Association of preoperative COVID-19 and postoperative respiratory morbidity during the Omicron epidemic wave: the DROMIS-22 multicentre prospective observational cohort study

Background Preoperative COVID-19 has been associated with excess postoperative morbi-mortality. Consequently, guidelines were developed that recommended the postponement of surgery for at least 7 weeks after the infection. We hypothesised that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 and the large predominance of the Omicron variant attenuated the effect of a preoperative COVID-19 on the occurrence of postoperative respiratory morbidity. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study in 41 French centres between 15 March and 30 May 2022 (ClinicalTrials NCT05336110), aimed at comparing the postoperative respiratory morbidity between patients with and without preoperative COVID-19 within 8 weeks prior to surgery. The primary outcome was a composite outcome combining the occurrence of pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, unexpected mechanical ventilation, and pulmonary embolism within the first 30 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, hospital length-of-stay, readmissions, and non-respiratory infections. The sample size was determined to have 90% power to identify a doubling of the primary outcome rate. Adjusted analyses were performed using propensity score modelling and inverse probability weighting. Findings Of the 4928 patients assessed for the primary outcome, of whom 92.4% were vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2, 705 had preoperative COVID-19. The primary outcome was reported in 140 (2.8%) patients. An 8-week preoperative COVID-19 was not associated with increased postoperative respiratory morbidity (odds ratio 1.08 [95% CI 0.48–2.13];p = 0.83). None of the secondary outcomes differed between the two groups. Sensitivity analyses concerning the timing between COVID-19 and surgery, and the clinical presentations of preoperative COVID-19 did not show any association with the primary outcome, except for COVID-19 patients with ongoing symptoms the day of surgery (OR 4.29 [1.02–15.8];p = 0.04). Interpretation In our Omicron-predominant, highly immunised population undergoing general surgery, a preoperative COVID-19 was not associated with increased postoperative respiratory morbidity. Funding The study was fully funded by the 10.13039/501100014262French Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR).

Inhaled Sedation in Patients with COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An International Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the shortage of intravenous sedatives has led to renewed interest in inhaled sedation for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We hypothesized that inhaled sedation would be associated with improved clinical outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS patients. METHODS: Retrospective international study including mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS who required sedation and were admitted to 10 European and US intensive care units. The primary endpoint of ventilator-free days through day 28 was analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression, before and after adjustment for site, clinically relevant covariates determined according to the univariate results, and propensity score matching. RESULTS: A total of 196 patients were enrolled, 78 of whom died within 28 days. The number of ventilator-free days through day 28 did not differ significantly between the patients who received inhaled sedation for at least 24 h (n = 111) and those who received intravenous sedation only (n = 85), with medians of 0 (interquartile range [IQR] 0-8) and 0 (IQR 0-17), respectively (odds ratio for having zero ventilator-free days through day 28, 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.92, p = 0.10). The incidence rate ratio for the number of ventilator-free days through day 28 if not 0 was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.84-1.52, p = 0.40). Similar results were found after multivariable adjustment and propensity matching. CONCLUSION: The use of inhaled sedation in COVID-19 ARDS was not associated with the number of ventilator-free days through day 28.

Agreement between pulse oximetry and arterial oxygen saturation measurement in critical care patients during COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.

Some publications suggest that pulse oximetry measurement (SpO2) might overestimate arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2) measurement in COVID-19 patients. This study aims to evaluate the agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. We conducted a multicenter, prospective study including consecutive intensive care patients from October 15, 2020, to March 4, 2021, and compared for each measurement the difference between SpO2 and SaO2, also called the systematic bias. The primary endpoint was the agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 measured with the Lin concordance coefficient and illustrated using the Bland and Altman method. Factors associated with systematic bias were then identified using a generalised estimating equation. The study included 105 patients, 66 COVID-19 positive and 39 COVID-19 negative, allowing for 1539 measurements. The median age was 66 [57; 72] years with median SOFA and SAPSII scores of, respectively, 4 [3; 6] and 37 [31; 47]. The median SpO2 and SaO2 among all measurements was respectively 97 [96-99] and 94 [92-96] with a systematic bias of 0.80 [- 0.6; 2.4]. This difference was, respectively, 0.80 [- 0.7; 2.5] and 0.90 [- 0.3; 2.0] among COVID-19 positive and negative patients. Overall agreement measured with the Lin correlation coefficient was 0.65 [0.63; 0.68] with 0.61 [0.57; 0.64] and 0.53 [0.45; 0.60] among the COVID-19 positive and negative groups, respectively. Factors independently associated with the variation of the SpO2-SaO2 difference were the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and need for mechanical ventilation. In our population, agreement between SpO2 and SaO2 is acceptable. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SaO2 remains an efficient monitoring tool to characterise the level of hypoxemia and follow therapeutic interventions. As is already known about general intensive care unit patients, the greater hypoxemia, the weaker the correlation between SpO2 and SaO2.

