7.4] vs 7.3 [6.4 to 8.5] ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001) and higher median PEEP (12.0 [10.0 to 14.0] vs 8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001), at lower median ΔP (13.0 [10.0 to 15.0] vs 16.0 [IQR 12.0 to 20.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001) and higher median Crs (33.5 [26.6 to 42.1] vs 28.1 [21.6 to 38.4] mL/cm H2O; p < 0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, higher ΔP had an independent association with higher 60–day mortality and less VFD–60 in both groups. Higher PEEP had an association with less VFD–60, but only in COVID–ARDS patients. Conclusions: Our findings show important differences in key ventilation parameters and associations thereof with outcomes between COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05650957), December 14, 2022.
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients.METHODS: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4.RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28-day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4.CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Estimates for dead space ventilation have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19-related ARDS.METHODS: Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicenter, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of wasted ventilation in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.RESULTS: A total of 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in this study. Estimations of wasted ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris-Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p < 0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris-Benedict and by direct estimation, and with an increase in the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the dead space estimates measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality.CONCLUSIONS: There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19-related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk model.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04346342. Registered 15 April 2020. Retrospectively registered.
MULTIFILE
PURPOSE: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients.METHODS: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4.RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28-day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4.CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches.
DOCUMENT
IntroductionThe driving pressure (ΔP) has an independent association with outcome in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a closed-loop mode of ventilation that targets the lowest work and force of breathing.AimTo compare transpulmonary and respiratory system ΔP between closed-loop ventilation and conventional pressure controlled ventilation in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.MethodsSingle-center randomized cross-over clinical trial in patients in the early phase of ARDS. Patients were randomly assigned to start with a 4-h period of closed-loop ventilation or conventional ventilation, after which the alternate ventilation mode was selected. The primary outcome was the transpulmonary ΔP; secondary outcomes included respiratory system ΔP, and other key parameters of ventilation.ResultsThirteen patients were included, and all had fully analyzable data sets. Compared to conventional ventilation, with closed-loop ventilation the median transpulmonary ΔP with was lower (7.0 [5.0–10.0] vs. 10.0 [8.0–11.0] cmH2O, mean difference − 2.5 [95% CI − 2.6 to − 2.1] cmH2O; P = 0.0001). Inspiratory transpulmonary pressure and the respiratory rate were also lower. Tidal volume, however, was higher with closed-loop ventilation, but stayed below generally accepted safety cutoffs in the majority of patients.ConclusionsIn this small physiological study, when compared to conventional pressure controlled ventilation INTELLiVENT-ASV reduced the transpulmonary ΔP in patients in the early phase of moderate-to-severe ARDS. This closed-loop ventilation mode also led to a lower inspiratory transpulmonary pressure and a lower respiratory rate, thereby reducing the intensity of ventilation.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03211494, July 7, 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03211494?term=airdrop&draw=2&rank=1.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundHigh-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is increasingly used in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. It is uncertain whether a broadened Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in which ARDS can be diagnosed in patients who are not receiving ventilation, results in similar groups of patients receiving HFNO as in patients receiving ventilation.MethodsWe applied a broadened definition of ARDS in a multicenter, observational study in adult critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), wherein the requirement for a minimal level of 5 cm H2O PEEP with ventilation is replaced by a minimal level of airflow rate with HFNO, and compared baseline characteristics and outcomes between patients receiving HFNO and patients receiving ventilation. The primary endpoint was ICU mortality. We also compared outcomes in risk for death groups using the PaO2/FiO2 cutoffs as used successfully in the original definition of ARDS. Secondary endpoints were hospital mortality; mortality on days 28 and 90; need for ventilation within 7 days in patients that started with HFNO; the number of days free from HFNO or ventilation; and ICU and hospital length of stay.ResultsOf 728 included patients, 229 patients started with HFNO and 499 patients with ventilation. All patients fulfilled the broadened Berlin definition of ARDS. Patients receiving HFNO had lower disease severity scores and lower PaO2/FiO2 than patients receiving ventilation. ICU mortality was lower in receiving HFNO (22.7 vs 35.6%; p = 0.001). Using PaO2/FiO2 cutoffs for mild, moderate and severe arterial hypoxemia created groups with an ICU mortality of 16.7%, 22.0%, and 23.5% (p = 0.906) versus 19.1%, 37.9% and 41.4% (p = 0.002), in patients receiving HFNO versus patients receiving ventilation, respectively.ConclusionsUsing a broadened definition of ARDS may facilitate an earlier diagnosis of ARDS in patients receiving HFNO; however, ARDS patients receiving HFNO and ARDS patients receiving ventilation have distinct baseline characteristics and mortality rates.Trial registration: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04719182).
MULTIFILE
Background: Estimates for dead space ventilation have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19-related ARDS. Methods: Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicenter, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of wasted ventilation in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Results: A total of 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in this study. Estimations of wasted ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris–Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p < 0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris–Benedict and by direct estimation, and with an increase in the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the dead space estimates measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality. Conclusions: There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19-related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk model. Trial registration: ISRCTN04346342. Registered 15 April 2020. Retrospectively registered.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful oxygenation parameter with prognostic capacity in patients with ARDS. We investigated the prognostic capacity of SpO2/FiO2 for mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19.METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a national multicenter cohort study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality.RESULTS: In 869 invasively ventilated patients, 28-day mortality was 30.1%. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 1 had no prognostic value. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 had prognostic capacity for death, with the best cut-offs being 179 and 199, respectively. Both SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 (OR, 0.66 [95%-CI 0.46-0.96]) and on day 3 (OR, 0.70 [95%-CI 0.51-0.96]) were associated with 28-day mortality in a model corrected for age, pH, lactate levels and kidney dysfunction (AUROC 0.78 [0.76-0.79]). The measured PaO2/FiO2 and the PaO2/FiO2 calculated from SpO2/FiO2 were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.79).CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, the SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 are independently associated with and have prognostic capacity for 28-day mortality. The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful metric for risk stratification in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence indicates the potential benefits of restricted fluid management in critically ill patients. Evidence lacks on the optimal fluid management strategy for invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesized that the cumulative fluid balance would affect the successful liberation of invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).METHODS: We analyzed data from the multicenter observational 'PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19 patients' study. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 and ARDS who required invasive ventilation during the first 3 months of the international outbreak (March 1, 2020, to June 2020) across 22 hospitals in the Netherlands were included. The primary outcome was successful liberation of invasive ventilation, modeled as a function of day 3 cumulative fluid balance using Cox proportional hazards models, using the crude and the adjusted association. Sensitivity analyses without missing data and modeling ARDS severity were performed.RESULTS: Among 650 patients, three groups were identified. Patients in the higher, intermediate, and lower groups had a median cumulative fluid balance of 1.98 L (1.27-7.72 L), 0.78 L (0.26-1.27 L), and - 0.35 L (- 6.52-0.26 L), respectively. Higher day 3 cumulative fluid balance was significantly associated with a lower probability of successful ventilation liberation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.95, P = 0.0047). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results.CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, a higher cumulative fluid balance was associated with a longer ventilation duration, indicating that restricted fluid management in these patients may be beneficial. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04346342 ); Date of registration: April 15, 2020.
DOCUMENT
