INTRODUCTION: Patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been postulated to present with distinct respiratory subphenotypes. However, most phenotyping schema have been limited by sample size, disregard for temporal dynamics, and insufficient validation. We aimed to identify respiratory subphenotypes of COVID-19-related ARDS using unbiased data-driven approaches.METHODS: PRoVENT-COVID was an investigator-initiated, national, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study at 22 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients who had received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 (aged 18 years or older) served as the derivation cohort, and similar patients from two ICUs in the USA served as the replication cohorts. COVID-19 was confirmed by positive RT-PCR. We used latent class analysis to identify subphenotypes using clinically available respiratory data cross-sectionally at baseline, and longitudinally using 8-hourly data from the first 4 days of invasive ventilation. We used group-based trajectory modelling to evaluate trajectories of individual variables and to facilitate potential clinical translation. The PRoVENT-COVID study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, 1007 patients were admitted to participating ICUs in the Netherlands, and included in the derivation cohort. Data for 288 patients were included in replication cohort 1 and 326 in replication cohort 2. Cross-sectional latent class analysis did not identify any underlying subphenotypes. Longitudinal latent class analysis identified two distinct subphenotypes. Subphenotype 2 was characterised by higher mechanical power, minute ventilation, and ventilatory ratio over the first 4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation than subphenotype 1, but PaO2/FiO2, pH, and compliance of the respiratory system did not differ between the two subphenotypes. 185 (28%) of 671 patients with subphenotype 1 and 109 (32%) of 336 patients with subphenotype 2 had died at day 28 (p=0·10). However, patients with subphenotype 2 had fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (median 0, IQR 0-15 vs 5, 0-17; p=0·016) and more frequent venous thrombotic events (109 [32%] of 336 patients vs 176 [26%] of 671 patients; p=0·048) compared with subphenotype 1. Group-based trajectory modelling revealed trajectories of ventilatory ratio and mechanical power with similar dynamics to those observed in latent class analysis-derived trajectory subphenotypes. The two trajectories were: a stable value for ventilatory ratio or mechanical power over the first 4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation (trajectory A) or an upward trajectory (trajectory B). However, upward trajectories were better independent prognosticators for 28-day mortality (OR 1·64, 95% CI 1·17-2·29 for ventilatory ratio; 1·82, 1·24-2·66 for mechanical power). The association between upward ventilatory ratio trajectories (trajectory B) and 28-day mortality was confirmed in the replication cohorts (OR 4·65, 95% CI 1·87-11·6 for ventilatory ratio in replication cohort 1; 1·89, 1·05-3·37 for ventilatory ratio in replication cohort 2).INTERPRETATION: At baseline, COVID-19-related ARDS has no consistent respiratory subphenotype. Patients diverged from a fairly homogenous to a more heterogeneous population, with trajectories of ventilatory ratio and mechanical power being the most discriminatory. Modelling these parameters alone provided prognostic value for duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality.
DOCUMENT
In patients with extensive burns several causes may underliehypoxic respiratory failure and bilateral infiltrates on the chestX-ray in the first week afterburn: cardiogenic pulmonaryedema as a result of congestive heart failure, pneumonia and/or adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In particular, itis a challenge to differentiate between ARDS and cardiogenicpulmonary edema in these patients because on the one handthe incidence of ARDS in burn shock appears higher thananticipated, whereas on the other hand there is an increasedrisk for cardiogenic pulmonary edema to develop as intensivefluid resuscitation is mandatory, while myocardial function isdepressed as noted by Baxter et al.[1]. Since these twodiagnoses have very different treatment options, it is impor-tant to be able to differentiate between them as soon as
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND The mechanical power of ventilation (MP) has an association with outcome in invasively ventilated patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Whether a similar association exists in invasively ventilated patients without ARDS is less certain.OBJECTIVE To investigate the association of mechanical power with mortality in ICU patients without ARDS.DESIGN This was an individual patient data analysis that uses the data of three multicentre randomised trials.SETTING This study was performed in academic and nonacademic ICUs in the Netherlands.PATIENTS One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two invasively ventilated patients without ARDS were included in this analysis. The median [IQR] age was 67 [57 to 75] years, 706 (36%) were women.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the all-cause mortality at day 28. Secondary outcomes were the all-cause mortality at day 90, and length of stay in ICU and hospital.RESULTS At day 28, 644 patients (33%) had died. Hazard ratios for mortality at day 28 were higher with an increasing MP, even when stratified for its individual components (driving pressure (P < 0.001), tidal volume (P < 0.001), respiratory rate (P < 0.001) and maximum airway pressure (P = 0.001). Similar associations of mechanical power (MP) were found with mortality at day 90, lengths of stay in ICU and hospital. Hazard ratios for mortality at day 28 were not significantly different if patients were stratified for MP, with increasing levels of each individual component.CONCLUSION In ICU patients receiving invasive ventilation for reasons other than ARDS, MP had an independent association with mortality. This finding suggests that MP holds an added predictive value over its individual components, making MP an attractive measure to monitor and possibly target in these patients.