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.
We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%—the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5–21.0) hours per full calendar day—the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0–23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0–19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76–1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62–1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80–1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73–1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.
A new viral illness called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently spreading throughout the world at an alarming rate (Dong et al., 2020). As family nursing practitioners, educators, and researchers, we work from a guiding assumption that health and “illness is a family affair” (Wright & Bell, 2009, p. ix). Patients, clients, residents, and their families are inextricably connected. The science and practice of Family Nursing is based on a systemic premise offered by Wright and Leahey (2013) that serious illness and life challenges impact the family unit, and reciprocally, the functioning of the family unit (including their structure, development, and function) influences the health and well-being of each family member. This especially holds true for the current coronavirus pandemic which is creating unique hardships and suffering in an alarmingly large number of patients and their families around the world.
