Search

Although extracorporeal membrane ventilation offers the possibility for low-frequency ventilation, protocols commonly used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) vary largely. Whether strict adherence to low-frequency ventilation offers benefit on important outcome measures is poorly understood. Background/Objectives: This pilot clinical study investigated the efficacy of low-frequency ventilation on ventilator-free days (VFDs) in patients suffering from ARDS who were treated with ECMO therapy. Methods: In this single-center randomized controlled trial, 44 (70% male) successive ARDS patients treated with ECMO (aged 56 ± 12 years, SAPS III 64 (SD ± 14)) were randomly assigned 1:1 to the control group (conventional ventilation) or the treatment group (low-frequency ventilation during first 72 h on ECMO: respiratory rate 4–5/min; PEEP 14–16 cm H2O; plateau pressure 23–25 cm H2O, tidal volume: <4 mL/kg). The primary endpoint was VFDs at day 28 after starting ECMO treatment. The major secondary endpoint was ICU mortality, 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality. Results: Twenty-three (52%) patients were successfully weaned from ECMO and were discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU). Twelve patients in the treatment group and five patients in the control group showed more than one VFD at day 28 of ECMO treatment. VFDs were 3.0 (SD ± 5.5) days in the control group and 5.4 (SD ± 6) days in the treatment group (p = 0.117). Until day 28 of ECMO initiation, patients in the treatment group could be successfully weaned off of the ventilator more often (OR of 0.164 of 0 VFDs at day 28 after ECMO start; 95% CI 0.036–0.758; p = 0.021). ICU mortality did not differ significantly (36% in treatment group and 59% in control group; p = 0.227). Conclusions: Low-frequency ventilation is comparable to conventional protective ventilation in patients with ARDS who have been treated with ECMO. However, low-frequency ventilation may support weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation in patients suffering from ARDS and treated with ECMO therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This study aimed to compare the ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28 and the short-term outcomes in neonates with and without ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP and non-VAP groups). Study Design We performed a cohort study in a Thai neonatal intensive care unit between 2014 and 2020 to identify the VFDs in VAP and non-VAP neonates. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results The incidences of VAP rates were 5.76% (67/1,163 neonates) and 10.86 per 1,000 (92/8,469) ventilator days. The medians (interquartile ranges [IQRs]) of gestational age and birth weight in the VAP versus non-VAP groups were 31 (27–35) versus 34 (30–38) weeks, and 1,495 (813–2,593) versus 2,220 (1,405–2,940) g (p < 0.001, both), respectively. The medians (IQRs) of VFDs at 28 days in the VAP and non-VAP groups were 5 (0–16) and 24 (20–26) days (p < 0.001). From the univariate analysis, the lower VFDs, longer ventilator days, and higher rates of moderate-to-severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), postnatal steroids for BPD, length of stay, and daily hospital cost in the VAP group were significantly higher than in the non-VAP group. From the multivariate analysis, the VAP group had significantly lower VFDs (regression coefficient = −10.99, standard error = 1.11, p < 0.001) and higher BPD (adjusted risk ratio = 18.70; 95% confidence interval = 9.17–39.5, p < 0.001) than the non-VAP group. Conclusion Neonatal VAP lead to lower VFDs and a higher frequency of BPD. A multimodal strategy with a VAP prevention bundle care should be used in indicated cases to reduce the occurrence of neonatal VAP. Key Points The VFDs of the neonatal VAP was lower than reported in adult study. There are limited data on VFDs in VAP during the neonatal period. Neonatal VAP reduces VFDs and increases BPD rates compared with non-VAP infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Findings from preclinical studies and one pilot clinical trial suggest potential benefits of epidural analgesia in acute pancreatitis. We aimed to assess the efficacy of thoracic epidural analgesia, in addition to usual care, in improving clinical outcomes of intensive care unit patients with acute pancreatitis. Methods A multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial including adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute pancreatitis upon admission to the intensive care unit. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a strategy combining thoracic epidural analgesia and usual care (intervention group) or a strategy of usual care alone (control group). The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 30. Results Between June 2014 and January 2019, 148 patients were enrolled, and 135 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 65 patients randomly assigned to the intervention group and 70 to the control group. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups (median [interquartile range], 30 days [15–30] and 30 days [18–30], respectively; median absolute difference of − 0.0 days, 95% CI − 3.3 to 3.3; p = 0.59). Epidural analgesia was significantly associated with longer duration of invasive ventilation (median [interquartile range], 14 days [5–28] versus 6 days [2–13], p = 0.02). Conclusions In a population of intensive care unit adults with acute pancreatitis and low requirement for intubation, this first multicenter randomized trial did not show the hypothesized benefit of epidural analgesia in addition to usual care. Safety of epidural analgesia in this setting requires further investigation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02126332 , April 30, 2014.

Abstract Background Proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) is a mechanical ventilation mode that delivers assistance to breathe in proportion to the patient’s effort. The proportional assistance, called the gain, can be adjusted by the clinician to maintain the patient’s respiratory effort or workload within a normal range. Short-term and physiological benefits of this mode compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV) include better patient-ventilator synchrony and a more physiological response to changes in ventilatory demand. Methods The objective of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if, for patients with acute respiratory failure, ventilation with PAV+ will result in a shorter time to successful extubation than with PSV. This multi-centre open-label clinical trial plans to involve approximately 20 sites in several continents. Once eligibility is determined, patients must tolerate a short-term PSV trial and either (1) not meet general weaning criteria or (2) fail a 2-min Zero Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Trial using the rapid shallow breathing index, or (3) fail a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), in this sequence. Then, participants in this study will be randomized to either PSV or PAV+ in a 1:1 ratio. PAV+ will be set according to a target of muscular pressure. The weaning process will be identical in the two arms. Time to liberation will be the primary outcome; ventilator-free days and other outcomes will be measured. Discussion Meta-analyses comparing PAV+ to PSV suggest PAV+ may benefit patients and decrease healthcare costs but no powered study to date has targeted the difficult to wean patient population most likely to benefit from the intervention, or used consistent timing for the implementation of PAV+. Our enrolment strategy, primary outcome measure, and liberation approaches may be useful for studying mechanical ventilation and weaning and can offer important results for patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02447692 . Prospectively registered on May 19, 2015.

Abstract Background Over recent decades, improvements in healthcare have reduced mortality and morbidity rates in many conditions. This has resulted, in part, from the identification of effective interventions in randomised trials, and in conducting such trials, a composite outcome measure (COM) with multiple components will increase event rates, which allows study completion with a smaller sample size. In critical care research, the COM “ventilator-free days” (VFD) combines mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) into a single continuous measure, which can be analysed in a variety of ways. This study investigates the usefulness of Poisson and two-part Poisson models compared to t-distribution for the analysis of VFD. Methods Data from four studies (ALbuterol for the Treatment of ALI (ALTA), Early vs. Delayed Enteral Nutrition (EDEN), Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in Acute Lung Injury (ALI) to reduce pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2), Statins for Acutely Injured Lungs from Sepsis (SAILS)) were used for analysis, with the VFD results summarised using mean, standard deviation (SD), median, interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles) and minimum and maximum values. The statistical analyses that are compared used the t-test, Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) and two-part Logit-Poisson hurdle models. The analyses were exploratory in nature, and the significance level for differences in the estimates was set to 0.05. Results In HARP-2, which compared simvastatin and placebo, the mean (SD) VFD for all patients was 12.0 (10.2), but this mean value did not represent the data distribution as it falls in a zone between two peaks, with the lowest frequency of occurrence. The mean (SD) VFD after excluding patients who died before day 28 and patients who did not achieve unassisted breathing were 15.9 (8.7) and 18.2 (6.6), respectively. The mean difference (95% CI) between the two groups was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8; p = 0.20) based on an independent t-test. However, when the two-part hurdle model was used, the simvastatin arm had a significantly higher number of non-zero values compared to the placebo group, which indicated that more patients were alive and free of mechanical ventilation in the simvastatin group. Similarly, in ALTA, this model found that significantly more patients were alive and free of MV in the control group. In EDEN and SAILS, there was no significant difference between the control and intervention groups. Conclusion Our analyses show that the t-test and Poisson model are not appropriate for bi-modal data (such as VFD) where there is a large number of zero events. The two-part hurdle model was the most promising approach. There is a need for future research to investigate other analysis techniques, such as two-part quantile regression and to determine the impact on sample size requirements for comparative effectiveness trials.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are frequently used to treat severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia. Prone positioning has shown to improve mortality, whereas NMBAs are used to prevent ventilator asynchrony and reduce patient self-inflicted lung injury. However, despite the use of lung-protective strategies, high death rates in this patient population have been reported. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the factors affecting prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects receiving prone positioning plus muscle relaxants. The medical records of 170 patients were reviewed. Subjects were divided into 2 groups according to ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28. Whereas subjects with VFDs < 18 d were defined as prolonged mechanical ventilation, subjects with VFDs 618 d were defined as short-term mechanical ventilation. Subjects' baseline status, status at ICU admission, therapy before ICU admission, and treatment in the ICU were studied. RESULTS: Under the proning protocol for COVID-19, the mortality rate in our facility was 11.2%. The prognosis may be improved by avoiding lung injury in the early stages of mechanical ventilation. According to multifactorial logistic regression analysis, persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood (P = .03), higher daily corticosteroid use before ICU admission (P = .007), delayed recovery of lymphocyte count (P < .001), and higher maximal fibrinogen degradation products (P = .039) were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. A significant relationship was found between daily corticosteroid use before admission and VFDs by squared regression analysis (y = -0.00008522x² + 0.01338x + 12.8; x: daily corticosteroids dosage before admission [prednisolone mg/d]; y: VFDs/28 d, R² 5 0.047, P 5 .02). The peak point of the regression curve was 13.4 d at 78.5 mg/d of the equivalent prednisolone dose, which corresponded to the longest VFDs. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood, high corticosteroid dose from the onset of symptoms to ICU admission, slow recovery of lymphocyte counts, and high levels of fibrinogen degradation products after admission were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Key words: COVID-19; invasive mechanical [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critically ill patients are often prescribed both inhaled beta-agonists and intravenous vasoactive; however, the interaction of the additive beta-agonist effects of these 2 agents remains largely uncharacterized. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how concomitant use of albuterol and vasoactive or inotropes affected ventilator-free days (VFDs) by re-analyzing the data from the Albuterol to Treat Acute Lung Injury (ALTA) trial. Methods: In this study, subjects were grouped to albuterol-vasoactive (n = 84) versus (vs) placebo-vasoactive (n = 62). Ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU)-free days, organ failure-free days, cardiovascular adverse events, and 90-day mortality were compared. The primary outcome was VFDs. Results: Patients in the albuterol-vasoactive group had significantly fewer VFDs than patients in the placebo-vasoactive group (11 vs 19, P = 0.05). Patients in the albuterol-vasoactive group also had significantly fewer ICU-free days (9.5 vs 18.5, P =.006). The 90-day mortality was similar between groups (36.9% vs 27.4%, P =.20). Similarly, no significant difference in cardiac adverse events between the groups (14.3% vs 11.3%, P = 0.59). Conclusion and Relevance: This study has shown fewer VFDs for patients who received both vasoactive and albuterol. There were also fewer ICU-free days when compared to those on vasoactive only. Given the common use of both agents, a prospective evaluation of the additive adverse effects of beta-agonism is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Findings from preclinical studies and one pilot clinical trial suggest potential benefits of epidural analgesia in acute pancreatitis. We aimed to assess the efficacy of thoracic epidural analgesia, in addition to usual care, in improving clinical outcomes of intensive care unit patients with acute pancreatitis. Methods: A multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial including adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute pancreatitis upon admission to the intensive care unit. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a strategy combining thoracic epidural analgesia and usual care (intervention group) or a strategy of usual care alone (control group). The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 30. Results: Between June 2014 and January 2019, 148 patients were enrolled, and 135 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 65 patients randomly assigned to the intervention group and 70 to the control group. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups (median [interquartile range], 30 days [15–30] and 30 days [18–30], respectively; median absolute difference of − 0.0 days, 95% CI − 3.3 to 3.3; p = 0.59). Epidural analgesia was significantly associated with longer duration of invasive ventilation (median [interquartile range], 14 days [5–28] versus 6 days [2–13], p = 0.02). Conclusions: In a population of intensive care unit adults with acute pancreatitis and low requirement for intubation, this first multicenter randomized trial did not show the hypothesized benefit of epidural analgesia in addition to usual care. Safety of epidural analgesia in this setting requires further investigation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02126332, April 30, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) is a mechanical ventilation mode that delivers assistance to breathe in proportion to the patient's effort. The proportional assistance, called the gain, can be adjusted by the clinician to maintain the patient's respiratory effort or workload within a normal range. Short-term and physiological benefits of this mode compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV) include better patient-ventilator synchrony and a more physiological response to changes in ventilatory demand. Methods: The objective of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if, for patients with acute respiratory failure, ventilation with PAV+ will result in a shorter time to successful extubation than with PSV. This multi-centre open-label clinical trial plans to involve approximately 20 sites in several continents. Once eligibility is determined, patients must tolerate a short-term PSV trial and either (1) not meet general weaning criteria or (2) fail a 2-min Zero Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Trial using the rapid shallow breathing index, or (3) fail a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), in this sequence. Then, participants in this study will be randomized to either PSV or PAV+ in a 1:1 ratio. PAV+ will be set according to a target of muscular pressure. The weaning process will be identical in the two arms. Time to liberation will be the primary outcome; ventilator-free days and other outcomes will be measured. Discussion: Meta-analyses comparing PAV+ to PSV suggest PAV+ may benefit patients and decrease healthcare costs but no powered study to date has targeted the difficult to wean patient population most likely to benefit from the intervention, or used consistent timing for the implementation of PAV+. Our enrolment strategy, primary outcome measure, and liberation approaches may be useful for studying mechanical ventilation and weaning and can offer important results for patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02447692. Prospectively registered on May 19, 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Over recent decades, improvements in healthcare have reduced mortality and morbidity rates in many conditions. This has resulted, in part, from the identification of effective interventions in randomised trials, and in conducting such trials, a composite outcome measure (COM) with multiple components will increase event rates, which allows study completion with a smaller sample size. In critical care research, the COM "ventilator-free days" (VFD) combines mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) into a single continuous measure, which can be analysed in a variety of ways. This study investigates the usefulness of Poisson and two-part Poisson models compared to t-distribution for the analysis of VFD. Methods: Data from four studies (ALbuterol for the Treatment of ALI (ALTA), Early vs. Delayed Enteral Nutrition (EDEN), Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in Acute Lung Injury (ALI) to reduce pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2), Statins for Acutely Injured Lungs from Sepsis (SAILS)) were used for analysis, with the VFD results summarised using mean, standard deviation (SD), median, interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles) and minimum and maximum values. The statistical analyses that are compared used the t-test, Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) and two-part Logit-Poisson hurdle models. The analyses were exploratory in nature, and the significance level for differences in the estimates was set to 0.05. Results: In HARP-2, which compared simvastatin and placebo, the mean (SD) VFD for all patients was 12.0 (10.2), but this mean value did not represent the data distribution as it falls in a zone between two peaks, with the lowest frequency of occurrence. The mean (SD) VFD after excluding patients who died before day 28 and patients who did not achieve unassisted breathing were 15.9 (8.7) and 18.2 (6.6), respectively. The mean difference (95% CI) between the two groups was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8; p = 0.20) based on an independent t-test. However, when the two-part hurdle model was used, the simvastatin arm had a significantly higher number of non-zero values compared to the placebo group, which indicated that more patients were alive and free of mechanical ventilation in the simvastatin group. Similarly, in ALTA, this model found that significantly more patients were alive and free of MV in the control group. In EDEN and SAILS, there was no significant difference between the control and intervention groups. Conclusion: Our analyses show that the t-test and Poisson model are not appropriate for bi-modal data (such as VFD) where there is a large number of zero events. The two-part hurdle model was the most promising approach. There is a need for future research to investigate other analysis techniques, such as two-part quantile regression and to determine the impact on sample size requirements for comparative effectiveness trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundA protective or ultra-protective tidal volume strategy is widely applied to patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of very low tidal volume has the potential to further redece ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI) comparde with a “normal” lung protective management. Plus, cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) caused by hydrostatic mechanisms in patients with cardiogenic shock has similar respiratory mechanics to those found in patients with ARDS. And no consensus exists on mechanical ventilation parameter settings in patients with VA-ECMO. The study aimed to investigate the impact of an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy on the 28-day ventilator-free day (VFD) number in VA-ECMO–supported patients with refractory cardiogenic shock, including cardiac arrest.MethodsThe Ultra-ECMO trial is a randomized controlled, open-label, single-center prospective superiority trial. At the onset of ECMO initiation, we will divide patients randomly into an intervention group and a control group in a 1:1 ratio. The control group will adopt protective ventilation settings [initial tidal volume: 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW)] for ventilation, and the intervention group will adopt ultra-protective ventilation settings (initial tidal volume: 4 ml/kg of PBW) for ventilation. The procedure is expected to last 72 h, after which the ventilator settings will be at the intensivists' discretion. The primary outcome is the VFD number at 28 days after inclusion. The secondary outcomes will include respiratory mechanics; analgesic/sedation dosage; lung ultrasound score; interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 levels in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid at the moment of enrollment (T0), 24, 48, and 72 h (T1, T2, and T3, respectively) after ECMO initiation; total time (in days) required for ECMO weaning; length of stay in the intensive care unit; total cost of hospitalization; amounts of resuscitative fluids; and in-hospital mortality.DiscussionVA-ECMO–treated patients without ARDS possess abnormal lung function. CPE, thoracic compliance reduction, and poor pulmonary blood perfusion are frequently present, and these patients can more easily progress to ARDS. It seems that targeting the protective tidal volume can lower adverse outcome incidence rates, even in patients without ARDS. This trial seeks to answer the question of whether adopting an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy can lead to superior primary and secondary outcomes compared to adopting a protective tidal volume strategy in patients treated by VA-ECMO. The Ultra-ECMO trial will provide an innovative mechanical ventilation strategy for VA-ECMO–supported patients for improving treatment outcomes at biological and potentially clinical levels.Clinical Trial RegistrationChiCTR2200067118.