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02159196, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02153294, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Besides dyspnoea and cough, patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) or sarcoidosis may experience distressing non-respiratory symptoms, such as fatigue or muscle weakness. However, whether and to what extent symptom burden differs between patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and individuals without respiratory disease remains currently unknown. Objectives: To study the respiratory and non-respiratory burden of multiple symptoms in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis and to compare the symptom burden with individuals without impaired spirometric values, FVC and FEV1 (controls). Methods: Demographics and symptoms were assessed in 59 patients with IPF, 60 patients with sarcoidosis and 118 controls (age ≥18 years). Patients with either condition were matched to controls by sex and age. Severity of 14 symptoms was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale. Results: 44 patients with IPF (77.3% male; age 70.6±5.5 years) and 44 matched controls, and 45 patients with sarcoidosis (48.9% male; age 58.1±8.6 year) and 45 matched controls were analyzed. Patients with IPF scored higher on 11 symptoms compared to controls (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, cough, fatigue, muscle weakness and insomnia. Patients with sarcoidosis scored higher on all 14 symptoms (p<0.05), with the largest differences for dyspnoea, fatigue, cough, muscle weakness, insomnia, pain, itch, thirst, micturition (night, day). Conclusions: Generally, respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden is significantly higher in patients with IPF or sarcoidosis compared to controls. This emphasizes the importance of awareness for respiratory and non-respiratory symptom burden in IPF or sarcoidosis and the need for additional research to study the underlying mechanisms and subsequent interventions.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The intensity of ventilation, reflected by driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP), has an association with outcome in invasively ventilated patients with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is uncertain if a similar association exists in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory failure.METHODS: We aimed to investigate the impact of intensity of ventilation on patient outcome. The PRoVENT-COVID study is a national multicenter observational study in COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation. Ventilator parameters were collected a fixed time points on the first calendar day of invasive ventilation. Mean dynamic ΔP and MP were calculated for individual patients at time points without evidence of spontaneous breathing. A Cox proportional hazard model, and a double stratification analysis adjusted for confounders were used to estimate the independent associations of ΔP and MP with outcome. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality.RESULTS: In 825 patients included in this analysis, 28-day mortality was 27.5%. ΔP was not independently associated with mortality (HR 1.02 [95% confidence interval 0.88-1.18]; P = 0.750). MP, however, was independently associated with 28-day mortality (HR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01-1.36]; P = 0.031), and increasing quartiles of MP, stratified on comparable levels of ΔP, had higher risks of 28-day mortality (HR 1.15 [95% CI 1.01-1.30]; P = 0.028).CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of critically ill invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure, we show an independent association of MP, but not ΔP with 28-day mortality. MP could serve as one prognostic biomarker in addition to ΔP in these patients. Efforts aiming at limiting both ΔP and MP could translate in a better outcome. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04346342).
DOCUMENT
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.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targ...
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Estimates for dead space ventilation have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19-related ARDS.METHODS: Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicenter, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of wasted ventilation in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.RESULTS: A total of 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in this study. Estimations of wasted ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris-Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p < 0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris-Benedict and by direct estimation, and with an increase in the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the dead space estimates measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality.CONCLUSIONS: There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19-related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk model.TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04346342. Registered 15 April 2020. Retrospectively registered.
MULTIFILE
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.
DOCUMENT
Praktische aanbevelingen op basis van bevindingen uit systematisch literatuuronderzoek bij de Covid-19 en vergelijkbare virusuitbraken en interviews met experts en ervaringsdeskundigen.
DOCUMENT
