Impact of healthcare strain on access to mechanical ventilation and mortality of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare saturation has been a prominent worry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Increase of hospital beds with mechanical ventilators has been central in Mexico's approach, but it is not known whether this actually improves access to care and the resulting quality of it. This study aimed to determine the impact of healthcare strain and other pre-specified variables on dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) without receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using open data from Mexico City between 8 May 2020 and 5 January 2021. We performed Cox proportional hazards models to identify the strength of the association between proposed variables and the outcomes. RESULTS: Of 33 797 hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, 19 820 (58.6%) did not require IMV and survived, 5414 (16.1%) required IMV and were intubated and 8563 (25.3%) required IMV but died without receiving it. A greater occupation of IMV-capable beds increased the hazard of death without receiving IMV (hazard ratio [HR] 1.56, comparing 90% with 50% occupation). Private healthcare was the most protective factor for death without IMV (HR 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Higher hospital bed saturation increased the hazard of dying without being intubated and worsened the outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients. Older age also increased the hazard of the outcomes, while private healthcare dramatically decreased them.

A new non-invasive index for the prediction of endotracheal intubation in patients with SARS COVID-19 infection, in the emergency department, pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In the current context of the SARS COVID-19 pandemic, where the main cause of death is respiratory failure, and since early recognition would allow timely measures to be implemented and probably improve outcomes, it is important to have tools that allow the emergency room to predict quickly and without the use of large resources which will need invasive mechanical ventilation. This study proposes using a new predictive index of noninvasive characteristics, based on the relationship between oxygenation and work of breathing measured by ultrasound-assessed diaphragmatic function, for the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with SARS-COV2 infection who are admitted to the emergency department. METHODS: A prospective predictive cohort study was performed, collecting all patients admitted to the emergency room with respiratory failure (not severe or in imminent respiratory arrest) and a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Diaphragmatic excursion measurements were taken within the first 24 h after admission to the department. The relationship between diaphragmatic excursion and SAFI was calculated, establishing the ultrasound diaphragmatic excursion So2/FiO2 index (U.D.E.S.I). The index's performance was determined by analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: This pilot study analyzed the first 100 patients enrolled and found in-hospital mortality of 19%, all patients who died required mechanical ventilation, the right index showed a specificity of 82.4% with a sensitivity of 76.9%, likewise for the left index an overall specificity of 90.5% with a sensitivity of 65.3% was found. The ideal cut-off point for the right index is 1.485, and for the left index, the threshold point was 1.856. AUC of the right index is 0.798 (0.676-0.920) and of the left index 0.793 (0.674-0.911), when comparing them no significant differences were found between these values p = 0.871. CONCLUSION: The relationship of So2/FiO2 and diaphragm excursion measured by both right and left ultrasound could predict the need for mechanical ventilation of the patient with COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency room and could constitute a valuable tool since it uses noninvasive parameters and is easily applicable at the patient's bedside. However, a more extensive study is needed to validate these preliminary results.

Coronavirus disease 2019 management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an acute multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Investigations are ongoing in the search for effective therapeutics, with clinical approaches evolving based upon such evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: The antiviral agent, remdesivir, and the immunomodulator, dexamethasone, are the first therapeutics for which there is evidence of efficacy from randomized trials. Subgroup analyses suggest remdesivir is beneficial in hospitalized patients whose severity of illness falls at the lower end of the spectrum, while dexamethasone is more beneficial in hospitalized patients whose severity of illness falls at the higher end of the spectrum. We recommend that inpatients who require supplemental oxygen but are not mechanically ventilated receive both remdesivir and dexamethasone, and inpatients who require mechanical ventilation receive dexamethasone monotherapy. Additional evidence regarding anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, convalescent plasma, and a variety of antiinterleukin therapies is forthcoming. SUMMARY: The body of evidence related to COVID-19 therapeutics continues to evolve and, as a result, management is likely to change with time. As new evidence is generated and published, the optimal approach to managing patients with COVID-19 should be reconsidered.

Adjuvant treatments to invasive mechanical ventilation in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome secondary to COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: This bibliographic review is carried out in order to obtain answers about aspects related to techniques and treatments, as well as care associated with the critically ill patient diagnosed with Covid-19. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the available scientific evidence on the effectiveness of the use of invasive mechanical ventilation together with other adjuvant techniques, in reducing the mortality rate in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and clinical trial of Covid-19 treated in intensive care units. METHODOLOGY: A systematized bibliographic review was carried out in the Pubmed, Cuiden, Lilacs, Medline, Cinahl and Google Scholar databases, using MeSH terms (Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Mechanical Ventilation, Prone Position, Nitric Oxide, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, Nursing Care) and the corresponding Boolean operators. The selected studies underwent a critical reading carried out between December 6, 2020 and March 27, 2021 using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool in Spanish and a cross-sectional epidemiological studies evaluation instrument. RESULTS: A total of 85 articles were selected. After performing the critical reading, a total of 7 articles were included in the review, 6 being descriptive studies and 1 cohort study. After analyzing these studies, it appears that the technique that has obtained the best results is ECMO, with the care provided by qualified and trained nursing staff being very important. CONCLUSION: Mortality from Covid-19 increases in patients treated with invasive mechanical ventilation compared to patients treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Nursing care and specialization can have an impact on improving patient outcomes.

Aging-related predictive factors for oxygenation improvement and mortality in COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients exposed to prone position: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are more susceptible to Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) and are more likely to develop it in severe forms, (e.g., Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome [ARDS]). Prone positioning is a treatment strategy for severe ARDS; however, its response in the elderly population remains poorly understood. The main objective was to evaluate the predictive response and mortality of elderly patients exposed to prone positioning due to ARDS-COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter cohort study involved 223 patients aged ≥ 65 years, who received prone position sessions for severe ARDS due to COVID-19, using invasive mechanical ventilation. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio was used to assess the oxygenation response. The 20-point improvement in PaO2/FiO2 after the first prone session was considered for good response. Data were collected from electronic medical records, including demographic data, laboratory/image exams, complications, comorbidities, SAPS III and SOFA scores, use of anticoagulants and vasopressors, ventilator settings, and respiratory system mechanics. Mortality was defined as deaths that occurred until hospital discharge. RESULTS: Most patients were male, with arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus as the most prevalent comorbidities. The non-responders group had higher SAPS III and SOFA scores, and a higher incidence of complications. There was no difference in mortality rate. A lower SAPS III score was a predictor of oxygenation response, and the male sex was a risk predictor of mortality. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests the oxygenation response to prone positioning in elderly patients with severe COVID-19-ARDS correlates with the SAPS III score. Furthermore, the male sex is a risk predictor of mortality.

Nursing Care of an Older Patient With Severe COVID-19 Receiving Prolonged Prone Ventilation: A Case Report.

INTRODUCTION: Prone positioning has been shown to improve ventilation status for patients with severe COVID-19 who are receiving mechanical ventilation. This case report describes the nursing care of a patient with severe COVID-19 who underwent prone ventilation for 72 hours. Relevant nursing management and operational considerations are also discussed. CLINICAL FINDINGS: An 83-year-old woman was admitted to the hospital with fatigue, dizziness, and positive tests for SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal swab specimens. The patient was intubated. DIAGNOSIS: The patient's positive tests for SARS-CoV-2, chest computed tomography findings, and clinical symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of severe COVID-19. INTERVENTIONS: When the patient's condition did not improve with mechanical ventilation and intermittent prone positioning, she was placed in the prone position for 72 hours. She received sedation, analgesics, anti-infective medications, and enteral nutrition support in the intensive care unit. Nurses performed dynamic monitoring based on blood gas analysis results to guide lung rehabilitation. OUTCOMES: The patient was weaned from the ventilator on day 20 and successfully discharged home on day 28 of hospitalization. CONCLUSION: During prolonged prone ventilation of a patient with severe COVID-19, nursing strategies included airway management, early lung rehabilitation training guided by pulmonary ultrasonography, skin care, hierarchical management of nurses, hemodynamic support, and enteral nutrition. This report may assist critical care nurses caring for similar patients.