Abstract Background Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected millions of people worldwide. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in need of oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone 6 mg per day is currently recommended. However, the dose of 6 mg of dexamethasone is currently being reappraised and may miss important therapeutic potential or may prevent potential deleterious effects of higher doses of corticosteroids. Methods REMED is a prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing the superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg (dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1–5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg on days 6–10) vs 6 mg administered once daily intravenously for 10 days in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. Three hundred participants will be enrolled and followed up for 360 days after randomization. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. The following stratification factors will be applied: age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRP levels and trial centre. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation. The secondary endpoints are mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; dynamics of the inflammatory marker, change in WHO Clinical Progression Scale at day 14; and adverse events related to corticosteroids and independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by the Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. The study will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. Discussion We aim to compare two different doses of dexamethasone in patients with moderate to severe ARDS undergoing mechanical ventilation regarding efficacy and safety. Trial registration EudraCT No. 2020-005887-70. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04663555. Registered on December 11, 2020

• Tocilizumab treatment in SARS-CoV-2 mechanically ventilated patients improves the composite outcome of 28-day mortality or continuity of ventilation. • It is associated with more actual ventilator free days. • There may be a mortality benefit with Tocilizumab treatment. • It is not associated with increased bacterial cultures. SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity, with more severe cases presenting with a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6; hence, the interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was used for the management of severe cases. To explore the effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free day composite outcomes among critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This retrospective propensity score-matching study compared mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group. Twenty-nine patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. The matched groups were similar. The ventilator-free days composite outcome was higher in the intervention group (sub-distribution hazard ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–6.3; p = 0.02), the mortality rate in the intensive care unit was not different (37.9% vs 62%, p = 0.1), and actual ventilator-free days were significantly longer in the tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio for death in the tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25–0.97; p = 0.04). Positive cultures were not significantly different among the groups (55.2% vs 34.5% in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively; p = 0.1). Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free days, insignificantly lower mortality, and higher superinfection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundRespiratory physiotherapy is reported as safe and feasible in mechanically ventilated patients with severe Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU), but the short-term benefits remain unclear.MethodsWe performed a retrospective observational study in four ICUs in Northern Italy. All patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU and under invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) between March 1st and May 30th, 2020, were enrolled into the study. Overlap weighting based on the propensity score was used to adjust for confounding in the comparison of patients who had or had not been treated by physiotherapists. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and ventilator-free (VFDs). The secondary outcomes were arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio (P/F) at ICU discharge, ICU length of stay, ICU and hospital mortality, and survival at 90 days. The trial protocol was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 05067907).ResultsA total of 317 patients were included in the analysis. The median VFDs was 18 days [interquartile range (IQR) 10; 24] in patients performing physiotherapy and 21 days (IQR 0; 26) in the group without physiotherapy [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78; 0.95]. The chance of 0 VFDs was lower for patients treated by physiotherapists compared to those who were not [odds ratio (OR) = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18–0.71]. Survival at 90 days was 96.0% in the physiotherapy group and 70.6% in patients not performing physiotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.03–0.71]. Number of VFDs was not associated with body mass index (BMI), sex, or P/F at ICU admission for individuals with at least 1 day off the ventilator.ConclusionIn patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU during the first pandemic wave and treated by physiotherapists, the number of days alive and free from MV was lower compared to patients who did not perform respiratory physiotherapy. Survival at 90 days in the physiotherapy group was greater compared to no physiotherapy. These findings may be the starting point for further investigation in this setting.

Abstract Objectives The primary objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that administration of dexamethasone 20 mg is superior to a 6 mg dose in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. The secondary objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone 20 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg. The exploratory objective of this study is to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. Trial design REMED is a prospective, phase II, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg vs 6 mg. The trial aims to be pragmatic, i.e. designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in conditions that are close to real-life routine clinical practice. Participants The study is multi-centre and will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. Inclusion criteria Subjects will be eligible for the trial if they meet all of the following criteria: 1. Adult (≥18 years of age) at time of enrolment; 2. Present COVID-19 (infection confirmed by RT-PCR or antigen testing); 3. Intubation/mechanical ventilation or ongoing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy; 4. Moderate or severe ARDS according to Berlin criteria: • Moderate – PaO2/FiO2 100–200 mmHg; • Severe – PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg; 5. Admission to ICU in the last 24 hours. Exclusion criteria Subjects will not be eligible for the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Known allergy/hypersensitivity to dexamethasone or excipients of the investigational medicinal product (e.g. parabens, benzyl alcohol); 2. Fulfilled criteria for ARDS for ≥14 days at enrolment; 3. Pregnancy or breastfeeding; 4. Unwillingness to comply with contraception measurements from enrolment until at least 1 week after the last dose of dexamethasone (sexual abstinence is considered an adequate contraception method); 5. End-of-life decision or patient is expected to die within next 24 hours; 6. Decision not to intubate or ceilings of care in place; 7. Immunosuppression and/or immunosuppressive drugs in medical history: a) Systemic immunosuppressive drugs or chemotherapy in the past 30 days; b) Systemic corticosteroid use before hospitalization; c) Any dose of dexamethasone during the present hospital stay for COVID-19 for ≥5 days before enrolment; d) Systemic corticosteroids during present hospital stay for conditions other than COVID-19 (e.g. septic shock); 8. Current haematological or generalized solid malignancy; 9. Any contraindication for corticosteroid administration, e.g. • intractable hyperglycaemia; • active gastrointestinal bleeding; • adrenal gland disorders; • presence of superinfection diagnosed with locally established clinical and laboratory criteria without adequate antimicrobial treatment; 10. Cardiac arrest before ICU admission; 11. Participation in another interventional trial in the last 30 days. Intervention and comparator Dexamethasone solution for injection/infusion is the investigational medicinal product as well as the comparator. The trial will assess two doses, 20 mg (investigational) vs 6 mg (comparator). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously once daily on day 1–5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously once daily on day 6–10. Patients in the control group will receive dexamethasone 6 mg day 1–10. All authorized medicinal products containing dexamethasone in the form of solution for i.v. injection/infusion can be used. Main outcomes Primary endpoint: Number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary endpoints a) Mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; b) Dynamics of inflammatory marker (C-Reactive Protein, CRP) change from Day 1 to Day 14; c) WHO Clinical Progression Scale at Day 14; d) Adverse events related to corticosteroids (new infections, new thrombotic complications) until Day 28 or hospital discharge; e) Independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days through telephone structured interviews using the Barthel Index. Randomisation Randomisation will be carried out within the electronic case report form (eCRF) by the stratified permuted block randomisation method. Allocation sequences will be prepared by a statistician independent of the study team. Allocation to the treatment arm of an individual patient will not be available to the investigators before completion of the whole randomisation process. The following stratification factors will be applied: • Age

