Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is rapidly expanding across the world, with more than 100,000 new cases each day as of end-June 2020. Healthcare workers are struggling to provide the best care for COVID-19 patients. Approaches for invasive ventilation vary widely between and within countries and new insights are acquired rapidly. We aim to investigate invasive ventilation practices and outcome in COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands.Methods: PRoVENT-COVID ('study of PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19') is an investigator-initiated national, multicenter observational study to be undertaken in intensive care units (ICUs) in The Netherlands. Consecutive COVID-19 patients aged 18 years or older, who are receiving invasive ventilation in the participating ICUs, are to be enrolled during a 10-week period, with a daily follow-up of 7 days. The primary outcome is ventilatory management (including tidal volume expressed as mL/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure expressed as cmH2O) during the first 3 days of ventilation. Secondary outcomes include other ventilatory variables, use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia such as prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, use of sedatives, vasopressors and inotropes; daily cumulative fluid balances; acute kidney injury; ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), duration of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital and 90-day mortality.Discussion: PRoVENT-COVID will be the largest observational study to date, with high density ventilatory data and major outcomes. There is urgent need for a better understanding of ventilation practices, and the effects of ventilator settings on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The results of PRoVENT-COVID will be rapidly disseminated through electronic presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in international peer-reviewed journals. Access to source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets on request, and after agreement of the PRoVENT-COVID steering committee.Trial Registration: PRoVENT-COVID is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT04346342).
The aim of this analysis was to compare ventilation management and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between the first and second wave in the Netherlands. This is a post hoc analysis of two nationwide observational COVID-19 studies conducted in quick succession. The primary endpoint was ventilation management. Secondary endpoints were tracheostomy use, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality. We used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors. This analysis included 1122 patients from the first and 568 patients from the second wave. Patients in the second wave were sicker, had more comorbidities, and had worse oxygenation parameters. They were ventilated with lower positive end-expiratory pressure and higher fraction inspired oxygen, had a lower oxygen saturation, received neuromuscular blockade more often, and were less often tracheostomized. Duration of ventilation was shorter, but mortality rates were similar. After matching, the fraction of inspired oxygen was lower in the second wave. In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, aspects of respiratory care and outcomes rapidly changed over the successive waves.
Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is considered to be a frequent complication of hemodialysis (HD) and is associated with symptom burden, increased incidence of access failure, cardiovascular events, and higher mortality. This systematic literature review aims to analyse studies that investigated the prevalence of IDH. A complicating factor herein is that many different definitions of IDH are used in literature.Methods: A systematic literature search from databases, Medline, Cinahl, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library to identify studies reporting on the actual prevalence of IDH was conducted. Studies were categorized by the type of definition used for the prevalence of IDH. A meta-analysis of the prevalence of IDH was performed.Results: In a meta-analysis comprising 4 studies including 1,694 patients and 4 studies including 13,189 patients, the prevalence of HD sessions complicated by IDH was 10.1 and 11.6% for the European Best Practice Guideline (EBPG) definition and the Nadir <90 definition, respectively. The proportion of patients with frequent IDH could not reliably be established because of the wide range in cutoff values that were used to identify patients with frequent IDH. There was a large variety in the prevalence of symptoms and interventions. Major risk factors associated with IDH across studies were diabetes, a higher interdialytic weight gain, female gender, and lower body weight.Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that the prevalence of IDH is lower than 12% for both the EBPG and the Nadir <90 definition which is much lower than stated in most reviews.
LINK
