Optimal Dosing and Timing of High-Dose Corticosteroid Therapy in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: Study Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Multicenter Study (SELECT).

BACKGROUND: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the dosing and timing of corticosteroids vary widely. Low-dose dexamethasone therapy reduces mortality in patients requiring respiratory support, but it remains unclear how to treat patients when this therapy fails. In critically ill patients, high-dose corticosteroids are often administered as salvage late in the disease course, whereas earlier administration may be more beneficial in preventing disease progression. Previous research has revealed that increased levels of various biomarkers are associated with mortality, and whole blood transcriptome sequencing has the ability to identify host factors predisposing to critical illness in patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: Our goal is to determine the most optimal dosing and timing of corticosteroid therapy and to provide a basis for personalized corticosteroid treatment regimens to reduce morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, multicenter study that includes adult patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in the Netherlands. We will use the differences in therapeutic strategies between hospitals (per protocol high-dose corticosteroids or not) over time to determine whether high-dose corticosteroids have an effect on the following outcome measures: mechanical ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula therapy, in-hospital mortality, and 28-day survival. We will also explore biomarker profiles in serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and use whole blood transcriptome analysis to determine factors that influence the relationship between high-dose corticosteroids and outcome. Existing databases that contain routinely collected electronic data during ward and intensive care admissions, as well as existing biobanks, will be used. We will apply longitudinal modeling appropriate for each data structure to answer the research questions at hand. RESULTS: As of April 2023, data have been collected for a total of 1500 patients, with data collection anticipated to be completed by December 2023. We expect the first results to be available in early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This study protocol presents a strategy to investigate the effect of high-dose corticosteroids throughout the entire clinical course of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, from hospital admission to the ward or intensive care unit until hospital discharge. Moreover, our exploration of biomarker and gene expression profiles for targeted corticosteroid therapy represents a first step towards personalized COVID-19 corticosteroid treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05403359; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05403359. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48183.

Closed-loop ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure-A case series.

BACKGROUND: INTELLiVENT-adaptive support ventilation (ASV) is an automated closed-loop mode of invasive ventilation for use in critically ill patients. INTELLiVENT-ASV automatically adjusts, without the intervention of the caregiver, ventilator settings to achieve the lowest work and force of breathing. AIMS: The aim of this case series is to describe the specific adjustments of INTELLiVENT-ASV in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, who were intubated for invasive ventilation. STUDY DESIGN: We describe three patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of COVID-19 who received invasive ventilation in our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: INTELLiVENT-ASV could be used successfully, but only after certain adjustments in the settings of the ventilator. Specifically, the high oxygen targets that are automatically chosen by INTELLiVENT-ASV when the lung condition 'ARDS' is ticked had to be lowered, and the titration ranges for positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2 ) had to be narrowed. CONCLUSION: The challenges taught us how to adjust the ventilator settings so that INTELLiVENT-ASV could be used in successive COVID-19 ARDS patients, and we experienced the benefits of this closed-loop ventilation in clinical practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: INTELLiVENT-ASV is attractive to use in clinical practice. It is safe and effective in providing lung-protective ventilation. A closely observing user always remains needed. INTELLiVENT-ASV has a strong potential to reduce the workload associated with ventilation because of the automated adjustments.

Incidence of Air Leaks in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to COVID-19.

Subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax and pneumomediastinum are well-known complications of invasive ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We determined the incidences of air leaks that were visible on available chest images in a cohort of critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) in a single-center cohort in the Netherlands. A total of 712 chest images from 154 patients were re-evaluated by a multidisciplinary team of independent assessors; there was a median of three (2-5) chest radiographs and a median of one (1-2) chest CT scans per patient. The incidences of subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothoraxes and pneumomediastinum present in 13 patients (8.4%) were 4.5%, 4.5%, and 3.9%. The median first day of the presence of an air leak was 18 (2-21) days after arrival in the ICU and 18 (9-22)days after the start of invasive ventilation. We conclude that the incidence of air leaks was high in this cohort of COVID-19 patients, but it was fairly comparable with what was previously reported in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the pre-COVID-19 era.

Oxygen Consumption with High-Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Mechanical Ventilation- An International Multicenter Observational Study in COVID-19 Patients (PROXY-COVID).