COVID-19 patients have been reported to have digestive symptoms with poor outcome. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been used in COVID-19 patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether ivermectin has effects on gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19. COVID-19 patients who were mechanically ventilated in the ICU were included in this study. The ventilated patients who received ivermectin within 3 days after admission were assigned to the Ivermectin group, and the others were assigned to the Control group. Patients in the Ivermectin group received ivermectin 200 μg/kg via nasal tube. The incidence of gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days within 4 weeks from admission were evaluated as clinical outcomes using a propensity score with the inverse probability weighting method. We included 88 patients in this study, of whom 39 patients were classified into the Ivermectin group, and 49 patients were classified into the Control group. The hazard ratio for gastrointestinal complications in the Ivermectin group as compared with the Control group was 0.221 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.057 to 0.855; p = 0.029) in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model. The odds ratio for ventilator-free days as compared with the Control group was 1.920 (95% CI, 1.076 to 3.425; p = 0.027) in a proportional odds logistic regression model. Ivermectin improved gastrointestinal complications and the number of ventilator-free days in severe COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms by SARS-Cov-2 might be associated with COVID-19 outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose Whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in adult patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure improves clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. We thus sought to assess the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on ventilator-free days, compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, on adult patients with COVID-19. Methods We conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs). Main exposure was the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (conservative group), while early invasive mechanical ventilation (within the first day of ICU admission; early intubation group) served as the comparator. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at 28 days. ICU length of stay and all-cause in-hospital mortality served as secondary outcomes. We used propensity score matching to adjust for measured confounding. Results Out of 468 eligible patients, a total of 122 matched patients were included in the present analysis (61 for each group). When compared to early intubation, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference: 8.0 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.4 to 11.7 days) and a reduction in ICU length of stay (mean difference: − 8.2 days; 95% CI − 12.7 to − 3.6 days). No difference was observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality between groups (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.64). Conclusions The use of high-flow nasal oxygen upon ICU admission in adult patients with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may lead to an increase in ventilator-free days and a reduction in ICU length of stay, when compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Future studies should confirm our findings.

Abstract Background Patients with COVID-19 and hypoxaemia despite conventional low-flow oxygen therapy are often treated with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in line with international guidelines. Oxygen delivery by helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is a feasible option that enables a higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and may theoretically reduce the need for intubation compared to HFNC but direct comparative evidence is lacking. Methods We plan to perform an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, randomised trial at an intermediate-level COVID-19 cohort ward in Helsingborg Hospital, southern Sweden. We have estimated a required sample size of 120 patients randomised 1:1 to HFNC or Helmet CPAP to achieve 90% power to detect superiority at a 0.05 significance level regarding the primary outcome of ventilator free days (VFD) within 28 days using a Mann-Whitney U test. Patient recruitment is planned to being June 2020 and be completed in the first half of 2021. Discussion We hypothesise that the use of Helmet CPAP will reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation compared to the use of HFNC without having a negative effect on survival. This could have important implications during the current COVID-19 epidemic. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04395807 . Registered on 20 May 2020

Abstract Background Outcome prediction in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) greatly improves when patients are reclassified based on predefined arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratios (PaO2/FiO2) and positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) cutoffs 24 h after the initial ARDS diagnosis. The aim of this study was to test whether outcome prediction improves when patients are reclassified based on predefined PaO2/FiO2 and PEEP cutoffs 24 h after development of mild hypoxemia while not having ARDS. Methods Post hoc analysis of a large prospective, multicenter, observational study that ran in the ICUs of two academic hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2011 and December 2013. Patients were classified into four groups using predefined cutoffs for PaO2/FiO2 (250 mmHg) and PEEP (5 cm H2O), both at onset of hypoxemia and after 24 h: PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 250 mmHg and PEEP < 6 cm H2O (group I), PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 250 mmHg and PEEP ≥ 6 cm H2O (group II), PaO2/FiO2 < 250 mmHg and PEEP < 6 cm H2O (group III), and PaO2/FiO2 < 250 mmHg and PEEP ≥ 6 cm H2O (group IV), to look for trend association with all-cause in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome. Secondary outcome were ICU- and 90-day mortality, and the number of ventilator-free days or ICU-free days and alive at day 28. Results The analysis included 689 consecutive patients. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 35%. There was minimal variation in mortality between the four groups at onset of hypoxemia (33, 36, 38, and 34% in groups I to IV, respectively; P = 0.65). Reclassification after 24 h resulted in a strong trend with increasing mortality from group I to group IV (31, 31, 37, and 48% in groups I to IV, respectively; P < 0.01). Similar trends were found for the secondary endpoints. Conclusions Reclassification using PaO2/FiO2 and PEEP cutoffs after 24 h improved classification for outcome in invasively ventilated ICU patients with hypoxemia not explained by ARDS, compared to classification at onset of hypoxemia. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01905033. Registered on July 11, 2013. Retrospectively registered.

