Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
Journal of critical care ; 70:154047-154047, 2022.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1814674

ABSTRACT

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.

2.
J Crit Care ; 69: 154022, 2022 Mar 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1768292

ABSTRACT

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.

3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 780005, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1753375

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
Frontiers in medicine ; 8, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1743570

ABSTRACT

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.

5.
EuropePMC;
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-328719

ABSTRACT

Background: Increasing evidence indicates the potential benefits of restricted fluid management in critically ill patients. Evidence lacks on the optimal fluid management strategy for invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesized that the cumulative fluid balance would affect the successful liberation of invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: We analyzed data from the multicenter observational ‘PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19 patients’ (PRoVENT-COVID) study. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 and ARDS who required invasive ventilation during the first 3 months of the international outbreak (March 1, 2020, to June 2020) across 22 hospitals in the Netherlands were included. The primary outcome was successful liberation of invasive ventilation, modeled as a function of day 3 cumulative fluid balance using Cox proportional hazards models, using the crude and the adjusted association. Sensitivity analyses without missing data and modeling ARDS severity were performed. Results: Among 650 patients, three groups were identified. Patients in the higher, intermediate and lower groups had a median cumulative fluid balance of 1.98 liters (1.27-7.72 liter), 0.78 liter (0.26-1.27 liter) and –0.35 liter (–6.52-0.26 liter), respectively. Higher day 3 cumulative fluid balance was significantly associated with a lower probability of successful ventilation liberation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.94, P = 0.0013). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Conclusions: In a cohort of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, a higher cumulative fluid balance was associated with a longer ventilation duration, indicating that restricted fluid management in these patients may be beneficial. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04346342);Date of registration: April 15, 2020

6.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324910

ABSTRACT

Background: The use of angiotensin II (ANGII) in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients is controversial. Its effect on markers of organ function is unknown. Methods: We used ANGII either as rescue vasopressor agent or as low dose vasopressor support. Patients treated before ANGII availability or in an adjacent COVID-19 ICU served as controls. For data analysis, we applied Bayesian modelling as appropriate. We assessed the effects of ANG on markers of organ function. Results: We compared 46 ANGII patients with 53 controls. Compared with controls, ANGII increased MAP (median difference, 9.05 mmHg [95% confidence interval, 1.87 to 16.22];p = 0.013) and PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio (median difference, 23.17 [95% confidence interval, 3.46 to 42.88];p = 0.021). ANGII had no effect on lactate, urinary output, serum creatinine, C-Reactive protein, platelet count, or thromboembolic complications. However, it significantly decreased the odd ratio of liver dysfunction (odds ratio: 0.32;0.09 to 0.94) and, on Bayesian modelling, in patients with abnormal baseline serum creatinine, ANGII carried a 95.7% probability of decreasing renal replacement therapy use. Conclusions: In ventilated COVID-19 patients, ANGII therapy was associated with increased blood pressure and PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratios, decreased odds ratio of liver dysfunction, and a high probability of decreasing renal replacement therapy use in patients with abnormal baseline serum creatinine.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-317368

ABSTRACT

Background: Surrogates for impaired ventilation such as estimated dead-space fractions and the ventilatory ratio have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19 related ARDS. Methods: : Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of impaired ventilation patients with COVID-19 related ARDS. Results: : 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 related ARDS were included in this study. Surrogates of impaired ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris-Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p <0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO 2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p<0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris-Benedict and by direct estimation, and for the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO 2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the surrogates of impaired ventilation measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality. Conclusions: : There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19 related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk-model.