The COVID-19 pandemic led to local oxygen shortages worldwide. To gain a better understanding of oxygen consumption with different respiratory supportive therapies, we conducted an international multicenter observational study to determine the precise amount of oxygen consumption with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and with mechanical ventilation. A retrospective observational study was conducted in three intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands and Spain. Patients were classified as HFNO patients or ventilated patients, according to the mode of oxygen supplementation with which a patient started. The primary endpoint was actual oxygen consumption; secondary endpoints were hourly and total oxygen consumption during the first two full calendar days. Of 275 patients, 147 started with HFNO and 128 with mechanical ventilation. Actual oxygen use was 4.9-fold higher in patients who started with HFNO than in patients who started with ventilation (median 14.2 [8.4-18.4] versus 2.9 [1.8-4.1] L/minute; mean difference = 11.3 [95% CI 11.0-11.6] L/minute; P < 0.01). Hourly and total oxygen consumption were 4.8-fold (P < 0.01) and 4.8-fold (P < 0.01) higher. Actual oxygen consumption, hourly oxygen consumption, and total oxygen consumption are substantially higher in patients that start with HFNO compared with patients that start with mechanical ventilation. This information may help hospitals and ICUs predicting oxygen needs during high-demand periods and could guide decisions regarding the source of distribution of medical oxygen.

Prognostication using SpO2/FiO2 in invasively ventilated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 - Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study.

BACKGROUND: The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful oxygenation parameter with prognostic capacity in patients with ARDS. We investigated the prognostic capacity of SpO2/FiO2 for mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a national multicenter cohort study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: In 869 invasively ventilated patients, 28-day mortality was 30.1%. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 1 had no prognostic value. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 had prognostic capacity for death, with the best cut-offs being 179 and 199, respectively. Both SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 (OR, 0.66 [95%-CI 0.46-0.96]) and on day 3 (OR, 0.70 [95%-CI 0.51-0.96]) were associated with 28-day mortality in a model corrected for age, pH, lactate levels and kidney dysfunction (AUROC 0.78 [0.76-0.79]). The measured PaO2/FiO2 and the PaO2/FiO2 calculated from SpO2/FiO2 were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, the SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 are independently associated with and have prognostic capacity for 28-day mortality. The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful metric for risk stratification in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.

Practice of Awake Prone Positioning in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients-Insights from the PRoAcT-COVID Study.

We describe the incidence, practice and associations with outcomes of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national multicenter observational cohort study performed in 16 intensive care units in the Netherlands (PRoAcT−COVID-study). Patients were categorized in two groups, based on received treatment of awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint was practice of prone positioning. Secondary endpoint was 'treatment failure', a composite of intubation for invasive ventilation and death before day 28. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors. In 546 patients, awake prone positioning was used in 88 (16.1%) patients. Prone positioning started within median 1 (0 to 2) days after ICU admission, sessions summed up to median 12.0 (8.4−14.5) hours for median 1.0 day. In the unmatched analysis (HR, 1.80 (1.41−2.31); p < 0.001), but not in the matched analysis (HR, 1.17 (0.87−1.59); p = 0.30), treatment failure occurred more often in patients that received prone positioning. The findings of this study are that awake prone positioning was used in one in six COVID-19 patients. Prone positioning started early, and sessions lasted long but were often discontinued because of need for intubation.

Prone Positioning Decreases Inhomogeneity and Improves Dorsal Compliance in Invasively Ventilated Spontaneously Breathing COVID-19 Patients-A Study Using Electrical Impedance Tomography.

BACKGROUND: We studied prone positioning effects on lung aeration in spontaneously breathing invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: changes in lung aeration were studied prospectively by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) from before to after placing the patient prone, and back to supine. Mixed effect models with a random intercept and only fixed effects were used to evaluate changes in lung aeration. RESULTS: fifteen spontaneously breathing invasively ventilated patients were enrolled, and remained prone for a median of 19 [17 to 21] hours. At 16 h the global inhomogeneity index was lower. At 2 h, there were neither changes in dorsal nor in ventral compliance; after 16 h, only dorsal compliance (ßFe +18.9 [95% Confidence interval (CI): 9.1 to 28.8]) and dorsal end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) were increased (ßFe, +252 [95% CI: 13 to 496]); at 2 and 16 h, dorsal silent spaces was unchanged (ßFe, -4.6 [95% CI: -12.3 to +3.2]). The observed changes induced by prone positioning disappeared after turning patients back to supine. CONCLUSIONS: in this cohort of spontaneously breathing invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, prone positioning decreased inhomogeneity, increased lung volumes, and improved dorsal compliance.

Longitudinal respiratory subphenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: results from three observational cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been postulated to present with distinct respiratory subphenotypes. However, most phenotyping schema have been limited by sample size, disregard for temporal dynamics, and insufficient validation. We aimed to identify respiratory subphenotypes of COVID-19-related ARDS using unbiased data-driven approaches. METHODS: PRoVENT-COVID was an investigator-initiated, national, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study at 22 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients who had received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 (aged 18 years or older) served as the derivation cohort, and similar patients from two ICUs in the USA served as the replication cohorts. COVID-19 was confirmed by positive RT-PCR. We used latent class analysis to identify subphenotypes using clinically available respiratory data cross-sectionally at baseline, and longitudinally using 8-hourly data from the first 4 days of invasive ventilation. We used group-based trajectory modelling to evaluate trajectories of individual variables and to facilitate potential clinical translation. The PRoVENT-COVID study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, 1007 patients were admitted to participating ICUs in the Netherlands, and included in the derivation cohort. Data for 288 patients were included in replication cohort 1 and 326 in replication cohort 2. Cross-sectional latent class analysis did not identify any underlying subphenotypes. Longitudinal latent class analysis identified two distinct subphenotypes. Subphenotype 2 was characterised by higher mechanical power, minute ventilation, and ventilatory ratio over the first 4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation than subphenotype 1, but PaO2/FiO2, pH, and compliance of the respiratory system did not differ between the two subphenotypes. 185 (28%) of 671 patients with subphenotype 1 and 109 (32%) of 336 patients with subphenotype 2 had died at day 28 (p=0·10). However, patients with subphenotype 2 had fewer ventilator-free days at day 28 (median 0, IQR 0-15 vs 5, 0-17; p=0·016) and more frequent venous thrombotic events (109 [32%] of 336 patients vs 176 [26%] of 671 patients; p=0·048) compared with subphenotype 1. Group-based trajectory modelling revealed trajectories of ventilatory ratio and mechanical power with similar dynamics to those observed in latent class analysis-derived trajectory subphenotypes. The two trajectories were: a stable value for ventilatory ratio or mechanical power over the first 4 days of invasive mechanical ventilation (trajectory A) or an upward trajectory (trajectory B). However, upward trajectories were better independent prognosticators for 28-day mortality (OR 1·64, 95% CI 1·17-2·29 for ventilatory ratio; 1·82, 1·24-2·66 for mechanical power). The association between upward ventilatory ratio trajectories (trajectory B) and 28-day mortality was confirmed in the replication cohorts (OR 4·65, 95% CI 1·87-11·6 for ventilatory ratio in replication cohort 1; 1·89, 1·05-3·37 for ventilatory ratio in replication cohort 2). INTERPRETATION: At baseline, COVID-19-related ARDS has no consistent respiratory subphenotype. Patients diverged from a fairly homogenous to a more heterogeneous population, with trajectories of ventilatory ratio and mechanical power being the most discriminatory. Modelling these parameters alone provided prognostic value for duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. FUNDING: Amsterdam UMC.

The RALE Score Versus the CT Severity Score in Invasively Ventilated COVID-19 Patients-A Retrospective Study Comparing Their Prognostic Capacities.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative radiological scores for the extent and severity of pulmonary infiltrates based on chest radiography (CXR) and computed tomography (CT) scan are increasingly used in critically ill invasively ventilated patients. This study aimed to determine and compare the prognostic capacity of the Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) score and the chest CT Severity Score (CTSS) in a cohort of invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. METHODS: Two-center retrospective observational study, including consecutive invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. Trained scorers calculated the RALE score of first available CXR and the CTSS of the first available CT scan. The primary outcome was ICU mortality; secondary outcomes were duration of ventilation in survivors, length of stay in ICU, and hospital-, 28-, and 90-day mortality. Prognostic accuracy for ICU death was expressed using odds ratios and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (AUROC). RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were enrolled. The median RALE score (22 [15-37] vs. 26 [20-39]; p = 0.34) and the median CTSS (18 [16-21] vs. 21 [18-23]; p = 0.022) were both lower in ICU survivors compared to ICU non-survivors, although only the difference in CTSS reached statistical significance. While no association was observed between ICU mortality and RALE score (OR 1.35 [95%CI 0.64-2.84]; p = 0.417; AUC 0.50 [0.44-0.56], this was noticed with the CTSS (OR, 2.31 [1.22-4.38]; p = 0.010) although with poor prognostic capacity (AUC 0.64 [0.57-0.69]). The correlation between the RALE score and CTSS was weak (r2 = 0.075; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Despite poor prognostic capacity, only CTSS was associated with ICU mortality in our cohort of COVID-19 patients.