Background: Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected millions of people worldwide. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in need of oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone 6 mg per day is currently recommended. However, the dose of 6 mg of dexamethasone is currently being reappraised and may miss important therapeutic potential or may prevent potential deleterious effects of higher doses of corticosteroids.Methods: REMED is a prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing the superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg (dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1-5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg on days 6-10) vs 6 mg administered once daily intravenously for 10 days in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. Three hundred participants will be enrolled and followed up for 360 days after randomization. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. The following stratification factors will be applied: age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRP levels and trial centre. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation. The secondary endpoints are mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; dynamics of the inflammatory marker, change in WHO Clinical Progression Scale at day 14; and adverse events related to corticosteroids and independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by the Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. The study will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic.Discussion: We aim to compare two different doses of dexamethasone in patients with moderate to severe ARDS undergoing mechanical ventilation regarding efficacy and safety.Trial Registration: EudraCT No. 2020-005887-70. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04663555. Registered on December 11, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Critical illness causes a decrease in serum free triiodothyronine (T3) levels. This condition, known as nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS), is associated with poor outcomes. The association of NTIS and outcomes in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) requiring mechanical ventilation has not been well studied. This study aimed to determine the impact of NTIS on the outcomes of these patients. Methods: This prospective study included 162 patients in the ICU who underwent mechanical ventilation. Serum free T3 levels were tested on the day of initiation of mechanical ventilation. The rates of in-hospital mortality and ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28 after the initiation of mechanical ventilation were compared between patients with low (<2.3 pg/mL) and normal (≥2.3 pg/mL) free T3 levels. Patients who died while on mechanical ventilation were assigned a VFD of 0. Results: Low T3 was present in 60% of study patients. The in-hospital mortality rate of the entire cohort was 39%, and the mean and median VFDs at day 28 were 13.5 and 21 days, respectively. Compared to patients with normal free T3, patients with low free T3 had higher in-hospital mortality (52% vs 19%, P < .001) and less mean and median VFDs at day 28 (10.7 vs 18 and 0 vs 23, respectively. P < .001 for both mean and median VFDs). Conclusions: The presence of low T3 due to NTIS in patients in the ICU requiring mechanical ventilation is associated with poor outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that administration of dexamethasone 20 mg is superior to a 6 mg dose in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. The secondary objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone 20 mg versus dexamethasone 6 mg. The exploratory objective of this study is to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days.Trial Design: REMED is a prospective, phase II, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg vs 6 mg. The trial aims to be pragmatic, i.e. designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in conditions that are close to real-life routine clinical practice.Participants: The study is multi-centre and will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic.Inclusion Criteria: Subjects will be eligible for the trial if they meet all of the following criteria: 1. Adult (≥18 years of age) at time of enrolment; 2. Present COVID-19 (infection confirmed by RT-PCR or antigen testing); 3. Intubation/mechanical ventilation or ongoing high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy; 4. Moderate or severe ARDS according to Berlin criteria:  • Moderate - PaO2/FiO2 100-200 mmHg;  • Severe - PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg; 5. Admission to ICU in the last 24 hours.Exclusion Criteria: Subjects will not be eligible for the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Known allergy/hypersensitivity to dexamethasone or excipients of the investigational medicinal product (e.g. parabens, benzyl alcohol); 2. Fulfilled criteria for ARDS for ≥14 days at enrolment; 3. Pregnancy or breastfeeding; 4. Unwillingness to comply with contraception measurements from enrolment until at least 1 week after the last dose of dexamethasone (sexual abstinence is considered an adequate contraception method); 5. End-of-life decision or patient is expected to die within next 24 hours; 6. Decision not to intubate or ceilings of care in place; 7. Immunosuppression and/or immunosuppressive drugs in medical history:  a) Systemic immunosuppressive drugs or chemotherapy in the past 30 days;  b) Systemic corticosteroid use before hospitalization;  c) Any dose of dexamethasone during the present hospital stay for COVID-19 for ≥5 days before enrolment;  d) Systemic corticosteroids during present hospital stay for conditions other than COVID-19 (e.g. septic shock); 8. Current haematological or generalized solid malignancy; 9. Any contraindication for corticosteroid administration, e.g.  • intractable hyperglycaemia;  • active gastrointestinal bleeding;  • adrenal gland disorders;  • presence of superinfection diagnosed with locally established clinical and laboratory criteria without adequate antimicrobial treatment; 10. Cardiac arrest before ICU admission; 11. Participation in another interventional trial in the last 30 days.Intervention and Comparator: Dexamethasone solution for injection/infusion is the investigational medicinal product as well as the comparator. The trial will assess two doses, 20 mg (investigational) vs 6 mg (comparator). Patients in the intervention group will receive dexamethasone 20 mg intravenously once daily on day 1-5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg intravenously once daily on day 6-10. Patients in the control group will receive dexamethasone 6 mg day 1-10. All authorized medicinal products containing dexamethasone in the form of solution for i.v. injection/infusion can be used.Main Outcomes: Primary endpoint: Number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. SECONDARY ENDPOINTS: a) Mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; b) Dynamics of inflammatory marker (C-Reactive Protein, CRP) change from Day 1 to Day 14; c) WHO Clinical Progression Scale at Day 14; d) Adverse events related to corticosteroids (new infections, new thrombotic complications) until Day 28 or hospital discharge; e) Independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days through telephone structured interviews using the Barthel Index.Randomisation: Randomisation will be carried out within the electronic case report form (eCRF) by the stratified permuted block randomisation method. Allocation sequences will be prepared by a statistician independent of the study team. Allocation to the treatment arm of an individual patient will not be available to the investigators before completion of the whole randomisation process. The following stratification factors will be applied: • Age <65 and ≥ 65; • Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI) <3 and ≥3; • CRP <150 mg/L and ≥150 mg/L • Trial centre. Patients will be randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. Randomisation through the eCRF will be available 24 hours every day.Blinding (masking): This is an open-label trial in which the participants and the study staff will be aware of the allocated intervention. Blinded pre-planned statistical analysis will be performed.Numbers To Be Randomised (sample Size): The sample size is calculated to detect the difference of 3 VFDs at 28 days (primary efficacy endpoint) between the two treatment arms with a two-sided type I error of 0.05 and power of 80%. Based on data from a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in COVID-19 ARDS patients in Brazil and a multi-centre observational study from French and Belgian ICUs regarding moderate to severe ARDS related to COVID-19, investigators assumed a standard deviation of VFD at 28 days as 9. Using these assumptions, a total of 142 patients per treatment arm would be needed. After adjustment for a drop-out rate, 150 per treatment arm (300 patients per study) will be enrolled.Trial Status: This is protocol version 1.1, 15.01.2021. The trial is due to start on 2 February 2021 and recruitment is expected to be completed by December 2021.Trial Registration: The study protocol was registered on EudraCT No.:2020-005887-70, and on December 11, 2020 on ClinicalTrials.gov (Title: Effect of Two Different Doses of Dexamethasone in Patients With ARDS and COVID-19 (REMED)) Identifier: NCT04663555 with a last update posted on February 1, 2021.Full Protocol: The full protocol (version 1.1) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the standard formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in adult patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure improves clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. We thus sought to assess the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on ventilator-free days, compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, on adult patients with COVID-19.Methods: We conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs). Main exposure was the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (conservative group), while early invasive mechanical ventilation (within the first day of ICU admission; early intubation group) served as the comparator. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at 28 days. ICU length of stay and all-cause in-hospital mortality served as secondary outcomes. We used propensity score matching to adjust for measured confounding.Results: Out of 468 eligible patients, a total of 122 matched patients were included in the present analysis (61 for each group). When compared to early intubation, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference: 8.0 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.4 to 11.7 days) and a reduction in ICU length of stay (mean difference: - 8.2 days; 95% CI - 12.7 to - 3.6 days). No difference was observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality between groups (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.64).Conclusions: The use of high-flow nasal oxygen upon ICU admission in adult patients with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may lead to an increase in ventilator-free days and a reduction in ICU length of stay, when compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Future studies should confirm our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) have a high fatality rate likely due to a dysregulated immune response. Corticosteroids could attenuate this inappropriate response, although there are still some concerns regarding its use, timing, and dose.Methods: This is a nationwide, prospective, multicenter, observational, cohort study in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Spain from 12th March to 29th June 2020. Using a multivariable Cox model with inverse probability weighting, we compared relevant outcomes between patients treated with early corticosteroids (before or within the first 48 h of ICU admission) with those who did not receive early corticosteroids (delayed group) or any corticosteroids at all (never group). Primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Secondary endpoints included 7-day mortality, ventilator-free days, and complications.Results: A total of 691 patients out of 882 (78.3%) received corticosteroid during their hospital stay. Patients treated with early-corticosteroids (n = 485) had lower ICU mortality (30.3% vs. never 36.6% and delayed 44.2%) and lower 7-day mortality (7.2% vs. never 15.2%) compared to non-early treated patients. They also had higher number of ventilator-free days, less length of ICU stay, and less secondary infections than delayed treated patients. There were no differences in medical complications between groups. Of note, early use of moderate-to-high doses was associated with better outcomes than low dose regimens.Conclusion: Early use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality than no or delayed use, and fewer complications than delayed use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Unlike randomized controlled trials, practical real-world studies can offer important information about implementation of prehospital interventions, particularly in community settings where there may be reluctance to adopt new practices. We present the results of a natural experiment that was driven by mandated COVID-19 pandemic-driven shift from endotracheal intubation (ETI) to the i-gel ® supraglottic airway (SGA) as a primary advanced airway management device in the prehospital setting to reduce emergency medical services (EMS) personnel exposure to potentially infectious secretions. The objective was to compare first-pass success and timing to successful airway placement between ETI and the i-gel ® SGA under extenuating circumstances., Methods: This pre/post study compared airway placement metrics in prehospital patients requiring advance airway management for non-trauma-related conditions. Data from EMS records were extracted over 2 years, 12 months pre-pandemic, and 12 months post-pandemic. During the pre-COVID-19 year, the EMS protocols utilized ETI as the primary advanced airway device (ETI group). Post-pandemic paramedics were mandated to utilize i-gel ® SGA as the primary advanced airway device to reduce exposure to secretions (SGA group)., Results: There were 199 adult patients, 83 (42%) in the ETI group and 116 (58%) in the SGA group. First-pass success was significantly higher with SGA 96% (92%-99%) than ETI 68% (57%-78%) with paramedics citing the inability to visualize the airway in 52% of ETI cases. Time to first-pass success was significantly shorter in the SGA group (5.9 min [5.1-6.7 min]) than in the ETI group (8.3 min [6.9-9.6 min]), as was time to overall successful placement at 6.0 min (5.1-6.8 min) versus 9.6 min (8.2-11.1 min), respectively. Multiple placement attempts were required in 26% of ETI cases and 1% of the SGA cases. There were no statistically significant differences in the number and types of complications between the cohorts. Return of spontaneous circulation (on/before emergency department [ED] arrival), mortality at 28 days, intensive care unit length of stay, or ventilator-free days between the groups were not statistically different between the groups., Conclusion: In this natural experiment, the SGA performed significantly better than ETI in first-pass airway device placement success and was significantly faster in achieving first-pass success, and overall airway placement, thus potentially reducing exposure to respiratory pathogens. Practical real-world studies can offer important information about implementation of prehospital interventions, particularly in community settings and in systems with a low frequency of tracheal intubations., Competing Interests: Steven H. Katz, Shenae Samuels, and Linda Papa had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Steven H. Katz conceived the study. Steven H. Katz and Linda Papa designed the study. Data were acquired by Steven H. Katz, Joris Hoogendoorn, Daniel Levi, Ruben Troncoso, and Scott Gunn. All authors were involved in the analysis and interpretation of the data. Linda Papa, Steven H. Katz, Shenae Samuels, Matthew Katz, Lindsay Maguire, Christine VanDillen, Susan A. Miller, and Jay L. Falk drafted the manuscript, and all authors were involved in critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. Statistical analysis was conducted by Linda Papa and Shenae Samuels. Administrative, technical, or material support was provided by Steven H. Katz, Joris Hoogendoorn, Daniel Levi, Shenae Samuels, Ruben Troncoso, and Scott Gunn.The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Emergency Physicians.)

