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.
Objective: We determined the prevalences of hyperoxemia and excessive oxygen use, and the epidemiology, ventilation characteristics and outcomes associated with hyperoxemia in invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19). Methods: Post hoc analysis of a national, multicentre, observational study in 22 ICUs. Patients were classified in the first two days of invasive ventilation as ‘hyperoxemic’ or ‘normoxemic’. The co–primary endpoints were prevalence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 90 mmHg) and prevalence of excessive oxygen use (FiO2 ≥ 60% while PaO2 > 90 mmHg or SpO2 > 92%). Secondary endpoints included ventilator settings and ventilation parameters, duration of ventilation, length of stay (LOS) in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU, hospital, and at day 28 and 90. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors that may influence endpoints. Results: Of 851 COVID–19 patients, 225 (26.4%) were classified as hyperoxemic. Excessive oxygen use occurred in 385 (45.2%) patients. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity was lowest in hyperoxemic patients. Hyperoxemic patients were ventilated with higher positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP), while rescue therapies for hypoxemia were applied more often in normoxemic patients. Neither in the unmatched nor in the matched analysis were there differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients with regard to any of the clinical outcomes. Conclusion: In this cohort of invasively ventilated COVID–19 patients, hyperoxemia occurred often and so did excessive oxygen use. The main differences between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients were ARDS severity and use of PEEP. Clinical outcomes were not different between hyperoxemic and normoxemic patients.
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.