Low tidal volume ventilation is associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients-Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study.

PURPOSE: Low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) is associated with mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We investigated the association of LTVV with mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a national observational study in COVID-19 patients in the first wave of the pandemic. We compared COVID-19 patients that received LTVV, defined as controlled ventilation with a median tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg predicted body weight over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation, with patients that did not receive LTVV. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. In addition, we identified factors associated with use of LTVV. RESULTS: Of 903 patients, 294 (32.5%) received LTVV. Disease severity scores and ARDS classification was not different between the two patient groups. The primary endpoint, 28-day mortality, was met in 68 out of 294 patients (23.1%) that received LTVV versus in 193 out of 609 patients (31.7%) that did not receive LTVV (P < 0.001). LTVV was independently associated with 28-day mortality (HR, 0.68 (0.45 to 0.95); P = 0.025). Age, height, the initial tidal volume and continuous muscle paralysis was independently associated with use of LTVV. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, approximately a third of patients received LTVV. Use of LTVV was independently associated with reduced 28-day mortality. The initial tidal volume and continuous muscle paralysis were potentially modifiable factors associated with use of LTVV. These findings are important as they could help clinicians to recognize patients who are at risk of not receiving LTVV.

Clinical characteristics, physiological features, and outcomes associated with hypercapnia in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19---insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study.

PURPOSE: We determined the incidence of hypercapnia and associations with outcome in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Posthoc analysis of a national, multicenter, observational study in 22 ICUs. Patients were classified as 'hypercapnic' or 'normocapnic' in the first three days of invasive ventilation. Primary endpoint was prevalence of hypercapnia. Secondary endpoints were ventilator parameters, length of stay (LOS) in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU, hospital, at day 28 and 90. RESULTS: Of 824 patients, 485 (58.9%) were hypercapnic. Hypercapnic patients had a higher BMI and had COPD, severe ARDS and venous thromboembolic events more often. Hypercapnic patients were ventilated with lower tidal volumes, higher respiratory rates, higher driving pressures, and with more mechanical power of ventilation. Hypercapnic patients had comparable minute volumes but higher ventilatory ratios than normocapnic patients. In hypercapnic patients, ventilation and LOS in ICU and hospital was longer, but mortality was comparable to normocapnic patients. CONCLUSION: Hypercapnia occurs often in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. Main differences between hypercapnic and normocapnic patients are severity of ARDS, occurrence of venous thromboembolic events, and a higher ventilation ratio. Hypercapnia has an association with duration of ventilation and LOS in ICU and hospital, but not with mortality.

Sex Differences in Use of Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in COVID-19-Insights From the PRoVENT-COVID Study.

The purpose of this study was to compare and understand differences in the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) between females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is a post-hoc analysis of an observational study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 in 22 ICUs in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the use of LTVV, defined as having received a median tidal volume (VT) ≤6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) during controlled ventilation. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the impact of anthropometric factors, next to the impact of sex per se. The analysis included 934 patients, 251 females and 683 males. All the patients had ARDS, and there were no differences in ARDS severity between the sexes. On the first day of ventilation, females received ventilation with a higher median VT compared with males [6.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 6.0-7.6 vs. 6.3 (IQR 5.8-6.9) ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001]. Consequently, females received LTVV less often than males (23 vs. 34%; p = 0.003). The difference in the use of LTVV became smaller but persisted over the next days (27 vs. 36%; p = 0.046 at day 2 and 28 vs. 38%; p = 0.030 at day 3). The difference in the use LTVV was significantly mediated by sex per se [average direct effect of the female sex, 7.5% (95% CI, 1.7-13.3%); p = 0.011] and by differences in the body height [average causal mediation effect, -17.5% (-21.5 to -13.5%); p < 0.001], but not by the differences in actual body weight [average causal mediation effect, 0.2% (-0.8 to 1.2%); p = 0.715]. In conclusion, in this cohort of patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, females received LTVV less often than males in the first days of invasive ventilation. The difference in the use of LTVV was mainly driven by an anthropometric factor, namely, body height. Use of LTVV may improve by paying attention to correct titration of VT, which should be based on PBW, which is a function of body height.

