ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The impact of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) on outcomes of patients with respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unknown. We sought to assess whether exposure to HFNC before intubation was associated with successful extubation and in-hospital mortality compared to patients receiving intubation only. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study examined patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure from March 2020 to March 2021 who required HFNC, intubation, or both. Data were abstracted from the electronic health record. Use and duration of HFNC and intubation were examined' as well as demographics and clinical characteristics. We assessed the association between HFNC before intubation (versus without) and chance of successful extubation and in-hospital death using Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, prior chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, HCO 3 , CO 2 , oxygen-saturation-to-inspired-oxygen (S:F) ratio, pulse, respiratory rate, temperature, and length of stay before intervention. RESULTS: A total of n = 440 patients were identified, of whom 311 (70.7%) received HFNC before intubation, and 129 (29.3%) were intubated without prior use of HFNC. Patients who received HFNC before intubation had a higher chance of in-hospital death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-4.05). No difference was found in the chance of successful extubation between the 2 groups (0.70, 0.41-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation, patients receiving HFNC before intubation had a higher chance of in-hospital death. Decisions on initial respiratory support modality should weigh the risks of intubation with potential increased mortality associated with HFNC.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency , Ventilators, Mechanical , Noninvasive Ventilation/adverse effects , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/adverse effects , Cannula , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intubation, IntratrachealABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous studies linked a high intensity of ventilation, measured as mechanical power, to mortality in patients suffering from "classic" ARDS. By contrast, mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 may present with intact pulmonary mechanics while undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time. We investigated whether an association between higher mechanical power and mortality is modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective study included critically ill, adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h between March 2020 and December 2021 at a tertiary healthcare facility in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary exposure was median mechanical power during the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation, calculated using a previously validated formula. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. As co-primary analysis, we investigated whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 modified the primary association. We further investigated the association between mechanical power and days being alive and ventilator free and effect modification of this by a diagnosis of COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, effect modification and negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, severity of disease and in-hospital factors, were applied. RESULTS: 1,737 mechanically ventilated patients were included, 411 (23.7%) suffered from COVID-19. 509 (29.3%) died within 30 days. The median mechanical power during the first 24 h of ventilation was 19.3 [14.6-24.0] J/min in patients with and 13.2 [10.2-18.0] J/min in patients without COVID-19. A higher mechanical power was associated with 30-day mortality (ORadj 1.26 per 1-SD, 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI 1.09-1.46; p = 0.002). Effect modification and interaction analysis did not support that this association was modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.38; p-for-interaction = 0.68). A higher mechanical power was associated with a lower number of days alive and ventilator free until day 28 (IRRadj 0.83 per 7.1 J/min increase; 95% CI 0.75-0.91; p < 0.001, adjusted risk difference - 2.7 days per 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI - 4.1 to - 1.3). CONCLUSION: A higher mechanical power is associated with elevated 30-day mortality. While patients with COVID-19 received mechanical ventilation with higher mechanical power, this association was independent of a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Rationale: The most beneficial positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection strategy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown, and current practice is variable. Objectives: To compare the relative effects of different PEEP selection strategies on mortality in adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Methods: We conducted a network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation methodology. Measurements and Main Results: We included 18 randomized trials (4,646 participants). Compared with a lower PEEP strategy, the posterior probability of mortality benefit from a higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuver (LRM) strategy was 99% (risk ratio [RR], 0.77; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.60-0.96, high certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of the esophageal pressure-guided strategy was 87% (RR, 0.77; 95% CrI, 0.48-1.22, moderate certainty), the posterior probability of benefit of a higher PEEP with brief LRM strategy was 96% (RR, 0.83; 95% CrI, 0.67-1.02, moderate certainty), and the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 77% (RR, 1.06; 95% CrI, 0.89-1.22, low certainty). Compared with a higher PEEP without LRM strategy, the posterior probability of increased mortality from a higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy was 99% (RR, 1.37; 95% CrI, 1.04-1.81, moderate certainty). Conclusions: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, higher PEEP without LRM is associated with a lower risk of death than lower PEEP. A higher PEEP with prolonged LRM strategy is associated with increased risk of death when compared with higher PEEP without LRM.
Subject(s)
Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Bayes Theorem , Humans , Lung , Network Meta-Analysis , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapyABSTRACT
In patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung imaging is a fundamental tool in the study of the morphological and mechanistic features of the lungs. Chest computed tomography studies led to major advances in the understanding of ARDS physiology. They allowed the in vivo study of the syndrome's lung features in relation with its impact on respiratory physiology and physiology, but also explored the lungs' response to mechanical ventilation, be it alveolar recruitment or ventilator-induced lung injuries. Coupled with positron emission tomography, morphological findings were put in relation with ventilation, perfusion or acute lung inflammation. Lung imaging has always been central in the care of patients with ARDS, with modern point-of-care tools such as electrical impedance tomography or lung ultrasounds guiding clinical reasoning beyond macro-respiratory mechanics. Finally, artificial intelligence and machine learning now assist imaging post-processing software, which allows real-time analysis of quantitative parameters that describe the syndrome's complexity. This narrative review aims to draw a didactic and comprehensive picture of how modern imaging techniques improved our understanding of the syndrome, and have the potential to help the clinician guide ventilatory treatment and refine patient prognostication.
Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury , Artificial Intelligence , Humans , Lung , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnostic imaging , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/diagnostic imagingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vascular microthrombi are a proposed mechanism of COVID-19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does tPA improve pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and is it safe? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized from May14, 2020 through March 3, 2021, in two phases. Phase 1 (n = 36) comprised a control group (standard-of-care treatment) vs a tPA bolus (50-mg tPA IV bolus followed by 7 days of heparin; goal activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], 60-80 s) group. Phase 2 (n = 14) comprised a control group vs a tPA drip (50-mg tPA IV bolus, followed by tPA drip 2 mg/h plus heparin 500 units/h over 24 h, then heparin to maintain aPTT of 60-80 s for 7 days) group. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had not undergone a neurologic examination or cross-sectional brain imaging within the previous 4.5 h to rule out stroke and potential for hemorrhagic conversion. The primary outcome was Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement from baseline at 48 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement of > 50% or Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≥ 200 at 48 h (composite outcome), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized: 17 in the control group and 19 in the tPA bolus group in phase 1 and eight in the control group and six in the tPA drip group in phase 2. No severe bleeding events occurred. In the tPA bolus group, the Pao2 to Fio2 ratio values were significantly (P < .017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 h after randomization; the control group showed no significant improvements. Among patients receiving a tPA bolus, the percent change of Pao2 to Fio2 ratio at 48 h (16.9% control [interquartile range (IQR), -8.3% to 36.8%] vs 29.8% tPA bolus [IQR, 4.5%-88.7%]; P = .11), the composite outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%; P = .03), VFD (0.0 [IQR, 0.0-9.0] vs 12.0 [IQR, 0.0-19.0]; P = .11), and in-hospital mortality (41.2% vs 21.1%; P = .19) did not reach statistically significant differences when compared with those of control participants. The patients who received a tPA drip did not experience benefit. INTERPRETATION: The combination of tPA bolus plus heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A phase 3 study is warranted given the improvements in oxygenation and promising observations in VFD and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04357730; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Pandemics , Respiratory Insufficiency/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombosis/complications , Tissue Plasminogen Activator/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Fibrinolytic Agents/administration & dosage , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Partial Thromboplastin Time , Respiratory Insufficiency/blood , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Thrombosis/blood , Thrombosis/drug therapy , Treatment Outcome , Young AdultABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To measure the rate of recall of study participation and study attrition in survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome(ARDS). MATERIALS/METHODS: In this ancillary study of the Re-evaluation of Systemic Early neuromuscular blockade(ROSE) trial, we measured the rate of study participation recall 3 months following discharge and subsequent study attrition at 6 months. We compared patient and hospital characteristics, and long-term outcomes by recall. As surrogate decision-makers provided initial consent, we measured the rate of patient reconsent and its association with study recall. RESULTS: Of 487 patients evaluated, recall status was determined in 386(82.7%). Among these, 287(74.4%) patients recalled participation in the ROSE trial, while 99(25.6%) did not. There was no significant difference in 6-month attrition among patients who recalled study participation (9.1%) and those who did not (12.1%) (p = 0.38). Patient characteristics were similar between groups, except SOFA scores, ventilator-free days, and length of stay. 330(68%) were reconsented. Compared to those not reconsented, significantly more patients who were reconsented recalled study participation(78% vs. 66%;p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 ARDS survivors do not recall their participation in a clinical trial during hospitalization 3 months following hospital discharge, which did not influence 6-month attrition. However, more patients recall study participation if reconsent is obtained.
Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Survivors , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Mental Recall , Patient Discharge , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Survivors/psychologyABSTRACT
Mechanical ventilation in 2035 will be defined by the evolution of personalized medical care. The level of personalization will be possible because of an improved understanding of the basic pathophysiology of lung injury, the potentially competing goal of liberalization and prevention of prolonged ventilation, a deeper understanding of the patient-ventilator interaction, the role of dyssynchrony and spontaneous efforts in critical illness, and the identification of disease phenotypes which will define specific optimal treatment approaches. Lastly this optimization will be facilitated by advancements in technology allowing improving direct lung visualization during ventilation and ventilators providing fully autonomous closed loop care for patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a large surge of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Prior phase I trials (non-COVID-19) demonstrated improvement in pulmonary function in patients ARDS using fibrinolytic therapy. A follow-up trial using the widely available tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) alteplase is now needed to assess optimal dosing and safety in this critically ill patient population. Objective: To describe the design and rationale of a phase IIa trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of alteplase treatment for moderate/severe COVID-19-induced ARDS. Patients/Methods: A rapidly adaptive, pragmatic, open-label, randomized, controlled, phase IIa clinical trial will be conducted with 3 groups: intravenous alteplase 50 mg, intravenous alteplase 100 mg, and control (standard-of-care). Inclusion criteria are known/suspected COVID-19 infection with PaO2/FiO2 ratio <150 mm Hg for > 4 hours despite maximal mechanical ventilation management. Alteplase will be delivered through an initial bolus of 50 mg or 100 mg followed by heparin infusion for systemic anticoagulation, with alteplase redosing if there is a >20% PaO2/FiO2 improvement not sustained by 24 hours. Results: The primary outcome is improvement in PaO2/FiO2 at 48 hours after randomization. Other outcomes include ventilator- and intensive care unit-free days, successful extubation (no reintubation ≤3 days after initial extubation), and mortality. Fifty eligible patients will be enrolled in a rapidly adaptive, modified stepped-wedge design with 4 looks at the data. Conclusion: Findings will provide timely information on the safety, efficacy, and optimal dosing of t-PA to treat moderate/severe COVID-19-induced ARDS, which can be rapidly adapted to a phase III trial (NCT04357730; FDA IND 149634).
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) secondary to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has demonstrated variable oxygenation and respiratory-system mechanics without investigation of transpulmonary and chest-wall mechanics. This study describes lung, chest wall and respiratory-system mechanics in patients with SARS-CoV-2 and ARDS. METHODS: Data was collected from forty patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and ARDS at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. Esophageal balloons were placed to estimate pleural and transpulmonary pressures. Clinical characteristics, respiratory-system, transpulmonary, and chest-wall mechanics were measured over the first week. RESULTS: Patients had moderate-severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 123[98-149]) and were critically ill (APACHE IV 108 [94-128] and SOFA 12 [11-13]). PaO2/FiO2 improved over the first week (150 mmHg [122.9-182] to 185 mmHg [138-228] (p = 0.035)). Respiratory system (30-35 ml/cm H2O), lung (40-50 ml/cm H2O) and chest wall (120-150 ml/cm H2O) compliance remained similar over the first week. Elevated basal pleural pressures correlated with BMI. Patients required prolonged mechanical ventilation (14.5 days [9.5-19.0]), with a mortality of 32.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients displayed normal chest-wall mechanics, with increased basal pleural pressure. Respiratory system and lung mechanics were similar to known existing ARDS cohorts. The wide range of respiratory system mechanics illustrates the inherent heterogeneity that is consistent with typical ARDS.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Lung/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Mechanics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , APACHE , Aged , Boston/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Cohort Studies , Critical Illness , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. DESIGN: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. METHODS: Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? CONCLUSIONS: Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Research , Sepsis/therapy , HumansABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused respiratory failure and associated mortality in numbers that have overwhelmed global health systems. Thrombotic coagulopathy is present in nearly three quarters of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit, and both the clinical picture and pathologic findings are consistent with microvascular occlusive phenomena being a major contributor to their unique form of respiratory failure. Numerous studies are ongoing focusing on anticytokine therapies, antibiotics, and antiviral agents, but none to date have focused on treating the underlying thrombotic coagulopathy in an effort to improve respiratory failure in COVID-19. There are animal data and a previous human trial demonstrating a survival advantage with fibrinolytic therapy to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we review the extant and emerging literature on the relationship between thrombotic coagulopathy and pulmonary failure in the context of COVID-19 and present the scientific rationale for consideration of targeting the coagulation and fibrinolytic systems to improve pulmonary function in these patients.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Tissue Plasminogen Activator/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 threatens to quickly overwhelm our existing critical care infrastructure in the USA. Systemic tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) has been previously demonstrated to improve PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg) when given to critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is unclear to what extent tPA may impact population-based survival during the current US COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A decision analytic Markov state transition model was created to simulate the life critically ill COVID-19 patients as they transitioned to either recovery or death. Two patient groups were simulated (50,000 patients in each group); (1) Patients received tPA immediately upon diagnosis of ARDS and (2) patients received standard therapy for ARDS. Base case critically ill COVID-19 patients were defined as having a refractory PaO2/FiO2 of < 60 mmHg (salvage use criteria). Transition from severe to moderate to mild ARDS, recovery, and death were estimated. Markov model parameters were extracted from existing ARDS/COVID-19 literature. RESULTS: The use of tPA was associated with reduced mortality (47.6% [tTPA] vs. 71.0% [no tPA]) for base case patients. When extrapolated to the projected COVID-19 eligible for salvage use tPA in the USA, peak mortality (deaths/100,000 patients) was reduced for both optimal social distancing (70.5 [tPA] vs. 75.0 [no tPA]) and no social distancing (158.7 [tPA] vs. 168.8 [no tPA]) scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage use of tPA may improve recovery of ARDS patients, thereby reducing COVID-19-related mortality and ensuring sufficient resources to manage this pandemic.