ABSTRACT
Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has an established role in the management of the critically ill. Information and experience of its use in those with COVID-19 disease is still evolving. We undertook a review of cardiac and thoracic ultrasound examinations in patients with COVID-19 on the intensive care unit (ICU). Our aim was to report key findings and their impact on patient management. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of critically ill patients with COVID-19 was undertaken in three adult ICUs, who received point-of-care cardiac and/or thoracic ultrasound during the 2019-2020 COVID-19 pandemic. We recorded baseline demographic data, principal findings, change in clinical management and outcome data. Results: A total of 55 transthoracic echocardiographic examinations scans were performed on 35 patients. 35/55 (64%) echocardiograms identified an abnormality, most commonly a dilated or impaired right ventricle (RV) and 39/55 (70%) scans resulted in a change in management. Nine patients (26%) were found to have pulmonary arterial thrombosis on CTPA or post-mortem. More than 50% of these patients showed evidence of right ventricular dilatation or impairment. Of the patients who were known to have pulmonary arterial thrombosis and died, 83% had evidence of right ventricular dilatation or impairment. 32 thoracic ultrasound scans were performed on 23 patients. Lung sliding and pleural thickening were present bilaterally in all studies. Multiple B-lines were present in all studies, and sub-pleural consolidation was present bilaterally in 72%. Conclusion: POCUS is able to provide useful and clinically relevant information in those critically ill with COVID-19 infection, resulting in change in management in a high proportion of patients. Common findings in this group are RV dysfunction, multiple B-lines and sub-pleural consolidation.
ABSTRACT
Importance: In patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. Objective: To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. Results: Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, -7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, -2.1 [95% CI, -3.8 to -0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02654327.