Closed-loop ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure-A case series.

BACKGROUND: INTELLiVENT-adaptive support ventilation (ASV) is an automated closed-loop mode of invasive ventilation for use in critically ill patients. INTELLiVENT-ASV automatically adjusts, without the intervention of the caregiver, ventilator settings to achieve the lowest work and force of breathing. AIMS: The aim of this case series is to describe the specific adjustments of INTELLiVENT-ASV in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, who were intubated for invasive ventilation. STUDY DESIGN: We describe three patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of COVID-19 who received invasive ventilation in our intensive care unit (ICU) in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: INTELLiVENT-ASV could be used successfully, but only after certain adjustments in the settings of the ventilator. Specifically, the high oxygen targets that are automatically chosen by INTELLiVENT-ASV when the lung condition 'ARDS' is ticked had to be lowered, and the titration ranges for positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2 ) had to be narrowed. CONCLUSION: The challenges taught us how to adjust the ventilator settings so that INTELLiVENT-ASV could be used in successive COVID-19 ARDS patients, and we experienced the benefits of this closed-loop ventilation in clinical practice. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: INTELLiVENT-ASV is attractive to use in clinical practice. It is safe and effective in providing lung-protective ventilation. A closely observing user always remains needed. INTELLiVENT-ASV has a strong potential to reduce the workload associated with ventilation because of the automated adjustments.

Effect of INTELLiVENT-ASV versus Conventional Ventilation on Ventilation Intensity in Patients with COVID-19 ARDS-An Observational Study.

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.

Comparing Ventilation Parameters for COVID-19 Patients Using Both Long-Term ICU and Anesthetic Ventilators in Times of Shortage.

In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, many patients were treated in hospitals using mechanical ventilation. However, due to a shortage of ICU ventilators, hospitals worldwide needed to deploy anesthesia machines for ICU ventilation (which is off-label use). A joint guidance was written to apply anesthesia machines for long-term ventilation. The goal of this research is to retrospectively evaluate the differences in measurable ventilation parameters between the ICU ventilator and the anesthesia machine as used for COVID-19 patients. In this study, we included 32 patients treated in March and April 2020, who had more than 3 days of mechanical ventilation, either in the regular ICU with ICU ventilators (Hamilton S1), or in the temporary emergency ICU with anesthetic ventilators (Aisys, GE). The data acquired during regular clinical treatment was collected from the Patient Data Management Systems. Available ventilation parameters (pressures and volumes: PEEP, Ppeak, Pinsp, Vtidal), monitored parameters EtCO2, SpO2, derived compliance C, and resistance R were processed and analyzed. A sub-analysis was performed to compare closed-loop ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV) to other ventilation modes. The results showed no major differences in the compared parameters, except for Pinsp. PEEP was reduced over time in the with Hamilton treated patients. This is most likely attributed to changing clinical protocol as more clinical experience and literature became available. A comparison of compliance between the 2 ventilators could not be made due to variances in the measurement of compliance. Closed loop ventilation could be used in 79% of the time, resulting in more stable EtCO2. From the analysis it can be concluded that the off-label usage of the anesthetic ventilator in our hospital did not result in differences in ventilation parameters compared to the ICU treatment in the first 4 days of ventilation.

Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH2O, peak pressure <30 cmH2O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO2/ FiO2 ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH2O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.