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-317358

ABSTRACT

Background: We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: : We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (2019 to March 2021) for patients aged 18 years or older, who had COVID-19 and were treated with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo or standard of care. We also searched the WHO Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing and recently completed studies, and the reference lists of selected articles and reviews for possible relevant studies, with no restrictions regarding language or publication status. Random-effects models were used to obtain pooled mean differences of treatment effect on mortality, and serious adverse effects between hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the control group (standard of care or placebo);heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 and the Cochran´s Q statistic. Results: : Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in mortality rate between patients treated with HCQ compared to standard of care or placebo (16.7% vs. 18.5%;pooled risk ratio 1.09;95%CI: 0.99-1.19). Also, therate of serious adverse effects was similar between both groups, HCQ and control (3.7% vs. 2.9%;pooled risk ratio 1.22;95%CI: 0.76-1.96). Conclusion: Hydroxychloroquine is not efficacious in reducing mortality of COVID-19 patients. Systematic review registration: Prospero database, registration number: CRD42020197070.

9.
Critical Care Medicine ; 50:126-126, 2022.
Article in English | Academic Search Complete | ID: covidwho-1594673

ABSTRACT

This is the first study showing that the application of a subphenotype strategy employing only widely available clinical variables is feasible in a cohort of COVID-19 ARDS patients. B Introduction/Hypothesis: b Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition. B Conclusions: b When applying subphenotypes previously found in ARDS cohorts to COVID-19 patients with ARDS, the same differential clinical, laboratorial and outcome characteristics were observed. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Critical Care Medicine is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

11.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 382, 2021 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1506095

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are few reports of new functional impairment following critical illness from COVID-19. We aimed to describe the incidence of death or new disability, functional impairment and changes in health-related quality of life of patients after COVID-19 critical illness at 6 months. METHODS: In a nationally representative, multicenter, prospective cohort study of COVID-19 critical illness, we determined the prevalence of death or new disability at 6 months, the primary outcome. We measured mortality, new disability and return to work with changes in the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS) and health status with the EQ5D-5LTM. RESULTS: Of 274 eligible patients, 212 were enrolled from 30 hospitals. The median age was 61 (51-70) years, and 124 (58.5%) patients were male. At 6 months, 43/160 (26.9%) patients died and 42/108 (38.9%) responding survivors reported new disability. Compared to pre-illness, the WHODAS percentage score worsened (mean difference (MD), 10.40% [95% CI 7.06-13.77]; p < 0.001). Thirteen (11.4%) survivors had not returned to work due to poor health. There was a decrease in the EQ-5D-5LTM utility score (MD, - 0.19 [- 0.28 to - 0.10]; p < 0.001). At 6 months, 82 of 115 (71.3%) patients reported persistent symptoms. The independent predictors of death or new disability were higher severity of illness and increased frailty. CONCLUSIONS: At six months after COVID-19 critical illness, death and new disability was substantial. Over a third of survivors had new disability, which was widespread across all areas of functioning. Clinical trial registration NCT04401254 May 26, 2020.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Critical Illness/epidemiology , Disabled Persons , Recovery of Function/physiology , Return to Work/trends , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Status , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Prospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome
12.
J Crit Care ; 65: 237-245, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300867

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID-19 ARDS patients. METHODS: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe' at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4. RESULTS: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28-day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of COVID-19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Lung , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Ann Transl Med ; 9(9): 813, 2021 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1257379

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may need hospitalization for supplemental oxygen, and some need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for escalation of care. Practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments remain uncertain and may vary widely between countries, within countries between hospitals, and possibly even within ICUs. We aim to investigate practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments, and their associations with outcome, in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: The 'PRactice of Adjunctive Treatments in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019' (PRoAcT-COVID) study is a national, observational study to be undertaken in a large set of ICUs in The Netherlands. The PRoAcT-COVID includes consecutive ICU patients, admitted because of COVID-19 to one of the participating ICUs during a 3-month period. Daily follow-up lasts 28 days. The primary endpoint is a combination of adjunctive treatments, including types of oxygen support, ventilation, rescue therapies for hypoxemia refractory to supplementary oxygen or during invasive ventilation, other adjunctive and supportive treatments, and experimental therapies. We will also collect tracheostomy rate, duration of invasive ventilation and ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), ICU and hospital length of stay, and the mortality rates in the ICU, hospital and at day 90. DISCUSSION: The PRoAcT-COVID study is an observational study combining high density treatment data with relevant clinical outcomes. Information on treatment practices, and their associations with outcomes in COVID-19 patients in highly and urgently needed. The results of the PRoAcT-COVID study will be rapidly available, and circulated through online presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in peer-reviewed journals-findings will also be presented at a dedicated website. At request, and after agreement of the PRoAcT-COVID steering committee, source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PRoAcT-COVID study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04719182).