Sex Differences in Use of Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in COVID-19—Insights From the PRoVENT–COVID Study

The purpose of this study was to compare and understand differences in the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) between females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is a post-hoc analysis of an observational study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 in 22 ICUs in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the use of LTVV, defined as having received a median tidal volume (VT) ≤6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) during controlled ventilation. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the impact of anthropometric factors, next to the impact of sex per se. The analysis included 934 patients, 251 females and 683 males. All the patients had ARDS, and there were no differences in ARDS severity between the sexes. On the first day of ventilation, females received ventilation with a higher median VT compared with males [6.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 6.0–7.6 vs. 6.3 (IQR 5.8–6.9) ml/kg PBW;p < 0.001]. Consequently, females received LTVV less often than males (23 vs. 34%;p = 0.003). The difference in the use of LTVV became smaller but persisted over the next days (27 vs. 36%;p = 0.046 at day 2 and 28 vs. 38%;p = 0.030 at day 3). The difference in the use LTVV was significantly mediated by sex per se [average direct effect of the female sex, 7.5% (95% CI, 1.7–13.3%);p = 0.011] and by differences in the body height [average causal mediation effect, −17.5% (−21.5 to −13.5%);p < 0.001], but not by the differences in actual body weight [average causal mediation effect, 0.2% (−0.8 to 1.2%);p = 0.715]. In conclusion, in this cohort of patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, females received LTVV less often than males in the first days of invasive ventilation. The difference in the use of LTVV was mainly driven by an anthropometric factor, namely, body height. Use of LTVV may improve by paying attention to correct titration of VT, which should be based on PBW, which is a function of body height.

Association of early positive end-expiratory pressure settings with ventilator-free days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A secondary analysis of the Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 study.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about how much positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a higher PEEP strategy is superior to a lower PEEP strategy regarding the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs). DESIGN: Multicentre observational study conducted from 1 March to 1 June 2020. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Twenty-two ICUs in The Netherlands and 933 invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were categorised retrospectively as having received invasive ventilation with higher (n=259) or lower PEEP (n=674), based on the high and low PEEP/FiO2 tables of the ARDS Network, and using ventilator settings and parameters in the first hour of invasive ventilation, and every 8 h thereafter at fixed time points during the first four calendar days. We also used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors that might influence outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of VFDs. Secondary outcomes included distant organ failures including acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, the higher PEEP strategy had no association with the median [IQR] number of VFDs (2.0 [0.0 to 15.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0 to 16.0] days). The median (95% confidence interval) difference was 0.21 (-3.34 to 3.78) days, P = 0.905. In the matched cohort, the higher PEEP group had an association with a lower median number of VFDs (0.0 [0.0 to 14.0] vs. 6.0 [0.0 to 17.0] days) a median difference of -4.65 (-8.92 to -0.39) days, P = 0.032. The higher PEEP strategy had associations with higher incidence of AKI (in the matched cohort) and more use of RRT (in the unmatched and matched cohorts). The higher PEEP strategy had no association with mortality. CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 ARDS, use of higher PEEP may be associated with a lower number of VFDs, and may increase the incidence of AKI and need for RRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.

The Prognostic Capacity of the Radiographic Assessment for Lung Edema Score in Patients With COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome-An International Multicenter Observational Study.

Background: The radiographic assessment for lung edema (RALE) score has an association with mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is uncertain whether the RALE scores at the start of invasive ventilation or changes thereof in the next days have prognostic capacities in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Aims and Objectives: To determine the prognostic capacity of the RALE score for mortality and duration of invasive ventilation in patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Methods: An international multicenter observational study included consecutive patients from 6 ICUs. Trained observers scored the first available chest X-ray (CXR) obtained within 48 h after the start of invasive ventilation ("baseline CXR") and each CXRs thereafter up to day 14 ("follow-up CXR"). The primary endpoint was mortality at day 90. The secondary endpoint was the number of days free from the ventilator and alive at day 28 (VFD-28). Results: A total of 350 CXRs were scored in 139 patients with COVID-19 ARDS. The RALE score of the baseline CXR was high and was not different between survivors and non-survivors (33 [24-38] vs. 30 [25-38], P = 0.602). The RALE score of the baseline CXR had no association with mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24 [95% CI 0.88-1.76]; P = 0.222; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.50 [0.40-0.60]). A change in the RALE score over the first 14 days of invasive ventilation, however, had an independent association with mortality (HR, 1.03 [95% CI 1.01-1.05]; P < 0.001). When the event of death was considered, there was no significant association between the RALE score of the baseline CXR and the probability of being liberated from the ventilator (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.99-1.04]; P = 0.08). Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with COVID-19 ARDS, with high RALE scores of the baseline CXR, the RALE score of the baseline CXR had no prognostic capacity, but an increase in the RALE score in the next days had an association with higher mortality.

