Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
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
2.
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.

3.
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.

4.
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
5.
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
6.
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).

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL