Search

PURPOSE The number of patients���������80��years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST. METHODS Patients 80��years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (�����2��years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (�����2 points), clinical frailty scale (�����1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death. RESULTS 693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients. CONCLUSION Very old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Awake prone positioning (aPP) in non-intubated patients with severe SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia improves oxygenation and reduces the intubation rate, but no early predictors for success or failure of the strategy have been described. The main objective of this study was to assess whether response to the first aPP in terms of PaO2/FiO2, alveolar-arterial gradient (Aa-O2), respiratory rate and PaCO2 could predict the need for intubation. As secondary objective, we assessed the effects of aPP on the same parameters for all the sessions considered together. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia patients suffering from acute respiratory failure with moderate to severe hypoxaemia for whom aPP was performed for at least 45 minutes based on the prescription of the clinician in charge according to predefined criteria. Respiratory rate, blood gases and oxygenation parameters (PaO2/FiO2 and Aa-O2), before and after the first aPP were compared between patients who were subsequently intubated or not. Effects of all the aPP sessions together were also analysed. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-six patients were admitted for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia during the study period. Among them, 50 received aPP lasting at least 45 minutes. Because 17 denied consent for data analysis and 2 were excluded because of a “do not intubate order”, 31 patients (for a total of 116 aPP sessions without any severe adverse events reported) were included. Among them, 10 (32.3%) were intubated. Mean age ± standard deviation (SD) was 60 ± 12 years. At ICU admission, respiratory rate was 26 ± 7/minute, median PaO2/FiO2 94 (interquartile range [IQR] 74–116) mm Hg and median Aa-O2 412 (IQR 286–427) mm Hg (markedly increased). Baseline characteristics did not statistically differ between patients who subsequently needed intubation or not. During the first aPP, PaO2/FiO2 increased and Aa-O2 decreased. When comparing patients who later where intubated or not, we observed, in the non intubated group only, a clinically significant decrease in median Aa-O2, from 294 (280–414) to 204 (107–281) mm Hg, corresponding to a 40% (26–56%) reduction, and a PaO2/FiO2 increase, from 103 (84–116) to 162 (138–195), corresponding to an increase of 48% (11–93%). The p value is

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is the most common motor neuron disease of the adult age. It is an aggressive condition with a mean disease duration of only 3 to 5 years, characterized by progressive weakness and atrophy of limb, bulbar, and respiratory muscles. In general, death is caused by chronic hypoventilation due to respiratory insufficiency. No causal treatment is known today, but the two therapeutic agents authorized in Switzerland for the treatment of ALS can slow disease progression significantly. Other important therapeutic strategies include invasive/non-invasive ventilation, pain therapy, as well as physio-, ergo- and speech therapy on a regular basis.

Background: The aim of the current study was to determine if treatment with senicapoc, improves the PaO2/FiO2 ratio in patients with COVID-19 and severe respiratory insufficiency. Methods: Investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, phase II trial in four intensive care units (ICU) in Denmark. We included patients aged ≥18 years and admitted to an ICU with severe respiratory insufficiency due to COVID-19. The intervention consisted of 50 mg enteral senicapoc administered as soon as possible after randomization and again after 24 h. Patients in the control group received standard care only. The primary outcome was the PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 72 h. Results: Twenty patients were randomized to senicapoc and 26 patients to standard care. Important differences existed in patient characteristics at baseline, including more patients being on non-invasive/invasive ventilation in the control group (54% vs. 35%). The median senicapoc concentration at 72 h was 62.1 ng/ml (IQR 46.7–71.2). The primary outcome, PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 72 h, was significantly lower in the senicapoc group (mean 19.5 kPa, SD 6.6) than in the control group (mean 24.4 kPa, SD 9.2) (mean difference −5.1 kPa [95% CI −10.2, −0.04] p =.05). The 28-day mortality in the senicapoc group was 2/20 (10%) compared with 6/26 (23%) in the control group (OR 0.36 95% CI 0.06–2.07, p =.26). Conclusions: Treatment with senicapoc resulted in a significantly lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio at 72 h with no differences for other outcomes.

Background Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a promising alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with a particular importance amidst the shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the use of NIV in Europe and factors associated with outcomes of patients treated with NIV. Methods This is a substudy of COVIP study—an international prospective observational study enrolling patients aged ≥ 70 years with confirmed COVID-19 treated in ICU. We enrolled patients in 156 ICUs across 15 European countries between March 2020 and April 2021.The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Results Cohort included 3074 patients, most of whom were male (2197/3074, 71.4%) at the mean age of 75.7 years (SD 4.6). NIV frequency was 25.7% and varied from 1.1 to 62.0% between participating countries. Primary NIV failure, defined as need for endotracheal intubation or death within 30 days since ICU admission, occurred in 470/629 (74.7%) of patients. Factors associated with increased NIV failure risk were higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.36–5.90) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) on admission (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06–2.00). Patients initially treated with NIV (n = 630) lived for 1.36 fewer days (95% CI − 2.27 to − 0.46 days) compared to primary IMV group (n = 1876). Conclusions Frequency of NIV use varies across European countries. Higher severity of illness and more severe frailty were associated with a risk of NIV failure among critically ill older adults with COVID-19. Primary IMV was associated with better outcomes than primary NIV. Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT04321265, registered 19 March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov.