Background: Outcome prediction in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) greatly improves when patients are reclassified based on predefined arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratios (PaO2/FiO2) and positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP) cutoffs 24 h after the initial ARDS diagnosis. The aim of this study was to test whether outcome prediction improves when patients are reclassified based on predefined PaO2/FiO2 and PEEP cutoffs 24 h after development of mild hypoxemia while not having ARDS. Methods: Post hoc analysis of a large prospective, multicenter, observational study that ran in the ICUs of two academic hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2011 and December 2013. Patients were classified into four groups using predefined cutoffs for PaO2/FiO2 (250 mmHg) and PEEP (5 cm H2O), both at onset of hypoxemia and after 24 h: PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 250 mmHg and PEEP < 6 cm H2O (group I), PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 250 mmHg and PEEP ≥ 6 cm H2O (group II), PaO2/FiO2 < 250 mmHg and PEEP < 6 cm H2O (group III), and PaO2/FiO2 < 250 mmHg and PEEP ≥ 6 cm H2O (group IV), to look for trend association with all-cause in-hospital mortality, the primary outcome. Secondary outcome were ICU- and 90-day mortality, and the number of ventilator-free days or ICU-free days and alive at day 28. Results: The analysis included 689 consecutive patients. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 35%. There was minimal variation in mortality between the four groups at onset of hypoxemia (33, 36, 38, and 34% in groups I to IV, respectively; P = 0.65). Reclassification after 24 h resulted in a strong trend with increasing mortality from group I to group IV (31, 31, 37, and 48% in groups I to IV, respectively; P < 0.01). Similar trends were found for the secondary endpoints. Conclusions: Reclassification using PaO2/FiO2 and PEEP cutoffs after 24 h improved classification for outcome in invasively ventilated ICU patients with hypoxemia not explained by ARDS, compared to classification at onset of hypoxemia. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01905033. Registered on July 11, 2013. Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: We hypothesized that neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) compared to conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV) decreases duration of MV and mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods: We carried out a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in patients with ARF from several etiologies. Intubated patients ventilated for ≤ 5 days expected to require MV for ≥ 72 h and able to breathe spontaneously were eligible for enrollment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerized randomization allocation sequence to two ventilatory strategies: (1) lung-protective MV (control group), and (2) lung-protective MV with NAVA (NAVA group). Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days. Secondary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Between March 2014 and October 2019, we enrolled 306 patients and randomly assigned 153 patients to the NAVA group and 153 to the control group. Median VFDs were higher in the NAVA than in the control group (22 vs. 18 days; between-group difference 4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 8 days; p = 0.016). At hospital discharge, 39 (25.5%) patients in the NAVA group and 47 (30.7%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference − 5.2%, 95% CI − 15.2 to 4.8, p = 0.31). Other clinical, physiological or safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the trial groups. Conclusion: NAVA decreased duration of MV although it did not improve survival in ventilated patients with ARF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Use of high-dose norepinephrine is thought to have an immunosuppressive action that increases mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between norepinephrine dosage and prognosis of patients with septic shock. Methods This study was a nested cohort of the DExmedetomidine for Sepsis in Intensive Care Unit Randomized Evaluation (DESIRE) trial. We evaluated 112 patients with septic shock and an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Cardiovascular (SOFA-C) category score > 2 and initial lactate level > 2 mmol/L. We divided the patients into two groups according to the norepinephrine dosage administered over the initial 7 days: high dose (≥ 416 μg/kg/week) (H group, n = 56) and low dose (