Using a Learning System Approach to Improve Safety for Prone-Position Ventilation Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe how a Patient Safety Organization, to which healthcare organizations submit patient safety event data for both protections and analysis, used a learning system approach to analyze and interpret trends in member data. The data analysis informed evidence-based practice recommendations for improvement of patient outcomes for patients receiving prone-position ventilation. METHODS: Patient safety analysts with critical care nursing backgrounds identified a need for increased support of Patient Safety Organization members who were proning patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient safety events from member organizations across the United States were analyzed and aggregated. Primary and secondary taxonomies for safety events experienced by patients receiving prone-position ventilation were created, which provided insight into harm trends in this patient population. RESULTS: Analysis of 392 patient safety events resulted in the identification of gaps in the care of these fragile patients, including but not limited to medical device-related pressure injuries, concerns with care delivery, staffing and acuity issues, and medical device dislodgement. Event themes in prone-position ventilation safety events informed a literature search from which an evidence-based action plan was developed and disseminated to Patient Safety Organization members for use in harm reduction efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Using a learning system approach, patient safety event data related to prone-position ventilation or any other type of patient safety event can be aggregated and analyzed to identify key areas of safety concerns and gaps in practice, allowing organizations to affect improvement efforts.

Perceptions and practices regarding light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients: a survey on the attitudes of Brazilian critical care physicians. / Percepções e práticas sobre sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica: um inquérito sobre as atitudes de médicos intensivistas brasileiros.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the knowledge and perceived attitudes toward pharmacologic interventions for light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and to understand the current gaps comparing current practice with the recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study based on the application of an electronic questionnaire focused on sedation practices. RESULTS: A total of 303 critical care physicians provided responses to the survey. Most respondents reported routine use of a structured sedation scale (281; 92.6%). Almost half of the respondents reported performing daily interruptions of sedation (147; 48.4%), and the same percentage of participants (48.0%) agreed that patients are often over sedated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participants reported that patients had a higher chance of receiving midazolam compared to before the pandemic (178; 58.8% versus 106; 34.0%; p = 0.05), and heavy sedation was more common during the COVID-19 pandemic (241; 79.4% versus 148; 49.0%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This survey provides valuable data on the perceived attitudes of Brazilian intensive care physicians regarding sedation. Although daily interruption of sedation was a well-known concept and sedation scales were often used by the respondents, insufficient effort was put into frequent monitoring, use of protocols and systematic implementation of sedation strategies. Despite the perception of the benefits linked with light sedation, there is a need to identify improvement targets to propose educational strategies to improve current practices.

OBJETIVO: Caracterizar o conhecimento e as atitudes percebidas em relação às intervenções farmacológicas para sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica e entender as lacunas atuais, comparando a prática atual com as recomendações das Diretrizes de Prática Clínica para a Prevenção e Tratamento da Dor, Agitação/Sedação, Delirium, Imobilidade e Interrupção do Sono em Pacientes Adultos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. MÉTODOS: Trata-se de estudo de coorte transversal baseado na aplicação de um questionário eletrônico centrado nas práticas de sedação. RESULTADOS: Responderam ao inquérito 303 médicos intensivistas. A maioria dos entrevistados relatou uso de rotina de uma escala de sedação estruturada (281; 92,6%). Quase metade dos entrevistados relatou realizar interrupções diárias da sedação (147; 48,4%), e a mesma percentagem de participantes (48,0%) concordou com a afirmação de que os pacientes costumam ser sedados em excesso. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, os participantes relataram que os pacientes tinham maior chance de receber midazolam do que antes da pandemia (178; 58,8% versus 106; 34,0%; p = 0,05); além disso, a sedação profunda foi mais comum durante a pandemia da COVID-19 (241; 79,4% versus 148; 49,0%; p = 0,01). CONCLUSÃO: Este inquérito fornece dados valiosos sobre as atitudes percebidas dos médicos intensivistas brasileiros em relação à sedação. Embora a interrupção diária da sedação fosse um conceito bem conhecido e as escalas de sedação fossem frequentemente utilizadas pelos entrevistados, foi colocado esforço insuficiente no monitoramento frequente, no uso de protocolos e na implementação sistemática de estratégias de sedação. Apesar da percepção dos benefícios associados à sedação superficial, há necessidade de identificar metas de melhoria para se proporem estratégias educacionais que melhorem as práticas atuais.

