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
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.
MULTIFILE
IntroductionMechanical power of ventilation, a summary parameter reflecting the energy transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system, has associations with outcomes. INTELLiVENT–Adaptive Support Ventilation is an automated ventilation mode that changes ventilator settings according to algorithms that target a low work–and force of breathing. The study aims to compare mechanical power between automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT–Adaptive Support Ventilation and conventional ventilation in critically ill patients.Materials and methodsInternational, multicenter, randomized crossover clinical trial in patients that were expected to need invasive ventilation > 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned to start with a 3–hour period of automated ventilation or conventional ventilation after which the alternate ventilation mode was selected. The primary outcome was mechanical power in passive and active patients; secondary outcomes included key ventilator settings and ventilatory parameters that affect mechanical power.ResultsA total of 96 patients were randomized. Median mechanical power was not different between automated and conventional ventilation (15.8 [11.5–21.0] versus 16.1 [10.9–22.6] J/min; mean difference –0.44 (95%–CI –1.17 to 0.29) J/min; P = 0.24). Subgroup analyses showed that mechanical power was lower with automated ventilation in passive patients, 16.9 [12.5–22.1] versus 19.0 [14.1–25.0] J/min; mean difference –1.76 (95%–CI –2.47 to –10.34J/min; P < 0.01), and not in active patients (14.6 [11.0–20.3] vs 14.1 [10.1–21.3] J/min; mean difference 0.81 (95%–CI –2.13 to 0.49) J/min; P = 0.23).ConclusionsIn this cohort of unselected critically ill invasively ventilated patients, automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT–Adaptive Support Ventilation did not reduce mechanical power. A reduction in mechanical power was only seen in passive patients.Study registrationClinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04827927), April 1, 2021URL of trial registry recordhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04827927?term=intellipower&rank=1
MULTIFILE
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a risk factor for death in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for respiratory support. Previous reports suggested higher mortality in COPD patients with COVID-19. It is yet unknown whether patients with COPD were treated differently compared to non-COPD patients. We compared the ventilation management and outcomes of invasive ventilation for COVID-19 in COPD patients versus non-COPD patients. This was a post hoc analysis of a nation-wide, observational study in the Netherlands. COPD patients were compared to non-COPD patients with respect to key ventilation parameters. The secondary endpoints included adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxemia, and 28-day mortality. Of a total of 1090 patients, 88 (8.1%) were classified as having COPD. The ventilation parameters were not different between COPD patients and non-COPD patients, except for FiO2, which was higher in COPD patients. Prone positioning was applied more often in COPD patients. COPD patients had higher 28-day mortality than non-COPD patients. COPD had an independent association with 28-day mortality. In this cohort of patients who received invasive ventilation for COVID-19, only FiO2 settings and the use of prone positioning were different between COPD patients and non-COPD patients. COPD patients had higher mortality than non-COPD patients.
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) (ie, progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms [ECG], hemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms) and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: 1) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), 2) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiologic mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and 3) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown etiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making
DOCUMENT
Background Testing aerobic fitness in youth is important because of expected relationships with health. Objective The purpose of the study was to estimate the validity and reliability of the Shuttle Ride Test in youth who have spina bifida and use a wheelchair for mobility and sport. Design Ths study is a validity and reliability study. Methods The Shuttle Ride Test, Graded Wheelchair Propulsion Test, and skill-related fitness tests were administered to 33 participants for the validity study (age = 14.5 ± 3.1 y) and to 28 participants for the reliability study (age = 14.7 ± 3.3 y). Results No significant differences were found between the Graded Wheelchair Propulsion Test and the Shuttle Ride Test for most cardiorespiratory responses. Correlations between the Graded Wheelchair Propulsion Test and the Shuttle Ride Test were moderate to high (r = .55–.97). The variance in peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) could be predicted for 77% of the participants by height, number of shuttles completed, and weight, with large prediction intervals. High correlations were found between number of shuttles completed and skill-related fitness tests (CI = .73 to −.92). Intraclass correlation coefficients were high (.77–.98), with a smallest detectable change of 1.5 for number of shuttles completed and with coefficients of variation of 6.2% and 6.4% for absolute VO2peak and relative VO2peak, respectively. Conclusions When measuring VO2peak directly by using a mobile gas analysis system, the Shuttle Ride Test is highly valid for testing VO2peak in youth who have spina bifida and use a wheelchair for mobility and sport. The outcome measure of number of shuttles represents aerobic fitness and is also highly correlated with both anaerobic performance and agility. It is not possible to predict VO2peak accurately by using the number of shuttles completed. Moreover, the Shuttle Ride Test is highly reliable in youth with spina bifida, with a good smallest detectable change for the number of shuttles completed.
DOCUMENT
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
From an evidence-based perspective, cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPX) is a well-supported assessment technique in both the United States (US) and Europe. The combination of standard exercise testing (ET) [i.e. progressive exercise provocation in association with serial electrocardiograms (ECGs), haemodynamics, oxygen saturation, and subjective symptoms] and measurement of ventilatory gas exchange amounts to a superior method to: (i) accurately quantify cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), (ii) delineate the physiologic system(s) underlying exercise responses, which can be applied as a means to identify the exercise-limiting pathophysiological mechanism(s) and/or performance differences, and (iii) formulate function-based prognostic stratification. Cardiopulmonary ET certainly carries an additional cost as well as competency requirements and is not an essential component of evaluation in all patient populations. However, there are several conditions of confirmed, suspected, or unknown aetiology where the data gained from this form of ET is highly valuable in terms of clinical decision making.1
DOCUMENT
