Search

Abstract Background Morphine relieves dyspnea in various clinical circumstances. Whether or not this applies to patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for acute respiratory failure (ARF) is unknown. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose morphine on dyspnea in patients admitted to the ICU for ARF. Methods In this single-center, double-blind, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned non-intubated adults admitted to the ICU for ARF with severe dyspnea, defined by a visual analog scale for dyspnea (dyspnea-VAS) from zero (no dyspnea) to 100 mm (worst imaginable dyspnea) ≥40 mm, to receive a low dose of Morphine Hydrochloride (intravenous titration followed by subcutaneous relay) or Placebo. All patients received standard therapy, including etiological treatment and non-invasive respiratory support. Results Twenty-two patients were randomized, 11 in each group. The average dyspnea (median [interquartile range]) over 24 hours did not significantly differ between the two groups (40 [25 – 43] mm in the Morphine group vs. 40 [36 – 49] mm in the Placebo group, p=0.411). Dyspnea-VAS was lower in the Morphine group than in the Placebo group at the end of intravenous titration (30 [11 – 30] vs. 35 [30 – 44], p=0.044) and four hours later (18 [10 – 29] vs. 50 [30 – 60], p=0.043). The cumulative probability of intubation was higher in the Morphine group than in the Placebo group (p=0.046) Conclusion In this phase 2 pilot trial, morphine did not improve 24-hour average dyspnea in adult patients with ARF, even though it had a statistically significant immediate effect. Of concern, Morphine use was associated with a higher intubation rate. Trial registration The protocol was declared on the ClinicalTrial.gov database (no. NCT04358133) and was published in September 2022.

Abstract Background Dyspnea is common and severe in intensive care unit (ICU) patients managed for acute respiratory failure. Dyspnea appears to be associated with impaired prognosis and neuropsychological sequels. Pain and dyspnea share many similarities and previous studies have shown the benefit of morphine on dyspnea in patients with end-stage onco-hematological disease and severe heart or respiratory disease. In these populations, morphine administration was safe. Here, we hypothesize that low-dose opioids may help to reduce dyspnea in patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure. The primary objective of the trial is to determine whether the administration of low-dose titrated opioids, compared to placebo, in patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure with severe dyspnea decreases the mean 24-h intensity of dyspnea score. Methods In this single-center double-blind randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel arms, we plan to include 22 patients (aged 18–75 years) on spontaneous ventilation with either non-invasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy or standard oxygen therapy admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure with severe dyspnea. They will be assigned after randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio to receive in experimental arm administration of low-dose titrated morphine hydrochloride for 24 h consisting in an intravenous titration relayed subcutaneously according to a predefined protocol, or a placebo (0.9% NaCl) administered according to the same protocol in the control arm. The primary endpoint is the mean 24-h dyspnea score assessed by a visual analog scale of dyspnea. Discussion To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the benefit of opioids on dyspnea in ICU patients admitted for acute respiratory failure. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04358133 . Registered on 24 April 2020.

Abstract Background Whether dyspnea is present before starting a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) and whether it may affect the outcome of the SBT is unknown. Mechanical Ventilation—Respiratory Distress Observation Scale (MV-RDOS) has been proposed as a reliable surrogate of dyspnea in non-communicative intubated patients. In the present study, we sought (1) to describe the evolution of the MV-RDOS during a SBT and (2) to investigate whether MV-RDOS can predict the outcome of the SBT. Methods Prospective, single-center study in a twenty-two bed ICU in a tertiary center. Patients intubated since more 48 h who had failed a first SBT were eligible if they meet classical readiness to wean criteria. The MV-RDOS was assessed before, at 2-min, 15-min and 30-min (end) of the SBT. The presence of clinically important dyspnea was inferred by a MV-RDOS value ≥ 2.6. Results Fifty-eight patients (age 63 [51–70], SAPS II 66 [51–76]; med [IQR]) were included. Thirty-three (57%) patients failed the SBT, whose 18 (55%) failed before 15-min. Twenty-five (43%) patients successfully passed the SBT. A MV-RDOS ≥ 2.6 was present in ten (17%) patients before to start the SBT. All these ten patients subsequently failed the SBT. A MV-RDOS ≥ 2.6 at 2-min predicted a SBT failure with a 51% sensibility and a 88% specificity (AUC 0.741 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.616–0.866, p = 0.002). Best cut-off value at 2-min was 4.3 and predicted SBT failure with a 27% sensibility and a 96% specificity. Conclusion Despite patients met classical readiness to wean criteria, respiratory distress assessed with the MV-RDOS was frequent at the beginning of SBT. Measuring MV-RDOS before to initiate a SBT could avoid undue procedure and reduce patient’s exposure to unnecessary mechanical ventilation weaning failure and distress.

Abstract Background In intensive care units (ICUs), patients experiencing post-extubation respiratory failure have poor outcomes. The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) to treat post-extubation respiratory failure may increase the risk of death. This study aims at comparing mortality between patients treated with NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen or high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Methods Post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial focusing on patients who experienced post-extubation respiratory failure within the 7 days following extubation. Patients were classified in the NIV group or the high-flow nasal oxygen group according to oxygenation strategy used after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure. Patients reintubated within the first hour after extubation and those promptly reintubated without prior treatment were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality at day 28 after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure. Results Among 651 extubated patients, 158 (25%) experienced respiratory failure and 146 were included in the analysis. Mortality at day 28 was 18% (15/84) using NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen and 29% (18/62) with high flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, − 11% [95% CI, − 25 to 2]; p = 0.12). Among the 46 patients with hypercapnia at the onset of respiratory failure, mortality at day 28 was 3% (1/33) with NIV and 31% (4/13) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (difference, − 28% [95% CI, − 54 to − 6]; p = 0.006). The proportion of patients reintubated 48 h after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure was 44% (37/84) with NIV and 52% (32/62) with high-flow nasal oxygen alone (p = 0.21). Conclusions In patients with post-extubation respiratory failure, NIV alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen might not increase the risk of death. Trial registration number The trial was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov with the registration number NCT03121482 the 20th April 2017.

Abstract Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients. Methods The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7. Results Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7. Conclusion In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.