Prognostication using SpO2/FiO2 in invasively ventilated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 – Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study☆

Background The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful oxygenation parameter with prognostic capacity in patients with ARDS. We investigated the prognostic capacity of SpO2/FiO2 for mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID–19. Methods This was a post-hoc analysis of a national multicenter cohort study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID–19. The primary endpoint was 28–day mortality. Results In 869 invasively ventilated patients, 28–day mortality was 30.1%. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 1 had no prognostic value. The SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 had prognostic capacity for death, with the best cut-offs being 179 and 199, respectively. Both SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 (OR, 0.66 [95%–CI 0.46–0.96]) and on day 3 (OR, 0.70 [95%–CI 0.51–0.96]) were associated with 28–day mortality in a model corrected for age, pH, lactate levels and kidney dysfunction (AUROC 0.78 [0.76–0.79]). The measured PaO2/FiO2 and the PaO2/FiO2 calculated from SpO2/FiO2 were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.79). Conclusions In this cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID–19, the SpO2/FiO2 on day 2 and day 3 are independently associated with and have prognostic capacity for 28–day mortality. The SpO2/FiO2 is a useful metric for risk stratification in invasively ventilated COVID–19 patients.

Association of Time-Varying Intensity of Ventilation With Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 ARDS: Secondary Analysis of the PRoVENT-COVID Study.

Background: High intensity of ventilation has an association with mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure. It is uncertain whether similar associations exist in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated the association of exposure to different levels of driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) with mortality in these patients. Methods: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, retrospective observational study, performed at 22 ICUs in the Netherlands, including COVID-19 patients under invasive ventilation for ARDS. Dynamic ΔP and MP were calculated at fixed time points during the first 4 calendar days of ventilation. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. To assess the effects of time-varying exposure, Bayesian joint models adjusted for confounders were used. Results: Of 1,122 patients included in the PRoVENT-COVID study, 734 were eligible for this analysis. In the first 28 days, 29.2% of patients died. A significant increase in the hazard of death was found to be associated with each increment in ΔP (HR 1.04, 95% CrI 1.01-1.07) and in MP (HR 1.12, 95% CrI 1.01-1.36). In sensitivity analyses, cumulative exposure to higher levels of ΔP or MP resulted in increased risks for 28-day mortality. Conclusion: Cumulative exposure to higher intensities of ventilation in COVID-19 patients with ARDS have an association with increased risk of 28-day mortality. Limiting exposure to high ΔP or MP has the potential to improve survival in these patients. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04346342.

Effect of INTELLiVENT-ASV versus Conventional Ventilation on Ventilation Intensity in Patients with COVID-19 ARDS-An Observational Study.

Driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) are associated with outcomes in critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). INTELLiVENT-ASV, a fully automated ventilatory mode, controls the settings that affect ΔP and MP. This study compared the intensity of ventilation (ΔP and MP) with INTELLiVENT-ASV versus conventional ventilation in a cohort of COVID-19 ARDS patients in two intensive care units in the Netherlands. The coprimary endpoints were ΔP and MP before and after converting from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV. Compared to conventional ventilation, INTELLiVENT-ASV delivered ventilation with a lower ΔP and less MP. With conventional ventilation, ΔP was 13 cmH2O, and MP was 21.5 and 24.8 J/min, whereas with INTELLiVENT-ASV, ΔP was 11 and 10 cmH2O (mean difference -2 cm H2O (95 %CI -2.5 to -1.2 cm H2O), p < 0.001) and MP was 18.8 and 17.5 J/min (mean difference -7.3 J/Min (95% CI -8.8 to -5.8 J/min), p < 0.001). Conversion from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV resulted in a lower intensity of ventilation. These findings may favor the use of INTELLiVENT-ASV in COVID-19 ARDS patients, but future studies remain needed to see if the reduction in the intensity of ventilation translates into clinical benefits.

Incidence and Practice of Early Prone Positioning in Invasively Ventilated COVID-19 Patients-Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID Observational Study.

We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%-the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5-21.0) hours per full calendar day-the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0-23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0-19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO2 which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76-1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62-1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80-1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73-1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO2. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.