Objectives: Reporting ventilator-free days (VFDs) with time frame of 28 days is a popular composite outcome measure (COM) in trials. However, early deaths and shorter pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) stay predominate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A shorter time frame may reduce sample size required. We planned to compute sample size requirements for different effect sizes from datasets of previously conducted prospective studies for 28-day and 14-day time frames (VFD28 vs VFD14) to examine the hypothesis. Materials and methods: The VFD28 and VFD14 were defined. Datasets of five prospective studies from PICU of our hospital were analyzed to estimate sample sizes for target reductions of 1--9 days in VFDs and other COMs for the two time frames. Reconfirmation of results was done with datasets of two other studies from PICUs of two geographical extremes of the country. Results: Time-to-event occurred within 14 days in majority of patients. Sample size required for VFD14 is about one-fifth to one-sixth of what is required for VFD28 for target reductions of 1--9 days for all the enrolled studies. The same was true for other COMs as well. The hypothesis was supported by datasets of two other studies used for reconfirmation. Conclusion: Choice of time frame for assessing VFDs and other COMs in clinical trials should be guided by the clinical context. A shorter time frame may be rewarding in terms of smaller sample size in the prevalent clinical setting of LMICs. Further confirmation with more datasets and prospective studies is desirable [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome is heterogeneous, with a paucity of risk stratification tools to assist with trial design. We aimed to develop and validate mortality prediction models for patients with pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome.Design: Leveraging additional data collection from a preplanned ancillary study (Version 1) of the multinational Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome Incidence and Epidemiology study, we identified predictors of mortality. Separate models were built for the entire Version 1 cohort, for the cohort excluding neurologic deaths, for intubated subjects, and for intubated subjects excluding neurologic deaths. Models were externally validated in a cohort of intubated pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome patients from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.Setting: The derivation cohort represented 100 centers worldwide; the validation cohort was from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.Patients: There were 624 and 640 subjects in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: The model for the full cohort included immunocompromised status, Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 score, day 0 vasopressor-inotrope score and fluid balance, and PaO2/FIO2 6 hours after pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome onset. This model had good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.82), calibration, and internal validation. Models excluding neurologic deaths, for intubated subjects, and for intubated subjects excluding neurologic deaths also demonstrated good discrimination (all area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ≥ 0.84) and calibration. In the validation cohort, models for intubated pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (including and excluding neurologic deaths) had excellent discrimination (both area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ≥ 0.85), but poor calibration. After revision, the model for all intubated subjects remained miscalibrated, whereas the model excluding neurologic deaths showed perfect calibration. Mortality models also stratified ventilator-free days at 28 days in both derivation and validation cohorts.Conclusions: We describe predictive models for mortality in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome using readily available variables from day 0 of pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome which outperform severity of illness scores and which demonstrate utility for composite outcomes such as ventilator-free days. Models can assist with risk stratification for clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Acute lung injury is a common devastating clinical syndrome characterised by life-threatening respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and multiple organ failure, and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Objective: This study tested the hypothesis that treatment with simvastatin would improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Design: This was a multicentre, allocation-concealed, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Setting/participants: Patients in intensive care units were eligible if they were intubated and mechanically ventilated and had ARDS as defined by a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen concentration (PaO2 : FiO2) ratio of ≤ 300 mmHg, bilateral pulmonary infiltrates consistent with pulmonary oedema and no evidence of left atrial hypertension. Intervention: Patients were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive enteral simvastatin 80 mg or identical placebo tablets once daily for up to 28 days. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) to day 28. Secondary outcomes included the number of non-pulmonary organ failure-free days to day 28, mortality and safety. The biological effect by which simvastatin may modify mechanisms implicated in the development of ARDS was also investigated. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also planned. Results: The study was completed when 540 patients were recruited with 259 patients allocated to simvastatin and 281 patients to placebo, with 258 patients in the simvastatin group and 279 patients in the placebo group included in the analysis of the primary outcome. There was no significant difference between study groups in mean [standard deviation (SD)] VFDs [12.6 days (SD 9.9 days) with simvastatin and 11.5 days (SD 10.4 days) with placebo; mean difference 1.1, 95% confidence interval –0.6 to 2.8; p = 0.21], non-pulmonary organ failure-free days [19.4 days (SD 11.1 days) with simvastatin and 17.8 days (SD 11.7 days) with placebo; p = 0.11] or in 28-day mortality (22.0% with simvastatin and 26.8% with placebo; p = 0.23). There was no difference in the incidence of severe adverse events between the groups. Simvastatin did not significantly modulate any of the biological mechanisms investigated. Simvastatin was cost-effective at 1 year compared with placebo for the treatment of ARDS, being associated with both a small quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain and cost saving. Limitations: One possibility for the lack of efficacy relates to the statin and dosage used. It is possible that adverse effects at the simvastatin dosage used outweighed a beneficial effect, although our data suggest that this is unlikely. The heterogenous cohort of patients with ARDS was an attempt to ensure that our findings would be generalisable; however, it may be more appropriate to target potential therapies based on their proposed biological mechanism for a specific population of patients. The assumptions underpinning the economic benefit are based on the analysis of a subgroup of responders. Conclusions: High-dose enteral simvastatin, while safe and with minimal adverse effects, is not effective at improving clinical outcomes in patients with ARDS. There was a small gain in QALYs and a cost saving associated with simvastatin. Future work: There is a need to confirm if ARDS endotypes that are more likely to benefit from targeted treatment with simvastatin exist. The potential role of simvastatin in the prevention of ARDS in patients at a high risk of developing ARDS has not yet been evaluated. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88244364. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This study was also funded in the Republic of Ireland by the Health Research Board (HRA_POR-2010-131). In addition, the Health and Social Care Research and Development division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland, the Intensive Care Society of Ireland and REVIVE provided additional funding.

Effective pharmacological therapy has not been established for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Macrolides are antibiotics with potent immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects that may be beneficial in ARDS treatment. The objective of this study was to determine the adjunctive effect of azithromycin on survival for patients with ARDS. This single-center, retrospective cohort evaluation of hospitalized patients with moderate or severe ARDS was conducted to assess the impact of intravenous azithromycin on clinical outcomes using a propensity score analysis. All data were collected prospectively as part of ongoing research on the utility of high-resolution computed tomography in ARDS. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality, and the secondary analysis assessed the effect of azithromycin on time to successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and 28-day mortality. Of 191 eligible patients with severe or moderate ARDS, 62 were treated with azithromycin. The 62 patients treated with azithromycin and 62 not treated with azithromycin were matched and analysed. Azithromycin use was associated with a statistically significant improvement in 90-day survival rate (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–0.87; P  = 0.015) and a shorter time to successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07–2.81; P  = 0.026). The 28-day mortality rate tended to be higher in the azithromycin cohort than in the non-azithromycin cohort, but this was not statistically significant. Adjunctive intravenous azithromycin therapy was effective in patients with moderate or severe ARDS. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Acute respiratory distress syndrome often requires invasive mechanical ventilation, with both mortality and mechanical ventilation duration as outcomes of interest. The concept of ventilator-free days has been proposed as an outcome combining these two outcomes. Here we analyzed the construction of the ventilator-free day outcome and provided a hypothetical scenario to alert physicians that such an outcome can lead to misleading interpretations.Methods: We proposed the isoventilator-free day curve concept and, using an analytical development, illustrated how a median ventilator-free day value can actually result from very different combinations of death rates and mechanical ventilation durations. We also used a hypothetical example to compare the Student t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Gray test (which accounts for death as a competing event with extubation) in comparing exposition to mechanical ventilation.Results: A median ventilator-free day value of 10 days may mean that 10% of the patients died while survivors were ventilated during a median of 14 days or that 40% died while survivors were ventilated during a median of 5 days. Changing the time horizon affected the Student t test but not the Wilcoxon rank-sum result. The Gray test was more relevant than both the Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test in identifying differences in groups showing highly different mechanical ventilation duration, despite equal median ventilator-free days. This approach was also illustrated using real data.Conclusions: Use of ventilator-free days as an outcome appears to have many drawbacks. Suitable methods of analyzing time to extubation should be preferred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are frequently used to treat severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia. Prone positioning has shown to improve mortality, whereas NMBAs are used to prevent ventilator asynchrony and reduce patient self-inflicted lung injury. However, despite the use of lung-protective strategies, high death rates in this patient population have been reported., Methods: We retrospectively examined the factors affecting prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects receiving prone positioning plus muscle relaxants. The medical records of 170 patients were reviewed. Subjects were divided into 2 groups according to ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28. Whereas subjects with VFDs < 18 d were defined as prolonged mechanical ventilation, subjects with VFDs ≥18 d were defined as short-term mechanical ventilation. Subjects' baseline status, status at ICU admission, therapy before ICU admission, and treatment in the ICU were studied., Results: Under the proning protocol for COVID-19, the mortality rate in our facility was 11.2%. The prognosis may be improved by avoiding lung injury in the early stages of mechanical ventilation. According to multifactorial logistic regression analysis, persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood ( P = .03), higher daily corticosteroid use before ICU admission ( P = .007), delayed recovery of lymphocyte count ( P < .001), and higher maximal fibrinogen degradation products ( P = .039) were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. A significant relationship was found between daily corticosteroid use before admission and VFDs by squared regression analysis (y = -0.00008522x 2 + 0.01338x + 12.8; x: daily corticosteroids dosage before admission [prednisolone mg/d]; y: VFDs/28 d, R 2 = 0.047, P = .02). The peak point of the regression curve was 13.4 d at 78.5 mg/d of the equivalent prednisolone dose, which corresponded to the longest VFDs., Conclusions: Persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood, high corticosteroid dose from the onset of symptoms to ICU admission, slow recovery of lymphocyte counts, and high levels of fibrinogen degradation products after admission were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects with severe COVID-19 pneumonia., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by Daedalus Enterprises.)