Background SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a novel coronavirus associated with high mortality rates. The use of Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) has been recognised as a management option for severe COVID-19 (NHS, Specialty guides for patient management during the coronavirus pandemic Guidance for the role and use of non-invasive respiratory support in adult patients with coronavirus (confirmed or suspected), https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng159). We offered ward-based CPAP to COVID-19, dialysis patients not suitable for escalation to ICU. The aim of the study was to evaluate the use of CPAP for COVID-19 dialysis patients compared to non-dialysis COVID-19 patients outside of the intensive care setting. We further aimed to investigate factors associated with improved outcomes. Methods Data was collected from a single centre (Royal Preston Hospital, UK), from March to June 2020. Treatment outcomes were compared for dialysis and non-dialysis dependent patients who received CPAP with limitations on their escalation and resuscitation status. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox regression models were used to compare outcomes. The primary study outcome was 30 day mortality. Confounders including length of admission, systemic anticoagulation and ultrafiltration volumes on dialysis were also analysed. Results Over the study period, 40 dialysis patients tested positive for COVID-19, with 30 requiring hospital admission. 93% (n = 28) required supplementary oxygen and 12% (n = 9) required CPAP on the ward. These patients were compared to a serial selection of 14 non-dialysis patients treated with CPAP during the same period. Results showed a significant difference in 30 day survival rates between the two groups: 88.9% in the dialysis group vs. 21.4% in the non-dialysis group. Statistical modelling showed that anticoagulation was also an important factor and correlated with better outcomes. Conclusion This is to the best of our knowledge, the largest series of COVID-19 dialysis patients treated with CPAP in a ward-based setting. In general, dialysis dependent patients have multiple co-morbidities including cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus making them vulnerable to COVID-19 and not always suitable for treatment in ICU. We showed a significantly lower 30 day mortality rate with the use of CPAP in the dialysis group (11.1%) compared to the non-dialysis group (78.6%). Despite a small sample size, we believe this study provides impetus for further work clarifying the role of CPAP in treating COVID-19 dialysis dependent patients.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Methods Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p Results Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16–24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Conclusion Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

INTRODUCTION: Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has recently and rapidly emerged and developed into a global pandemic. In SARS-CoV-2 patients with refractory respiratory failure, there may be a role for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) as a life-saving rescue intervention.METHODS: This review summarizes the evidence gathered until June 12, 2020; electronic databases were screened for pertinent reports on coronavirus and V-V ECMO. Search was conducted by two independent investigators; keywords used were SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19, ECMO, and extracorporeal life support (ECLS).RESULTS: Many patients with COVID-19 experience moderate symptoms and a relatively quick recovery, but others must be admitted into the intensive care unit due to severe respiratory failure and often must be mechanically ventilated. Further deterioration may require institution of extracorporeal oxygenation. Infection mechanisms may trigger "cytokine storm," an inflammatory disorder notable for multi-organ system failure; together with other metabolic and hematological changes, these amplify the changes pertinent to ECMO therapy, often exaggerating blood coagulation disorders. Thirty-two studies were found describing experiences with ECMO in the treatment of COVID-19. Of 4,912 COVID-19 patients, 2,119 (43%) developed ARDS and 2,086 (42%) were transferred to the ICU; 1,015 patients (21%) were treated with ECMO. While in an overall cohort, observed mortality was 640 (13%), the mortality within ECMO subgroups reached up to 34.6% (range 0-100%).CONCLUSION: The efficacy of ECMO treatment for COVID-19 is largely dependent on the expertise of the center in ECLS due to the interplay between the changes in hematological and inflammatory modulators associated with both COVID-19 and ECMO. In order to support gas exchange during early infection with SARS-CoV-2, ECMO has a strong rationale for the treatment of the most critically ill patients. Due to the limited resources during a global pandemic, ECMO should be reserved for only the most severe cases of COVID-19.

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in treating moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure in patients who cannot tolerate or have contraindications to noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Methods A prospective observational 13-month study involving subjects admitted to an intensive care unit with or developing moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure. Clinical and gas exchange parameters were recorded at regular intervals during the first 24 hours. The endpoints were a oxygen saturation between 88 and 92% along with a reduction in breathing effort (respiratory rate) and pH normalization (≥ 7.35). Subjects were considered nonresponders if they required ventilatory support. Results Thirty subjects were treated with high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy. They consisted of a mixed population with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, and postoperative and postextubation respiratory failure. A nonsignificant improvement was observed in respiratory rate (28.0 ± 0.9 versus 24.3 ± 1.5, p = 0.22), which was apparent in the first four hours of treatment. The pH improved, although normal levels were only reached after 24 hours on high-flow nasal cannula therapy (7.28 ± 0.02 versus 7.37 ± 0.01, p = 0.02). The rate of nonresponders was 13.3% (4 subjects), of whom one needed and accepted noninvasive mechanical ventilation and three required intubation. Intensive care unit mortality was 3.3% (1 subject), and a patient died after discharge to the ward (hospital mortality of 6.6%). Conclusion High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is effective for moderate hypercapnic respiratory failure as it helps normalize clinical and gas exchange levels with an acceptable rate of nonresponders who require ventilatory support.