The effects of high-flow oxygen therapy on mortality in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: High-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) has been successful in treating acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Successful treatment with noninvasive ventilation and avoidance of mechanical ventilation (MV) has been associated with decreased mortality and positive patient outcomes. It is unclear whether the evidence supports the use of HFOT to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced AHRF and ARDS. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the use of HFOT decreases the need for intubation or decreases mortality compared with MV in patients with AHRF due to COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted in March 2022 using CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus bibliographic databases. Ten studies comparing HFOT and MV in COVID-19 respiratory failure met inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Nine studies found a statistically significant reduction in the need for intubation; eight studies found significantly decreased morality in patients who received HFOT. Study design and methodologies limited the findings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Based on the available evidence, the use of HFOT positively affected mortality and incidence of the need for intubation and MV. Further research needs to be conducted before HFOT is adopted as the standard of care for COVID-19-induced AHRF and ARDS. Nurse practitioners should be informed regarding the various respiratory support modalities and evaluate risk versus benefit when caring for patients with COVID-19-induced AHRF and ARDS.

Systemic and Cerebral Effects of Physiotherapy in Mechanically Ventilated Subjects.

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapy may result in better functional outcomes, shorter duration of delirium, and more ventilator-free days. The effects of physiotherapy on different subpopulations of mechanically ventilated patients on respiratory and cerebral function are still unclear. We evaluated the effect of physiotherapy on systemic gas exchange and hemodynamics as well as on cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics in mechanically ventilated subjects with and without COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was an observational study in critically ill subjects with and without COVID-19 who underwent protocolized physiotherapy (including respiratory and rehabilitation physiotherapy) and neuromonitoring of cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics. PaO2 /FIO2 , PaCO2 , hemodynamics (mean arterial pressure [MAP], mm Hg; heart rate, beats/min), and cerebral physiologic parameters (noninvasive intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure using transcranial Doppler, and cerebral oxygenation using near-infrared spectroscopy) were assessed before (T0) and immediately after physiotherapy (T1). RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects were included (16 with COVID-19 and 15 without COVID-19). Physiotherapy improved PaO2 /FIO2 in the overall population (T1 = 185 [108-259] mm Hg vs T0 = 160 [97-231] mm Hg, P = .02) and in the subjects with COVID-19 (T1 = 119 [89-161] mm Hg vs T0 = 110 [81-154] mm Hg, P = .02) and decreased the PaCO2 in the COVID-19 group only (T1 = 40 [38-44] mm Hg vs T0 = 43 [38-47] mm Hg, P = .03). Physiotherapy did not affect cerebral hemodynamics, whereas increased the arterial oxygen part of hemoglobin both in the overall population (T1 = 3.1% [-1.3 to 4.9] vs T0 = 1.1% [-1.8 to 2.6], P = .007) and in the non-COVID-19 group (T1 = 3.7% [0.5-6.3] vs T0 = 0% [-2.2 to 2.8], P = .02). Heart rate was higher after physiotherapy in the overall population (T1 = 87 [75-96] beats/min vs T0 = 78 [72-92] beats/min, P = .044) and in the COVID-19 group (T1 = 87 [81-98] beats/min vs T0 = 77 [72-91] beats/min, P = .01), whereas MAP increased in the COVID-19 group only (T1 = 87 [82-83] vs T0 = 83 [76-89], P = .030). CONCLUSIONS: Protocolized physiotherapy improved gas exchange in subjects with COVID-19, whereas it improved cerebral oxygenation in non-COVID-19 subjects.

Tidal volume challenge to predict preload responsiveness in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome under prone position.

