Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 30
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.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 38(12): 1274-1283, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1700154

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilators, Mechanical
6.
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

7.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 772056, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1650404

ABSTRACT

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.

8.
Journal of critical care ; 68:31-37, 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1564742

ABSTRACT

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.

9.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 725265, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556062

ABSTRACT

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.

10.
J Crit Care ; 68: 31-37, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1556022

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Oximetry , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
11.
J Clin Med ; 10(22)2021 Nov 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1524047

ABSTRACT

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.

12.
J Clin Med ; 10(20)2021 Oct 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488624

ABSTRACT

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.

13.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(12): 1377-1386, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466986

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Aged , COVID-19/complications , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , SARS-CoV-2
14.
J Thorac Imaging ; 36(5): 286-293, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440700

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) frequently develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and need invasive ventilation. The potential to reaerate consolidated lung tissue in COVID-19-related ARDS is heavily debated. This study assessed the potential to reaerate lung consolidations in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS under invasive ventilation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who underwent chest computed tomography (CT) at low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and after a recruitment maneuver at high PEEP of 20 cm H2O. Lung reaeration, volume, and weight were calculated using both CT scans. CT scans were performed after intubation and start of ventilation (early CT), or after several days of intensive care unit admission (late CT). RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were analyzed. The median percentages of reaerated and nonaerated lung tissue were 19% [interquartile range, IQR: 10 to 33] and 11% [IQR: 4 to 15] for patients with early and late CT scans, respectively (P=0.049). End-expiratory lung volume showed a median increase of 663 mL [IQR: 483 to 865] and 574 mL [IQR: 292 to 670] after recruitment for patients with early and late CT scans, respectively (P=0.43). The median decrease in lung weight attributed to nonaerated lung tissue was 229 g [IQR: 165 to 376] and 171 g [IQR: 81 to 229] after recruitment for patients with early and late CT scans, respectively (P=0.16). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS undergoing invasive ventilation had substantial reaeration of lung consolidations after recruitment and ventilation at high PEEP. Higher PEEP can be considered in patients with reaerated lung consolidations when accompanied by improvement in compliance and gas exchange.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/diagnostic imaging , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnostic imaging , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
15.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 283, 2021 08 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1398871

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The intensity of ventilation, reflected by driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP), has an association with outcome in invasively ventilated patients with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is uncertain if a similar association exists in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with acute respiratory failure. METHODS: We aimed to investigate the impact of intensity of ventilation on patient outcome. The PRoVENT-COVID study is a national multicenter observational study in COVID-19 patients receiving invasive ventilation. Ventilator parameters were collected a fixed time points on the first calendar day of invasive ventilation. Mean dynamic ΔP and MP were calculated for individual patients at time points without evidence of spontaneous breathing. A Cox proportional hazard model, and a double stratification analysis adjusted for confounders were used to estimate the independent associations of ΔP and MP with outcome. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: In 825 patients included in this analysis, 28-day mortality was 27.5%. ΔP was not independently associated with mortality (HR 1.02 [95% confidence interval 0.88-1.18]; P = 0.750). MP, however, was independently associated with 28-day mortality (HR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01-1.36]; P = 0.031), and increasing quartiles of MP, stratified on comparable levels of ΔP, had higher risks of 28-day mortality (HR 1.15 [95% CI 1.01-1.30]; P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of critically ill invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure, we show an independent association of MP, but not ΔP with 28-day mortality. MP could serve as one prognostic biomarker in addition to ΔP in these patients. Efforts aiming at limiting both ΔP and MP could translate in a better outcome. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04346342).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality/trends , Respiration, Artificial/trends , Retrospective Studies , Tidal Volume/physiology
16.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 38(12): 1274-1283, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1303952

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilators, Mechanical
17.
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
19.
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).

20.
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
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL