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.
Background: Airway care interventions and prone positioning are used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to improve oxygenation and facilitate mucus removal. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision-making process regarding the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning was challenging. Objective: To provide an overview of the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning during the second wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands. Method: Web-based survey design. Seventy ICU nurses, each representing one intensive care in the Netherlands, were contacted for participation. Potential items were generated based on a literature search and formulated by a multidisciplinary team. Questions were pilot tested for face and construct validity by four intensive care nurses from four different hospitals. Results: The response rate was 53/77 (69%). This survey revealed widespread use of airway care interventions in the Netherlands in COVID-19 patients, despite questionable benefits. Additionally, prone positioning was used in invasively and non-invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: The use of airway care interventions and prone positioning is time consuming and comes with the production of waste. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, workload, and environmental impact of airway care interventions and prone positioning.
Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is traditionally used in the neuromuscular population. There is growing interest of MI-E use in invasively ventilated critically ill adults. We aimed to map current evidence on MI-E use in invasively ventilated critically ill adults. Two authors independently searched electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL via the Ovid platform; PROSPERO; Cochrane Library; ISI Web of Science; and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform between January 1990–April 2021. Inclusion criteria were (1) adult critically ill invasively ventilated subjects, (2) use of MI-E, (3) study design with original data, and (4) published from 1990 onward. Data were extracted by 2 authors independently using a bespoke extraction form. We used Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise risk of bias. Theoretical Domains Framework was used to interpret qualitative data. Of 3,090 citations identified, 28 citations were taken forward for data extraction. Main indications for MI-E use during invasive ventilation were presence of secretions and mucus plugging (13/28, 46%). Perceived contraindications related to use of high levels of positive pressure (18/28, 68%). Protocolized MI-E settings with a pressure of ±40 cm H2O were most commonly used, with detail on timing, flow, and frequency of prescription infrequently reported. Various outcomes were re-intubation rate, wet sputum weight, and pulmonary mechanics. Only 3 studies reported the occurrence of adverse events. From qualitative data, the main barrier to MI-E use in this subject group was lack of knowledge and skills. We concluded that there is little consistency in how MI-E is used and reported, and therefore, recommendations about best practices are not possible.