BACKGROUND: Prone position is frequently used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and its changes during a tidal volume challenge (TVC) to assess preload responsiveness in ARDS patients under prone position. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted in a 25-bed intensive care unit at a university hospital. We included patients with ARDS under prone position, ventilated with 6 mL/kg tidal volume and monitored by a transpulmonary thermodilution device. We measured PPV and its changes during a TVC (ΔPPV TVC6-8) after increasing the tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg for one minute. Changes in cardiac index (CI) during a Trendelenburg maneuver (ΔCITREND) and during end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) at 8 mL/kg tidal volume (ΔCI EEO8) were recorded. Preload responsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND ≥ 8% and ΔCI EEO8 ≥ 5%. Preload unresponsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND < 8% and ΔCI EEO8 < 5%. RESULTS: Eighty-four sets of measurements were analyzed in 58 patients. Before prone positioning, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen was 104 ± 27 mmHg. At the inclusion time, patients were under prone position for 11 (2-14) hours. Norepinephrine was administered in 83% of cases with a dose of 0.25 (0.15-0.42) µg/kg/min. The positive end-expiratory pressure was 14 (11-16) cmH2O. The driving pressure was 12 (10-17) cmH2O, and the respiratory system compliance was 32 (22-40) mL/cmH2O. Preload responsiveness was detected in 42 cases. An absolute change in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC assessed preload responsiveness with an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve of 0.94 ± 0.03 (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 86%) better than that of baseline PPV (0.85 ± 0.05; p = 0.047). In the 56 cases where baseline PPV was inconclusive (≥ 4% and < 11%), ΔPPV TVC6-8 ≥ 3.5% still enabled to reliably assess preload responsiveness (AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.05, sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 81%; p < 0.01 vs. baseline PPV). CONCLUSION: In patients with ARDS under low tidal volume ventilation during prone position, the changes in PPV during a TVC can reliably assess preload responsiveness without the need for cardiac output measurements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04457739). Registered 30 June 2020 -Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04457739.

Individualised flow-controlled versus pressure-controlled ventilation in a porcine oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome model.

BACKGROUND: A continuous gas flow provided by flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) facilitates accurate dynamic compliance measurement and allows the clinician to individually optimise positive end-expiratory and peak pressure settings accordingly. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of gas exchange and impact on haemodynamics between individualised FCV and pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in a porcine model of oleic acid-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Randomised controlled interventional trial conducted on 16 pigs. SETTING: Animal operating facility at the Medical University Innsbruck. INTERVENTIONS: ARDS was induced in lung healthy pigs by intravenous infusion of oleic acid until moderate-to-severe ARDS at a stable Horowitz quotient (PaO 2 FiO 2-1 ) of 80 to 120 over a period of 30 min was obtained. Ventilation was then either performed with individualised FCV ( n  = 8) established by compliance-guided pressure titration or PCV ( n  = 8) with compliance-guided titration of the positive end-expiratory pressure and peak pressure set to achieve a tidal volume of 6 ml kg -1 over a period of 2 h. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gas exchange parameters were assessed by the PaO 2 FiO 2-1 quotient and CO 2 removal by the PaCO 2 value in relation to required respiratory minute volume. Required catecholamine support for haemodynamic stabilisation was measured. RESULTS: The FCV group showed significantly improved oxygenation [149.2 vs. 110.4, median difference (MD) 38.7 (8.0 to 69.5) PaO 2 FiO 2-1 ; P  = 0.027] and CO 2 removal [PaCO 2 7.25 vs. 9.05, MD -1.8 (-2.87 to -0.72) kPa; P  = 0.006] at a significantly lower respiratory minute volume [8.4 vs. 11.9, MD -3.6 (-5.6 to -1.5) l min -1 ; P  = 0.005] compared with PCV. In addition, in FCV-pigs, haemodynamic stabilisation occurred with a significant reduction of required catecholamine support [norepinephrine 0.26 vs. 0.86, MD -0.61 (-1.12 to -0.09) µg kg -1  min -1 ; P  = 0.037] during 2 ventilation hours. CONCLUSION: In this oleic acid-induced porcine ARDS model, individualised FCV significantly improved gas exchange and haemodynamic stability compared with PCV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol no.: BMBWF-66.011/0105-V/3b/2019).

An appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review.