Use of volatile anesthetics for sedation in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey in France (VOL'ICU 2 study).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the number of patients in ICUs leading to a worldwide shortage of the intravenous sedative agents obligating physicians to find alternatives including inhaled sedation. Inhaled sedation in French ICU has been previously explored in 2019 (VOL'ICU study). This survey was designed to explore the use of inhaled sedation two years after our first survey and to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the use of inhaled sedation. METHODS: We designed a national survey, contacting medical directors of French ICUs between June and October 2021. Over a 50-item questionnaire, the survey covered the characteristics of the ICU, data on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Answers were compared with the previous survey, VOL'ICU. RESULTS: Among the 405 ICUs contacted, 25% of the questionnaires were recorded. Most ICU directors (87%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 63% of them have an inhaled sedation's device in their unit. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of inhaled sedation in French ICUs. The main reasons said by the respondent were "need for additional sedative" (62%), "shortage of intravenous sedatives" (38%) and "involved in a clinical trial" (30%). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were "device not available" (76%), "lack of familiarity" (60%) and "no training for the teams" (58%). More than 70% of respondents were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 80% of respondents stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation for management of COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: The use of inhaled sedation in ICU has increased fastly in the last 2 years, and is frequently associated with a good satisfaction among the users. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted the widespread use of inhaled sedation, it represents an alternative to intravenous sedation for more and more physicians.

Epidemiology, risk factors and prognosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia during severe COVID-19: Multicenter observational study across 149 European Intensive Care Units.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation are particularly at risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Risk factors and the prognostic impact of developing VAP during critical COVID-19 have not been fully documented. METHODS: Patients invasively ventilated for at least 48 h from the prospective multicentre COVID-ICU database were included in the analyses. Cause-specific Cox regression models were used to determine factors associated with the occurrence of VAP. Cox-regression multivariable models were used to determine VAP prognosis. Risk factors and the prognostic impact of early vs. late VAP, and Pseudomonas-related vs. non-Pseudomonas-related VAP were also determined. MAIN FINDINGS: 3388 patients were analysed (63 [55-70] years, 75.8% males). VAP occurred in 1523/3388 (45.5%) patients after 7 [5-9] days of ventilation. Identified bacteria were mainly Enterobacteriaceae followed by Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. VAP risk factors were male gender (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.26, 95% Confidence Interval [1.09-1.46]), concomitant bacterial pneumonia at ICU admission (HR 1.36 [1.10-1.67]), PaO2/FiO2 ratio at intubation (HR 0.99 [0.98-0.99] per 10 mmHg increase), neuromuscular-blocking agents (HR 0.89 [0.76-0.998]), and corticosteroids (HR 1.27 [1.09-1.47]). VAP was associated with 90-mortality (HR 1.34 [1.16-1.55]), predominantly due to late VAP (HR 1.51 [1.26-1.81]). The impact of Pseudomonas-related and non-Pseudomonas-related VAP on mortality was similar. CONCLUSION: VAP affected almost half of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. Several risk factors have been identified, among which modifiable risk factors deserve further investigation. VAP had a specific negative impact on 90-day mortality, particularly when it occurred between the end of the first week and the third week of ventilation.

Effect of intravenous almitrine on intubation or mortality in patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Severe hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia might result from hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction, contributing to ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) mismatch. Because almitrine improves V/Q, it might reduce the risk for mechanical ventilation (MV) in such patients. Our primary objective was to determine the effect of almitrine on the need for MV at day 7. Methods: In a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial involving 15 ICUs, patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia and experiencing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were randomly assigned to receive 5 days of intravenous low-dose (2 µg.kg-1.min-1) almitrine or placebo. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation for MV or death within 7 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, number of ventilator-free days, number of days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04357457. Findings: Between September 3, 2020 and September 25, 2021 181 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to almitrine (n=89) or placebo (n=92). 179 patients (excluding two who withdrew from the study) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age: 60·1 years; 34% women) and analyzed. On day 7, the primary endpoint occurred in 32 patients assigned to almitrine (36%) and in 37 patients assigned to placebo (41%), for a difference of -4·3% (95% confidence interval: -18·7% to 10·2%). Secondary outcomes (28-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, ventilator-free days at day 28, days in the ICU and the hospital, and treatment discontinuation for pre-specified adverse effects) did not differ between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low-dose almitrine failed in reducing the need for MV or death at day 7. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (PHRC COVID 2020) funded by the French Ministry of Health, Les Laboratoires Servier (Suresnes, France) providing the study drug free of charge.

