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
Airway care interventions may prevent accumulation of airway secretions and promote their evacuation, but evidence is scarce. Interventions include heated humidification, nebulization of mucolytics and/or bronchodilators, manual hyperinflation and use of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E). Our aim is to identify current airway care practices for invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. A self-administered web-based survey was sent to a single pre-appointed representative of all ICUs in the Netherlands. Response rate was 85% (72 ICUs). We found substantial heterogeneity in the intensity and combinations of airway care interventions used. Most (81%) ICUs reported using heated humidification as a routine prophylactic intervention. All (100%) responding ICUs used nebulized mucolytics and/or bronchodilators; however, only 43% ICUs reported nebulization as a routine prophylactic intervention. Most (81%) ICUs used manual hyperinflation, although only initiated with a clinical indication like difficult oxygenation. Few (22%) ICUs used MI-E for invasively ventilated patients. Use was always based on the indication of insufficient cough strength or as a continuation of home use. In the Netherlands, use of routine prophylactic airway care interventions is common despite evidence of no benefit. There is an urgent need for evidence of the benefit of these interventions to inform evidence-based guidelines.
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.
