Search

Rationale: Few data exist to guide early adjunctive therapy use in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (PARDS).Objectives: To describe contemporary use of adjunctive therapies for early PARDS as a framework for future investigations.Methods: This was a preplanned substudy of a prospective, international, cross-sectional observational study of children with PARDS from 100 centers over 10 study weeks.Measurements and Main Results: We investigated six adjunctive therapies for PARDS: continuous neuromuscular blockade, corticosteroids, inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), prone positioning, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Almost half (45%) of children with PARDS received at least one therapy. Variability was noted in the median starting oxygenation index of each therapy; corticosteroids started at the lowest oxygenation index (13.0; interquartile range, 7.6-22.0) and HFOV at the highest (25.7; interquartile range, 16.7-37.3). Continuous neuromuscular blockade was the most common, used in 31%, followed by iNO (13%), corticosteroids (10%), prone positioning (10%), HFOV (9%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (3%). Steroids, iNO, and HFOV were associated with comorbidities. Prone positioning and HFOV were more common in middle-income countries and less frequently used in North America. The use of multiple ancillary therapies increased over the first 3 days of PARDS, but there was not an easily identifiable pattern of combination or order of use.Conclusions: The contemporary description of prevalence, combinations of therapies, and oxygenation threshold for which the therapies are applied is important for design of future studies. Region of the world, income, and comorbidities influence adjunctive therapy use and are important variables to include in PARDS investigations.

Ventilator-free days (VFDs) are a commonly reported composite outcome measure in acute respiratory distress syndrome trials. VFDs combine survival and duration of ventilation in a manner that summarizes the “net effect” of an intervention on these two outcomes. However, this combining of outcome measures makes VFDs difficult to understand and analyze, which contributes to imprecise interpretations. We discuss the strengths and limitations of VFDs and other “failure-free day” composites, and we provide a framework for when and how to use these outcome measures. We also provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting VFDs, including Student’s t tests and rank-sum tests, as well as competing risk regressions treating extubation as the primary outcome and death as the competing risk. Using simulations, we illustrate how the statistical test with optimal power depends on the relative contributions of mortality and ventilator duration on the composite effect size. Finally, we recommend a simple analysis and reporting framework using the competing risk approach, which provides clear information on the effect size of an intervention, a statistical test and measure of confidence with the ability to adjust for baseline factors and allow interim monitoring for trials. We emphasize that any approach to analyzing a composite outcome, including other “failure-free day” constructs, should also be accompanied by an examination of the components.

Rationale: The ARDS Network (ARDSNet) used a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)/FiO2 model in many studies. In general, pediatric intensivists use less PEEP and higher FiO2 than this model.Obj...