Occurrence of Candidemia in Patients with COVID-19 Admitted to Five ICUs in France.

Whether severe COVID-19 is by itself a significant risk factor for the development of candidemia currently remains an open question as conflicting results have been published. We aim to assess the occurrence of candidemia in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a retrospective study on patients with severe SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia admitted to 5 ICUs in France who were specifically screened for fungal complications between March 2020 and January 2021. The study population included a total of 264 patients; the median age was 56 years old and most of them were male (n = 186; 70.5%) and immunocompetent (n = 225; 87.5%), and 62.7% (n = 153/244) were on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Microbiological analysis included 4864 blood culture samples and beta-glucan test performed on 975 sera. Candidemia was diagnosed in 13 (4.9%) patients. The species involved were mainly C. albicans (n = 6) and C. parapsilosis (n = 5). Almost all patients (12/13; 92.3%) had a colonization by yeasts. ICU mortality was not significantly impacted by the occurrence of candidemia. Unrelated positive beta-glucan tests were observed in 49 patients (23.4%), including 6 with mold infections and 43 with false positive results. In our series, patients with severe SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia seemed at low risk of developing invasive candidiasis.

Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors among frontline health care workers in Paris: the SEROCOV cohort study.

With the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Among 1062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95% CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); current smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. The rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk.Trial registration The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04304690 first registered on 11/03/2020.

Design and Rationale of the Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SESAR) Randomized Controlled Trial.

Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics may have beneficial effects on injured lungs, and pilot clinical data support improved arterial oxygenation, attenuated inflammation, and decreased lung epithelial injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving inhaled sevoflurane compared to intravenous midazolam. Whether sevoflurane is effective in improving clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS is unknown, and the benefits and risks of inhaled sedation in ARDS require further evaluation. Here, we describe the SESAR (Sevoflurane for Sedation in ARDS) trial designed to address this question. SESAR is a two-arm, investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment designed to test the efficacy of sedation with sevoflurane compared to intravenous propofol in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and off the ventilator at 28 days, considering death as a competing event, and the key secondary outcome is 90 day survival. The planned enrollment is 700 adult participants at 37 French academic and non-academic centers. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated, and biomarker measurements will help better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and Sedana Medical.

One-year patient outcomes based on lung morphology in acute respiratory distress syndrome: secondary analysis of LIVE trial

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has different phenotypes and distinct short-term outcomes. Patients with non-focal ARDS have a higher short-term mortality than focal ones. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the morphological phenotypes of ARDS on long-term outcomes. Methods This was a secondary analysis of the LIVE study, a prospective, randomised control trial, assessing the usefulness of a personalised ventilator setting according to lung morphology in moderate-to-severe ARDS. ARDS was classified as focal (consolidations only in the infero-posterior part of the lungs) or non-focal. Outcomes were assessed using mortality and functional scores for quality of life at the 1-year follow-up. Results A total of 124 focal ARDS and 236 non-focal ARDS cases were included. The 1-year mortality was higher for non-focal ARDS than for focal ARDS (37% vs. 24%, p = 0.012). Non-focal ARDS (hazard ratio, 3.44;95% confidence interval, 1.80–6.59;p < 0.001), age, McCabe score, haematological cancers, SAPS II, and renal replacement therapy were independently associated with 1-year mortality. This difference was driven by mortality during the first 90 days (28 vs. 16%, p = 0.010) but not between 90 days and 1 year (7 vs. 6%, p = 0.591), at which point only the McCabe score was independently associated with mortality. Morphological phenotypes had no impact on patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion Lung morphologies reflect the acute phase of ARDS and its short-term impact but not long-term outcomes, which seem only influenced by comorbidities. Trial registration: NCT 02149589;May 29, 2014. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04036-7.

Treatment of COVID-19-associated ARDS with mesenchymal stromal cells: a multicenter randomized double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) causes high mortality. Umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) have potentially relevant immune-modulatory properties, whose place in ARDS treatment is not established. This phase 2b trial was undertaken to assess the efficacy of UC-MSCs in patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (STROMA-CoV-2) recruited adults (≥ 18 years) with SARS-CoV-2-induced early (< 96 h) mild-to-severe ARDS in 10 French centres. Patients were randomly assigned to receive three intravenous infusions of 106 UC-MSCs/kg or placebo (0.9% NaCl) over 5 days after recruitment. For the modified intention-to-treat population, the primary endpoint was the partial pressure of oxygen to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2)-ratio change between baseline (day (D) 0) and D7. RESULTS: Among the 107 patients screened for eligibility from April 6, 2020, to October 29, 2020, 45 were enrolled, randomized and analyzed. PaO2/FiO2 changes between D0 and D7 did not differ significantly between the UC-MSCs and placebo groups (medians [IQR] 54.3 [- 15.5 to 93.3] vs 25.3 [- 33.3 to 104.6], respectively; ANCOVA estimated treatment effect 7.4, 95% CI - 44.7 to 59.7; P = 0.77). Six (28.6%) of the 21 UC-MSCs recipients and six of 24 (25%) placebo-group patients experienced serious adverse events, none of which were related to UC-MSCs treatment. CONCLUSIONS: D0-to-D7 PaO2/FiO2 changes for intravenous UC-MSCs-versus placebo-treated adults with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS did not differ significantly. Repeated UC-MSCs infusions were not associated with any serious adverse events during treatment or thereafter (until D28). Larger trials enrolling patients earlier during the course of their ARDS are needed to further assess UC-MSCs efficacy in this context. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04333368. Registered 01 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/history/NCT04333368 .

Evolving outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for severe COVID-19 ARDS in Sorbonne hospitals, Paris.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was frequently used to treat patients with severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress (ARDS) during the initial outbreak. Care of COVID-19 patients evolved markedly during the second part of 2020. Our objective was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients who received ECMO for severe COVID-19 ARDS before or after July 1, 2020. METHODS: We included consecutive adults diagnosed with COVID-19 in Paris-Sorbonne University Hospital Network ICUs, who received ECMO for severe ARDS until January 28, 2021. Characteristics and survival probabilities over time were estimated during the first and second waves. Pre-ECMO risk factors predicting 90-day mortality were assessed using multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: Characteristics of the 88 and 71 patients admitted, respectively, before and after July 1, 2020, were comparable except for older age, more frequent use of dexamethasone (18% vs. 82%), high-flow nasal oxygenation (19% vs. 82%) and/or non-invasive ventilation (7% vs. 37%) after July 1. Respective estimated probabilities (95% confidence intervals) of 90-day mortality were 36% (27-47%) and 48% (37-60%) during the first and the second periods. After adjusting for confounders, probability of 90-day mortality was significantly higher for patients treated after July 1 (HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.02-5.07). ECMO-related complications did not differ between study periods. CONCLUSIONS: 90-day mortality of ECMO-supported COVID-19-ARDS patients increased significantly after July 1, 2020, and was no longer comparable to that of non-COVID ECMO-treated patients. Failure of prolonged non-invasive oxygenation strategies before intubation and increased lung damage may partly explain this outcome.

Use of volatile agents for sedation in the intensive care unit: A national survey in France.

BACKGROUND: Current intensive care unit (ICU) sedation guidelines recommend strategies using non-benzodiazepine sedatives. This survey was undertaken to explore inhaled ICU sedation practice in France. METHODS: In this national survey, medical directors of French adult ICUs were contacted by phone or email between July and August 2019. ICU medical directors were questioned about the characteristics of their department, their knowledge on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled sedation use in their department. RESULTS: Among the 374 ICUs contacted, 187 provided responses (50%). Most ICU directors (73%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 21% used inhaled sedation in their unit, mostly with the Anaesthetic Conserving Device (AnaConDa, Sedana Medical). Most respondents had used volatile agents for sedation for <5 years (63%) and in <20 patients per year (75%), with their main indications being: failure of intravenous sedation, severe asthma or bronchial obstruction, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Sevoflurane and isoflurane were mainly used (88% and 20%, respectively). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were: "device not available" (40%), "lack of medical interest" (37%), "lack of familiarity or knowledge about the technique" (35%) and "elevated cost" (21%). Most respondents (80%) were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 75% stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation. CONCLUSION: This survey highlights the widespread knowledge about inhaled ICU sedation in France but shows its limited use to date. Differences in education and knowledge, as well as the recent and relatively scarce literature on the use of volatile agents in the ICU, might explain the diverse practices that were observed. The low rate of mild adverse effects, as perceived by respondents, and the users' satisfaction, are promising for this potentially important tool for ICU sedation.

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.