ObjectivesDeath or hospital readmission are frequent among patients surviving acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF). Severity scores are not valid to predict death or readmission after AHRF. Gait speed, a simple functional parameter, has been associated with hospital admission and death in the general population. The purpose of this study is to highlight an association between gait speed at hospital discharge and death or readmission among AHRF survivors.DesignSecondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.SettingsSingle Swiss tertiary hospital, pulmonary division.ParticipantsPatients were prospectively recruited to form a cohort of patients surviving AHRF in the intensive care unit between January 2012 and May 2015.Outcome measureGait speed was derived from a 6 min walking test (6MWT) before hospital discharge. All predictive variables were prospectively collected. Death or hospital readmission were recorded for 6 months. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the association between predictive variables and death or hospital readmission.Results71 patients performed a 6MWT. 34/71 (48%) patients died or were readmitted to the hospital during the observation period. Median gait speed was 0.7 (IQR 0.3–1.0) m/s. At 6 months, 66% (25/38) of slow walkers (gait speed ConclusionThis study suggests that a simple functional parameter such as gait speed is associated with death or hospital readmission in patients surviving AHRF.Trial registration numberNCT02111876.

PURPOSE: Early lung recruitment (ELR) during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) in combination with prophylactic surfactant use has been reported to reduce mortality, improve respiratory outcomes, and reduce the need for repeated surfactant dosing, suggesting that surfactant might be used more selectively in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants on HFOV than generally recommended. We report our first experience from such a selective early rescue use of surfactant in VLBW infants on HFOV. METHODS: After a deliberate ELR maneuver and "optimal" continuous distending pressure (CDP) finding during HFOV, used as primary ventilation mode for VLBW infants with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), surfactant was only given when an unsatisfactory oxygenation response to lung recruitment (as defined by CDP x FiO(2) > 5) was observed. RESULTS: Out of 144 VLBW infants on HFOV, 84 (58.3%) received surfactant and 60 (41.7%) did not. Duration of required oxygen supplementation (37.4 +/- 44.9 vs. 46.2 +/- 35.4 days; P = 0.031) and respiratory support (i.e., n-CPAP and/or mechanical ventilation; 22.3 +/- 19.3 vs. 38.2 +/- 24.3 days; P = 0.001) was shorter for infants who did not receive surfactant than for those who did. The incidence and severity of bronchopulmonary dysplasia was similar in both groups, and there was no difference in survival rates between groups. Subgroup analysis for infants of less than 28 weeks of gestation revealed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: First intention HFOV combined with an early attempt at lung volume optimization might allow surfactants to be used more selectively (in relation to disease severity) in VLBW infants presenting with RDS at birth without negatively influencing the outcome.

Much of the common practice in paediatric mechanical ventilation is based on personal experiences and what paediatric critical care practitioners have adopted from adult and neonatal experience. This presents a barrier to planning and interpretation of clinical trials on the use of specific and targeted interventions. We aim to establish a European consensus guideline on mechanical ventilation of critically children.MethodsThe European Society for Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care initiated a consensus conference of international European experts in paediatric mechanical ventilation to provide recommendations using the Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles, appropriateness method. An electronic literature search in PubMed and EMBASE was performed using a combination of medical subject heading terms and text words related to mechanical ventilation and disease-specific terms.ResultsThe Paediatric Mechanical Ventilation Consensus Conference (PEMVECC) consisted of a panel of 15 experts who developed and voted on 152 recommendations related to the following topics: (1) general recommendations, (2) monitoring, (3) targets of oxygenation and ventilation, (4) supportive measures, (5) weaning and extubation readiness, (6) normal lungs, (7) obstructive diseases, (8) restrictive diseases, (9) mixed diseases, (10) chronically ventilated patients, (11) cardiac patients and (12) lung hypoplasia syndromes. There were 142 (93.4%) recommendations with ?strong agreement?. The final iteration of the recommendations had none with equipoise or disagreement.ConclusionsThese recommendations should help to harmonise the approach to paediatric mechanical ventilation and can be proposed as a standard-of-care applicable in daily clinical practice and clinical research.; Une grande partie de la pratique courante en ventilation mécanique pédiatrique est basée sur des expériences personnelles et ce que les praticiens en soins intensifs pédiatriques ont adopté à partir de l'expérience adulte et néonatale.

A task force issued from the Groupe Assistance Ventilatoire (GAV) of the Societe de Pneumologie de Langue Francaise (SPLF) was committed to develop a series of expert advice concerning various practical topics related to long-term non invasive ventilation by applying the Choosing Wisely® methodology. Three topics were selected: monitoring of noninvasive ventilation, the interpretation of data obtained from built-in devices coupled to home ventilators and the role of hybrid modes (target volume with variable pressure support. For each topic, the experts have developed practical tips based on a comprehensive analysis of recent insights and evidence from the literature and from clinical experience.