Background: Ventilation management may differ between COVID–19 ARDS (COVID–ARDS) patients and patients with pre–COVID ARDS (CLASSIC–ARDS); it is uncertain whether associations of ventilation management with outcomes for CLASSIC–ARDS also exist in COVID–ARDS. Methods: Individual patient data analysis of COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS patients in six observational studies of ventilation, four in the COVID–19 pandemic and two pre–pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to compare epidemiology and ventilation characteristics. The primary endpoint were key ventilation parameters; other outcomes included mortality and ventilator–free days and alive (VFD–60) at day 60. Results: This analysis included 6702 COVID–ARDS patients and 1415 CLASSIC–ARDS patients. COVID–ARDS patients received lower median VT (6.6 [6.0 to 7.4] vs 7.3 [6.4 to 8.5] ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001) and higher median PEEP (12.0 [10.0 to 14.0] vs 8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001), at lower median ΔP (13.0 [10.0 to 15.0] vs 16.0 [IQR 12.0 to 20.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001) and higher median Crs (33.5 [26.6 to 42.1] vs 28.1 [21.6 to 38.4] mL/cm H2O; p < 0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, higher ΔP had an independent association with higher 60–day mortality and less VFD–60 in both groups. Higher PEEP had an association with less VFD–60, but only in COVID–ARDS patients. Conclusions: Our findings show important differences in key ventilation parameters and associations thereof with outcomes between COVID–ARDS and CLASSIC–ARDS. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05650957), December 14, 2022.
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.
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