The objective of the study was to evaluate all available systematic reviews on the use of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An umbrella review on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome was conducted. We performed a systematic search in the database of Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos. The ROBIS tools and GRADE methodology were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We estimated the necessary number of patients to be treated to have benefit. For the synthesis of the result, we selected the review with the lowest risk of bias. Sixteen systematic reviews including 64 randomized clinical trials and evaluating the effect of prone positional ventilation, with or without other ventilation strategies were included. Aoyama 2019 observed prone positioning, without complementary ventilation strategies, leading to a reduction in the 28-day mortality only when compared to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.95) and lung-protective ventilation in the supine position (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), with an ARR of 9.32% and 14.94%, an NNTB of 5.89 and 8.04, and a low and moderate certainty of evidence, respectively. Most reviews had severe methodological flaws that led to results with very low certainty of evidence. The review with the lowest risk of bias presented results in favor of prone positional ventilation compared with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and lung-protective ventilation. There is a need to update the available reviews to obtain more accurate results.

The PROVENT-C19 registry: A study protocol for international multicenter SIAARTI registry on the use of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide use of prone position (PP) for invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 is progressively increasing from the first pandemic wave in everyday clinical practice. Among the suggested treatments for the management of ARDS patients, PP was recommended in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 guidelines as an adjuvant therapy for improving ventilation. In patients with severe classical ARDS, some authors reported that early application of prolonged PP sessions significantly decreases 28-day and 90-day mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Since January 2021, the COVID19 Veneto ICU Network research group has developed and implemented nationally and internationally the "PROVENT-C19 Registry", endorsed by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care…'(SIAARTI). The PROVENT-C19 Registry wishes to describe 1. The real clinical practice on the use of PP in COVID-19 patients during the pandemic at a National and International level; and 2. Potential baseline and clinical characteristics that identify subpopulations of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 that may improve daily from PP therapy. This web-based registry will provide relevant information on how the database research tools may improve our daily clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter, prospective registry is the first to identify and characterize the role of PP on clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients. In recent years, data emerging from large registries have been increasingly used to provide real-world evidence on the effectiveness, quality, and safety of a clinical intervention. Indeed observation-based registries could be effective tools aimed at identifying specific clusters of patients within a large study population with widely heterogeneous clinical characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registry was registered (ClinicalTrial.Gov Trials Register NCT04905875) on May 28,2021.

[Clinical update in critical care of pulmonary medicine 2022].

In this review, we outlined the clinical studies in critical care field of pulmonary medicine from October 1, 2021 to September 30, 2022. For critically ill patients, frailty before disease onset was a predictor of mortality with increasing ICU length of stay, and the complaints of dyspnea in intubated phase was independently associated with posttraumatic stress disorder. Compared with transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) had a positive significance to in leading to an increased chance of establishing a more accurate diagnosis, which could significantly improve the patients' prognosis. M-ROSE (microbiological rapid on-site evaluation) had high diagnostic value for lower respiratory tract pathogens, and the application of M-ROSE in the ICU could contribute to promoting a decrease in patients' inflammation levels and reducing the mortality of patients with invasive mechanical ventilation. EIT (electrical impedance tomography), DPL (transpulmonary driving pressure) and DPaw (airway driving pressure) had excellent positive values on dynamic assessment, guiding individualized respiratory support and prognostic evaluation. In critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who had received invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, treatment with baricitinib compared with placebo (in combination with standard of care, including corticosteroids) might reduce mortality. Delayed antimicrobial treatment significantly increased the incidence of severe infection and the mortality of shock patients, however, timing of antimicrobial therapy and control of the source of infection was critical. NIV (non-invasive ventilation) alternating with high-flow nasal oxygen immediately after extubation significantly decreased the risk of reintubation and death compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone in obese or overweight patients at high risk of extubation failure. The effect of Pes-guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), compared with empirical high PEEP, was associated with lower mortality for more severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) ventilated patients (APACHE Ⅱ>27.5). Prone-positioning during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was safe and effective and was associated with a higher probability of surviving and being weaned-off extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at 90 days. Therefore, individualized respiratory support strategies based on dynamic monitoring and assessment were essential for critically ill patients.