Background: A protective or ultra-protective tidal volume strategy is widely applied to patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of very low tidal volume has the potential to further redece ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI) comparde with a "normal" lung protective management. Plus, cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) caused by hydrostatic mechanisms in patients with cardiogenic shock has similar respiratory mechanics to those found in patients with ARDS. And no consensus exists on mechanical ventilation parameter settings in patients with VA-ECMO. The study aimed to investigate the impact of an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy on the 28-day ventilator-free day (VFD) number in VA-ECMO-supported patients with refractory cardiogenic shock, including cardiac arrest., Methods: The Ultra-ECMO trial is a randomized controlled, open-label, single-center prospective superiority trial. At the onset of ECMO initiation, we will divide patients randomly into an intervention group and a control group in a 1:1 ratio. The control group will adopt protective ventilation settings [initial tidal volume: 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW)] for ventilation, and the intervention group will adopt ultra-protective ventilation settings (initial tidal volume: 4 ml/kg of PBW) for ventilation. The procedure is expected to last 72 h, after which the ventilator settings will be at the intensivists' discretion. The primary outcome is the VFD number at 28 days after inclusion. The secondary outcomes will include respiratory mechanics; analgesic/sedation dosage; lung ultrasound score; interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 levels in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid at the moment of enrollment (T0), 24, 48, and 72 h (T1, T2, and T3, respectively) after ECMO initiation; total time (in days) required for ECMO weaning; length of stay in the intensive care unit; total cost of hospitalization; amounts of resuscitative fluids; and in-hospital mortality., Discussion: VA-ECMO-treated patients without ARDS possess abnormal lung function. CPE, thoracic compliance reduction, and poor pulmonary blood perfusion are frequently present, and these patients can more easily progress to ARDS. It seems that targeting the protective tidal volume can lower adverse outcome incidence rates, even in patients without ARDS. This trial seeks to answer the question of whether adopting an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy can lead to superior primary and secondary outcomes compared to adopting a protective tidal volume strategy in patients treated by VA-ECMO. The Ultra-ECMO trial will provide an innovative mechanical ventilation strategy for VA-ECMO-supported patients for improving treatment outcomes at biological and potentially clinical levels., Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2200067118., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2023 Li, Chen, Hu, Sun, Zhang, Zhang, Dong, Lv, Mei and Chen.)

Purpose: Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) is a ventilatory mode that tailors the level of assistance delivered by the ventilator to the electromyographic activity of the diaphragm. The objective of this study was to compare NAVA and pressure support ventilation (PSV) in the early phase of weaning from mechanical ventilation.Methods: A multicentre randomized controlled trial of 128 intubated adults recovering from acute respiratory failure was conducted in 11 intensive care units. Patients were randomly assigned to NAVA or PSV. The primary outcome was the probability of remaining in a partial ventilatory mode (either NAVA or PSV) throughout the first 48 h without any return to assist-control ventilation. Secondary outcomes included asynchrony index, ventilator-free days and mortality.Results: In the NAVA and PSV groups respectively, the proportion of patients remaining in partial ventilatory mode throughout the first 48 h was 67.2 vs. 63.3 % (P = 0.66), the asynchrony index was 14.7 vs. 26.7 % (P < 0.001), the ventilator-free days at day 7 were 1.0 day [1.0-4.0] vs. 0.0 days [0.0-1.0] (P < 0.01), the ventilator-free days at day 28 were 21 days [4-25] vs. 17 days [0-23] (P = 0.12), the day-28 mortality rate was 15.0 vs. 22.7 % (P = 0.21) and the rate of use of post-extubation noninvasive mechanical ventilation was 43.5 vs. 66.6 % (P < 0.01).Conclusions: NAVA is safe and feasible over a prolonged period of time but does not increase the probability of remaining in a partial ventilatory mode. However, NAVA decreases patient-ventilator asynchrony and is associated with less frequent application of post-extubation noninvasive mechanical ventilation.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02018666. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure. It is assumed that asynchronies worsen lung function and prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV). Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a novel approach to MV based on neural respiratory center output that is able to trigger, cycle, and regulate the ventilatory cycle. We hypothesized that the use of NAVA compared to conventional lung-protective MV will result in a reduction of the duration of MV. It is further hypothesized that NAVA compared to conventional lung-protective MV will result in a decrease in the length of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. Methods/design: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in 306 mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure from several etiologies. Only patients ventilated for less than 5 days, and who are expected to require prolonged MV for an additional 72 h or more and are able to breathe spontaneously, will be considered for enrollment. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to two ventilatory arms: (1) conventional lung-protective MV (n = 153) and conventional lung-protective MV with NAVA (n = 153). Primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days, defined as days alive and free from MV at day 28 after endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes are total length of MV, and ICU and hospital mortality. Discussion: This is the first randomized clinical trial examining, on a multicenter scale, the beneficial effects of NAVA in reducing the dependency on MV of patients with acute respiratory failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a life-threatening form of respiratory failure without an established pharmacological treatment. Recently, macrolides have been found to be beneficial in cases of acute lung injury, but evidence is limited. Materials and methods: This single-centre retrospective cohort evaluation of hospitalized patients with sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome aimed to assess the impact of azithromycin on clinical outcomes by using a propensity score analysis. All data were collected prospectively as part of ongoing research on high-resolution computed tomography of acute respiratory distress syndrome. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality; the secondary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days. Results: Twenty-nine of 125 patients with sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (23.2 %) received azithromycin within 24 h after acute respiratory distress syndrome diagnosis. After adjusting for potentially confounding covariates, azithromycin use was associated with lower 60-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95 % confidence interval, 0.11-082; P = 0.02) and a shorter time to successful discontinuation of mechanical ventilation. Conclusions: Azithromycin use was associated with decreased mortality and ventilator dependency in patients with sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Further well-designed prospective studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity. More severe cases demonstrate a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6, hence IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was tried for the management of severe cases., Aims: Effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free days among critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients., Method: Retrospective propensity score matching study, comparing mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group., Results: 29 patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. Matched groups were similar. Ventilator-free days were more numerous in the intervention group (SHR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.2 - 6.3; p = 0.02), ICU mortality rate was not different (37.9% versus 62%, p = 0.1), actual ventilator-free periods were significantly longer in tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio of death in tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25 - 0.97; p = 0.04). There was no difference in positive cultures among groups (55.2% in tocilizumab group versus 34.5% in the control; p = 0.1)., Conclusion: Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated SARS-CoV-2 patients; it is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free periods, and insignificantly lower mortality and higher superinfection., (© 2022 Ahmed F. Mady et al., published by Sciendo.)

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy, a promising respiratory support method for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study comparing the periods before (June 2010 to May 2012) and after (June 2012 to May 2014) HFNC introduction (pre-and post-HFNC periods). During these periods, we retrieved cases of AHRF treated with any respiratory support (invasive ventilation, noninvasive ventilation [NIV], and HFNC) and compared in-hospital mortality, ICU/intermediate care unit/hospital stay, and need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Eighty-three subjects (65 treated with NIV, and 18 treated with invasive ventilation) and 89 subjects (33 treated with HFNC, 43 treated with NIV, and 13 treated with invasive ventilation) identified from 782 pre-HFNC and 930 post-HFNC records of acute respiratory failure who required emergent admissions to the respiratory care department were analyzed. Overall, the in-hospital mortality rate was similar, although there was a non-significant and slight decrease from 35 to 27% (P = .26). There was no significant difference among ICU, intermediate care unit (P = .80), and hospital (P = .33) stay. In the post-HFNC period, significantly fewer subjects required mechanical ventilation (NIV or invasive ventilation) (100% vs 63%, P < .01). Additionally, there were significantly fewer ventilator days (median [interquartile range] of 5 [2-11] vs 2 [1-5] d, P < .05) and more ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range] of 18 [0-25] vs 26 [20-27] d, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: HFNC might be an alternative for AHRF subjects with NIV intolerance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]