Usefulness and limitations of the acute respiratory distress syndrome definitions in non-intubated patients. A narrative review

According to the Berlin Definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of at least 5 cmH2O is required to diagnose and grade ARDS. While the Berlin consensus statement specifically acknowledges the role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in mild ARDS, this stratification has traditionally presumed a mechanically ventilated patient in the context of moderate to severe ARDS. This may not accurately reflect today's reality of clinical respiratory care. NIV and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNO) have been used for managing of severe forms of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with growing frequency, including in patients showing pathophysiological signs of ARDS. This became especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. The levels of PEEP achieved with HFNO have been particularly controversial, and the exact FiO2 it achieves is subject to variability. Pinpointing the presence of ARDS in patients receiving HNFO and the severity in those receiving NIV therefore remains methodically problematic. This narrative review highlights the evolution of the ARDS definition in the context of non-invasive ventilatory support and provides an overview of the parallel development of definitions and ventilatory management of ARDS. It summarizes the methodology applied in clinical trials to classify ARDS in non-intubated patients and the respective consequences on treatment. As ARDS severity has significant therapeutic and prognostic consequences, and earlier treatment in non-intubated patients may be beneficial, closing this knowledge gap may ultimately be a relevant step to improve comparability in clinical trial design and outcomes.

Usefulness and limitations of the acute respiratory distress syndrome definitions in non-intubated patients. A narrative review.

According to the Berlin Definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of at least 5 cmH2O is required to diagnose and grade ARDS. While the Berlin consensus statement specifically acknowledges the role of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in mild ARDS, this stratification has traditionally presumed a mechanically ventilated patient in the context of moderate to severe ARDS. This may not accurately reflect today's reality of clinical respiratory care. NIV and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNO) have been used for managing of severe forms of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure with growing frequency, including in patients showing pathophysiological signs of ARDS. This became especially relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. The levels of PEEP achieved with HFNO have been particularly controversial, and the exact FiO2 it achieves is subject to variability. Pinpointing the presence of ARDS in patients receiving HNFO and the severity in those receiving NIV therefore remains methodically problematic. This narrative review highlights the evolution of the ARDS definition in the context of non-invasive ventilatory support and provides an overview of the parallel development of definitions and ventilatory management of ARDS. It summarizes the methodology applied in clinical trials to classify ARDS in non-intubated patients and the respective consequences on treatment. As ARDS severity has significant therapeutic and prognostic consequences, and earlier treatment in non-intubated patients may be beneficial, closing this knowledge gap may ultimately be a relevant step to improve comparability in clinical trial design and outcomes.

The systemic renin-angiotensin system in COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 gains cell entry via angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) 2, a membrane-bound enzyme of the "alternative" (alt) renin-angiotensin system (RAS). ACE2 counteracts angiotensin II by converting it to potentially protective angiotensin 1-7. Using mass spectrometry, we assessed key metabolites of the classical RAS (angiotensins I-II) and alt-RAS (angiotensins 1-7 and 1-5) pathways as well as ACE and ACE2 concentrations in 159 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, stratified by disease severity (severe, n = 76; non-severe: n = 83). Plasma renin activity (PRA-S) was calculated as the sum of RAS metabolites. We estimated ACE activity using the angiotensin II:I ratio (ACE-S) and estimated systemic alt-RAS activation using the ratio of alt-RAS axis metabolites to PRA-S (ALT-S). We applied mixed linear models to assess how PRA-S and ACE/ACE2 concentrations affected ALT-S, ACE-S, and angiotensins II and 1-7. Median angiotensin I and II levels were higher with severe versus non-severe COVID-19 (angiotensin I: 86 versus 30 pmol/L, p < 0.01; angiotensin II: 114 versus 58 pmol/L, p < 0.05), demonstrating activation of classical RAS. The difference disappeared with analysis limited to patients not taking a RAS inhibitor (angiotensin I: 40 versus 31 pmol/L, p = 0.251; angiotensin II: 76 versus 99 pmol/L, p = 0.833). ALT-S in severe COVID-19 increased with time (days 1-6: 0.12; days 11-16: 0.22) and correlated with ACE2 concentration (r = 0.831). ACE-S was lower in severe versus non-severe COVID-19 (1.6 versus 2.6; p < 0.001), but ACE concentrations were similar between groups and correlated weakly with ACE-S (r = 0.232). ACE2 and ACE-S trajectories in severe COVID-19, however, did not differ between survivors and non-survivors. Overall RAS alteration in severe COVID-19 resembled severity of disease-matched patients with influenza. In mixed linear models, renin activity most strongly predicted angiotensin II and 1-7 levels. ACE2 also predicted angiotensin 1-7 levels and ALT-S. No single factor or the combined model, however, could fully explain ACE-S. ACE2 and ACE-S trajectories in severe COVID-19 did not differ between survivors and non-survivors. In conclusion, angiotensin II was elevated in severe COVID-19 but was markedly influenced by RAS inhibitors and driven by overall RAS activation. ACE-S was significantly lower with severe COVID-19 and did not correlate with ACE concentrations. A shift to the alt-RAS axis because of increased ACE2 could partially explain the relative reduction in angiotensin II levels.

Intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins in critical COVID-19: a multicentre propensity-weighted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A profound inflammation-mediated lung injury with long-term acute respiratory distress and high mortality is one of the major complications of critical COVID-19. Immunoglobulin M (IgM)-enriched immunoglobulins seem especially capable of mitigating the inflicted inflammatory harm. However, the efficacy of intravenous IgM-enriched preparations in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is largely unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentric cohort study, 316 patients with laboratory-confirmed critical COVID-19 were treated in ten German and Austrian ICUs between May 2020 and April 2021. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Analysis was performed by Cox regression models. Covariate adjustment was performed by propensity score weighting using machine learning-based SuperLearner to overcome the selection bias due to missing randomization. In addition, a subgroup analysis focusing on different treatment regimens and patient characteristics was performed. RESULTS: Of the 316 ICU patients, 146 received IgM-enriched immunoglobulins and 170 cases did not, which served as controls. There was no survival difference between the two groups in terms of mortality at 30 days in the overall cohort (HRadj: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.25; p = 0.374). An improved 30-day survival in patients without mechanical ventilation at the time of the immunoglobulin treatment did not reach statistical significance (HRadj: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.08; p = 0.063). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed in the subgroup when a daily dose of ≥ 15 g and a duration of ≥ 3 days of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins were applied (HRadj: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.03; p = 0.068). CONCLUSIONS: Although we cannot prove a statistically reliable effect of intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins, the confidence intervals may suggest a clinically relevant effect in certain subgroups. Here, an early administration (i.e. in critically ill but not yet mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients) and a dose of ≥ 15 g for at least 3 days may confer beneficial effects without concerning safety issues. However, these findings need to be validated in upcoming randomized clinical trials. Trial registration DRKS00025794 , German Clinical Trials Register, https://www.drks.de . Registered 6 July 2021.

Duration of invasive mechanical ventilation prior to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is not associated with survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by coronavirus disease 2019

BackgroundDuration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) prior to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) affects outcome in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS, the role of pre-ECMO IMV duration is unclear. This single-centre, retrospective study included critically ill adults treated with ECMO due to severe COVID-19-related ARDS between 01/2020 and 05/2021. The primary objective was to determine whether duration of IMV prior to ECMO cannulation influenced ICU mortality.ResultsDuring the study period, 101 patients (mean age 56 [SD ± 10] years;70 [69%] men;median RESP score 2 [IQR 1–4]) were treated with ECMO for COVID-19. Sixty patients (59%) survived to ICU discharge. Median ICU length of stay was 31 [IQR 20.7–51] days, median ECMO duration was 16.4 [IQR 8.7–27.7] days, and median time from intubation to ECMO start was 7.7 [IQR 3.6–12.5] days. Fifty-three (52%) patients had a pre-ECMO IMV duration of > 7 days. Pre-ECMO IMV duration had no effect on survival (p = 0.95). No significant difference in survival was found when patients with a pre-ECMO IMV duration of < 7 days (< 10 days) were compared to ≥ 7 days (≥ 10 days) (p = 0.59 and p = 1.0).ConclusionsThe role of prolonged pre-ECMO IMV duration as a contraindication for ECMO in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS should be scrutinised. Evaluation for ECMO should be assessed on an individual and patient-centred basis.