Segmental Lung Recruitment in Patients with Bilateral COVID-19 Pneumonia Complicated by Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Case Report.

Bilateral COVID-19 pneumonia is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and usually leads to life-threatening acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Treatment of patients with ARDS is difficult and usually involves protective mechanical ventilation and various types of recruitment maneuvers. A segmental lung recruitment maneuver by independent lung ventilation has been described as a successful recruitment maneuver in patients with lobar pneumonia, and may, therefore, be useful for the treatment of patients with bilateral COVID-19 pneumonia complicated by ARDS in the critical phase of the disease when all other therapeutic options have been exhausted. The aim of this case series was to present a case report of four mechanically ventilated patients with severe bilateral COVID-19 pneumonia complicated by ARDS using the segmental lung recruitment maneuver. The effect of the segmental lung recruitment maneuver was assessed by the increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and the lung ultrasound (LUS) scoring system (0 points-presence of sliding lungs with A-lines or one or two isolated B-lines; 1 point-moderate loss of lung ventilation with three to five B lines; 2 points-severe loss of lung ventilation with more than five B lines (B pattern); and 3 points-lung consolidation) determined 12, 24, and 48 h after segmental lung recruitment. In three of four patients with bilateral COVID-19 pneumonia complicated by ARDS, an increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio and an improvement in the LUS scoring system were observed 48 h after segmental lung recruitment. In conclusion, the segmental lung recruitment maneuver in patients with bilateral COVID-19 complicated by ARDS is an effective method of lung recruitment and may be a useful treatment method.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Peritoneal Oxygenation as a Novel Technique for Extrapulmonary Ventilation; A Review and Discussion of the Literature.

The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the difficulties that might occur when attempting to oxygenate patients who have suffered a severe pulmonary insult, including in the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Traditional mechanical ventilation (MV) is effective; however, in severe cases of hypoxia, the use of rescue therapy, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), may be required but is also associated with significant complexity and complications. In this review, we describe peritoneal oxygenation; a method of oxygenation that exploits the peritoneum's gas exchange properties in a fashion that is similar to peritoneal dialysis and has shown considerable promise in animal models. We have conducted a review of the available literature and techniques, including intraperitoneal perfluorocarbons, intraperitoneal jet ventilation, a continuous low-pressure oxygen system (PEROX) and the use of phospholipid-coated oxygen microbubbles (OMBs) through peritoneal microbubble oxygenation (PMO). We conclude that peritoneal oxygenation is a promising technique that warrants further investigation and might be used in clinical settings in the future.

Time constant to determine PEEP levels in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the measured expiratory time constant (TauE) could be a bedside parameter for the evaluation of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients during pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). METHODS: A prospective study was conducted including consecutively admitted adults (n = 16) with COVID-19-related ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation. A PEEP titration using PCV with a fixed driving pressure of 14 cmH2O was performed and TauE recorded at each PEEP level (0 to 18 cmH2O) in prone (n = 29) or supine (n = 24) positions. The PEEP setting with the highest TauE (TauEMAX) was considered to represent the best tradeoff between recruitment and overdistention. RESULTS: Two groups of patterns were observed in the TauE plots: recruitable (R) (75%) and nonrecruitable (NR) (25%). In the R group, the optimal PEEP and PEEP ranges were 8 ± 3 cmH2O and 6-10 cmH2O for the prone position and 9 ± 3 cmH2O and 7-12 cmH2O for the supine position. In the NR group, the optimal PEEP and PEEP ranges were 4 ± 4 cmH2O and 1-8 cmH2O for the prone position and 5 ± 3 cmH2O and 1-7 cmH2O for the supine position, respectively. The R group showed significantly higher optimal PEEP (p < 0.004) and PEEP ranges (p < 0.001) than the NR group. Forty-five percent of measurements resulted in the most optimal PEEP being significantly different between the positions (p < 0.01). Moderate positive correlation has been found between TauE vs CRS at all PEEP levels (r2 = 0.43, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TauE may be a novel method to assess PEEP levels. There was wide variation in patient responses to PEEP, which indicates the need for personalized evaluation.