Background: Ventilation with lower positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) may cause loss of lung aeration in critically ill invasively ventilated patients. This study investigated whether a systematic lung ultrasound (LUS) scoring system can detect such changes in lung aeration in a study comparing lower versus higher PEEP in invasively ventilated patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: Single center substudy of a national, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing lower versus higher PEEP ventilation strategy. Fifty–seven patients underwent a systematic 12–region LUS examination within 12 h and between 24 to 48 h after start of invasive ventilation, according to randomization. The primary endpoint was a change in the global LUS aeration score, where a higher value indicates a greater impairment in lung aeration. Results: Thirty–three and twenty–four patients received ventilation with lower PEEP (median PEEP 1 (0–5) cm H2O) or higher PEEP (median PEEP 8 (8–8) cm H2O), respectively. Median global LUS aeration scores within 12 h and between 24 and 48 h were 8 (4 to 14) and 9 (4 to 12) (difference 1 (–2 to 3)) in the lower PEEP group, and 7 (2–11) and 6 (1–12) (difference 0 (–2 to 3)) in the higher PEEP group. Neither differences in changes over time nor differences in absolute scores reached statistical significance. Conclusions: In this substudy of a randomized clinical trial comparing lower PEEP versus higher PEEP in patients without ARDS, LUS was unable to detect changes in lung aeration.
DOCUMENT
BackgroundFluid therapy is a common intervention in critically ill patients. It is increasingly recognised that deresuscitation is an essential part of fluid therapy and delayed deresuscitation is associated with longer invasive ventilation and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. However, optimal timing and rate of deresuscitation remain unclear. Lung ultrasound (LUS) may be used to identify fluid overload. We hypothesise that daily LUS-guided deresuscitation is superior to deresuscitation without LUS in critically ill patients expected to undergo invasive ventilation for more than 24 h in terms of ventilator free-days and being alive at day 28.MethodsThe “effect of lung ultrasound-guided fluid deresuscitation on duration of ventilation in intensive care unit patients” (CONFIDENCE) is a national, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in adult critically ill patients that are expected to be invasively ventilated for at least 24 h. Patients with conditions that preclude a negative fluid balance or LUS examination are excluded. CONFIDENCE will operate in 10 ICUs in the Netherlands and enrol 1000 patients. After hemodynamic stabilisation, patients assigned to the intervention will receive daily LUS with fluid balance recommendations. Subjects in the control arm are deresuscitated at the physician’s discretion without the use of LUS. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28. Secondary endpoints include the duration of invasive ventilation; 28-day mortality; 90-day mortality; ICU, in hospital and total length of stay; cumulative fluid balance on days 1–7 after randomisation and on days 1–7 after start of LUS examination; mean serum lactate on days 1–7; the incidence of reintubations, chest drain placement, atrial fibrillation, kidney injury (KDIGO stadium ≥ 2) and hypernatremia; the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring, and chest-X-ray; and quality of life at day 28.DiscussionThe CONFIDENCE trial is the first RCT comparing the effect of LUS-guided deresuscitation to routine care in invasively ventilated ICU patients. If proven effective, LUS-guided deresuscitation could improve outcomes in some of the most vulnerable and resource-intensive patients in a manner that is non-invasive, easy to perform, and well-implementable.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05188092. Registered since January 12, 2022
MULTIFILE
Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
DOCUMENT