The Renin-Angiotensin System as a Component of Biotrauma in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major concern in critical care medicine with a high mortality of over 30%. Injury to the lungs is caused not only by underlying pathological conditions such as pneumonia, sepsis, or trauma, but also by ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) resulting from high positive pressure levels and a high inspiratory oxygen fraction. Apart from mechanical factors that stress the lungs with a specific physical power and cause volutrauma and barotrauma, it is increasingly recognized that lung injury is further aggravated by biological mediators. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased interest in the role of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in the context of ARDS, as the RAS enzyme angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 serves as the primary cell entry receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (CoV)-2. Even before this pandemic, studies have documented the involvement of the RAS in VILI and its dysregulation in clinical ARDS. In recent years, analytical tools for RAS investigation have made major advances based on the optimized precision and detail of mass spectrometry. Given that many clinical trials with pharmacological interventions in ARDS were negative, RAS-modifying drugs may represent an interesting starting point for novel therapeutic approaches. Results from animal models have highlighted the potential of RAS-modifying drugs to prevent VILI or treat ARDS. While these drugs have beneficial pulmonary effects, the best targets and application forms for intervention still have to be determined to avoid negative effects on the circulation in clinical settings.

[Recommendations for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 Patients]. / Empfehlungen für ECMO bei COVID-19-Patienten: Consensus Paper zur Extrakorporalen Membranoxygenierung der Medizinischen Universität Wien.

The pandemic from the SARS-CoV­2 Virus is currently challenging health care systems all over the world. Maintaining appropriate staffing and resources in healthcare facilities is essential to guarantee a safe work environment for healthcare personnel and safe patient care. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents a valuable therapeutic option in patients with severe heart or lung failure. Although only a limited proportion of COVID-19 patients develops respiratory or circulatory failure that is refractory to conventional therapies, it is of utmost importance to clearly define criteria for the use of ECMOs in this steadily growing patient population. The ECMO working group of the Medical University of Vienna has established the following recommendations for ECMO support in COVID-19 patients.

Safety and preliminary efficacy of sequential multiple ascending doses of solnatide to treat pulmonary permeability edema in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS-a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a complex clinical diagnosis with various possible etiologies. One common feature, however, is pulmonary permeability edema, which leads to an increased alveolar diffusion pathway and, subsequently, impaired oxygenation and decarboxylation. A novel inhaled peptide agent (AP301, solnatide) was shown to markedly reduce pulmonary edema in animal models of ARDS and to be safe to administer to healthy humans in a Phase I clinical trial. Here, we present the protocol for a Phase IIB clinical trial investigating the safety and possible future efficacy endpoints in ARDS patients. METHODS: This is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind intervention study. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS in need of mechanical ventilation will be randomized to parallel groups receiving escalating doses of solnatide or placebo, respectively. Before advancing to a higher dose, a data safety monitoring board will investigate the data from previous patients for any indication of patient safety violations. The intervention (application of the investigational drug) takes places twice daily over the course of 7 days, ensued by a follow-up period of another 21 days. DISCUSSION: The patients to be included in this trial will be severely sick and in need of mechanical ventilation. The amount of data to be collected upon screening and during the course of the intervention phase is substantial and the potential timeframe for inclusion of any given patient is short. However, when prepared properly, adherence to this protocol will make for the acquisition of reliable data. Particular diligence needs to be exercised with respect to informed consent, because eligible patients will most likely be comatose and/or deeply sedated at the time of inclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the EU Clinical trials register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu). EudraCT Number: 2017-003855-47 .

SARS-CoV-2: recommendations for treatment in intensive care medicine.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progresses mildly in most of the cases; however, about 5% of the patients develop a severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Of all COVID-19 patients 3% need intensive care treatment, which becomes a great challenge for anesthesiology and intensive care medicine, medically, hygienically and for technical safety requirements. For these reasons, only experienced medical and nursing staff in the smallest grouping possible should be assigned. For these team members, a consistent use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential.Due to the immense medical challenges, the following treatment guidelines were developed by the ÖGARI (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie, Reanimation und Intensivmedizin), FASIM (Federation of Austrian Societies of Intensive Care Medicine) and ÖGIAIN (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Internistische und Allgemeine Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin).The recommendations given in this article are to be understood as short snapshots of the moment; all basic guidelines are works in progress and will be regularly updated as evidence levels, new study results and additional experience are gathered.

Recommendations for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in COVID-19 patients : Consensus paper of the Medical University of Vienna.

The pandemic from the SARS-CoV­2 virus is currently challenging healthcare systems all over the world. Maintaining appropriate staffing and resources in healthcare facilities is essential to guarantee a safe working environment for healthcare personnel and safe patient care. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents a valuable therapeutic option in patients with severe heart or lung failure. Although only a limited proportion of COVID-19 patients develop respiratory or circulatory failure that is refractory to conventional treatment, it is of utmost importance to clearly define criteria for the use of ECMO in this steadily growing patient population. The ECMO working group of the Medical University of Vienna has established the following recommendations for ECMO support in COVID-19 patients.