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.
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
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about how much positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a higher PEEP strategy is superior to a lower PEEP strategy regarding the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs).DESIGN: Multicentre observational study conducted from 1 March to 1 June 2020.SETTING AND PATIENTS: Twenty-two ICUs in The Netherlands and 933 invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorised retrospectively as having received invasive ventilation with higher (n=259) or lower PEEP (n=674), based on the high and low PEEP/FIO2 tables of the ARDS Network, and using ventilator settings and parameters in the first hour of invasive ventilation, and every 8 h thereafter at fixed time points during the first four calendar days. We also used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors that might influence outcomes.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of VFDs. Secondary outcomes included distant organ failures including acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality.RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, the higher PEEP strategy had no association with the median [IQR] number of VFDs (2.0 [0.0 to 15.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0 to 16.0] days). The median (95% confidence interval) difference was 0.21 (-3.34 to 3.78) days, P = 0.905. In the matched cohort, the higher PEEP group had an association with a lower median number of VFDs (0.0 [0.0 to 14.0] vs. 6.0 [0.0 to 17.0] days) a median difference of -4.65 (-8.92 to -0.39) days, P = 0.032. The higher PEEP strategy had associations with higher incidence of AKI (in the matched cohort) and more use of RRT (in the unmatched and matched cohorts). The higher PEEP strategy had no association with mortality.CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 ARDS, use of higher PEEP may be associated with a lower number of VFDs, and may increase the incidence of AKI and need for RRT.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.