15.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 171, 2021 05 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1232432

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Estimates for dead space ventilation have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19-related ARDS. METHODS: Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicenter, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of wasted ventilation in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. RESULTS: A total of 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in this study. Estimations of wasted ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris-Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p < 0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris-Benedict and by direct estimation, and with an increase in the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the dead space estimates measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19-related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04346342. Registered 15 April 2020. Retrospectively registered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Patient Acuity , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Dead Space , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Adult , Biomarkers , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Prognosis , ROC Curve , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Function Tests , Respiratory Mechanics , Retrospective Studies
16.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(2): 139-148, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1199179

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak. METHODS: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). FINDINGS: Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7-7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0-15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2-16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0-39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0-15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
18.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(2): 139-148, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065695

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak. METHODS: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). FINDINGS: Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7-7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0-15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2-16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0-39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0-15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
19.
Ann Transl Med ; 8(19): 1251, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-994852

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is rapidly expanding across the world, with more than 100,000 new cases each day as of end-June 2020. Healthcare workers are struggling to provide the best care for COVID-19 patients. Approaches for invasive ventilation vary widely between and within countries and new insights are acquired rapidly. We aim to investigate invasive ventilation practices and outcome in COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands. METHODS: PRoVENT-COVID ('study of PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19') is an investigator-initiated national, multicenter observational study to be undertaken in intensive care units (ICUs) in The Netherlands. Consecutive COVID-19 patients aged 18 years or older, who are receiving invasive ventilation in the participating ICUs, are to be enrolled during a 10-week period, with a daily follow-up of 7 days. The primary outcome is ventilatory management (including tidal volume expressed as mL/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure expressed as cmH2O) during the first 3 days of ventilation. Secondary outcomes include other ventilatory variables, use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia such as prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, use of sedatives, vasopressors and inotropes; daily cumulative fluid balances; acute kidney injury; ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), duration of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital and 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: PRoVENT-COVID will be the largest observational study to date, with high density ventilatory data and major outcomes. There is urgent need for a better understanding of ventilation practices, and the effects of ventilator settings on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The results of PRoVENT-COVID will be rapidly disseminated through electronic presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in international peer-reviewed journals. Access to source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets on request, and after agreement of the PRoVENT-COVID steering committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRoVENT-COVID is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT04346342).

20.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(12): 2157-2167, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-911887

ABSTRACT

Care for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has changed considerably over the 50 years since its original description. Indeed, standards of care continue to evolve as does how this clinical entity is defined and how patients are grouped and treated in clinical practice. In this narrative review we discuss current standards - treatments that have a solid evidence base and are well established as targets for usual care - and also evolving standards - treatments that have promise and may become widely adopted in the future. We focus on three broad domains of ventilatory management, ventilation adjuncts, and pharmacotherapy. Current standards for ventilatory management include limitation of tidal volume and airway pressure and standard approaches to setting PEEP, while evolving standards might focus on limitation of driving pressure or mechanical power, individual titration of PEEP, and monitoring efforts during spontaneous breathing. Current standards in ventilation adjuncts include prone positioning in moderate-severe ARDS and veno-venous extracorporeal life support after prone positioning in patients with severe hypoxemia or who are difficult to ventilate. Pharmacotherapy current standards include corticosteroids for patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 and employing a conservative fluid strategy for patients not in shock; evolving standards may include steroids for ARDS not related to COVID-19, or specific biological agents being tested in appropriate sub-phenotypes of ARDS. While much progress has been made, certainly significant work remains to be done and we look forward to these future developments.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Standard of Care/trends , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Fluid Therapy/methods , Fluid Therapy/trends , Humans , Prone Position/physiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL