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.
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
We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%—the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5–21.0) hours per full calendar day—the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0–23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0–19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76–1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62–1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80–1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73–1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.
