Outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Descriptive information on referral patterns and short-term outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-centre observational cohort study of ECMO referrals to Toronto General Hospital (receiving hospital) for severe respiratory failure (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19), between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2020. Data related to the referral, the referral decision, and reasons for refusal were collected. Reasons for refusal were grouped into three mutually exclusive categories selected a priori: "too sick now," "too sick before," and "not sick enough." In declined referrals, referring physicians were surveyed to collect patient outcome on day 7 after the referral. The primary study endpoints were referral outcome (accepted/declined) and patient outcome (alive/deceased). RESULTS: A total of 193 referrals were included; 73% were declined for transfer. Referral outcome was influenced by age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 0.96; P < 0.01) and involvement of other members of the ECMO team in the discussion (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.28 to 15.2; P < 0.01). Patient outcomes were missing in 46 (24%) referrals (inability to locate the referring physician or the referring physician being unable to recall the outcome). Using available data (95 declined and 52 accepted referrals; n = 147), survival to day 7 was 49% for declined referrals (35% for patients deemed "too sick now," 53% for "too sick before," 100% for "not sick enough," and 50% for reason for refusal not reported) and 98% for transferred patients. Sensitivity analysis setting missing outcomes to directional extreme values retained robustness of survival probabilities. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of the patients declined for ECMO consideration were alive on day 7. More information on patient trajectory and long-term outcomes in declined referrals is needed to refine selection criteria.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: On manque d'informations descriptives sur les schémas de références et les devenirs à court terme des patient·es atteint·es d'insuffisance respiratoire n'ayant pas pu recevoir une oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle (ECMO). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte observationnelle prospective monocentrique sur les références vers l'ECMO à l'Hôpital général de Toronto (hôpital d'accueil) pour insuffisance respiratoire grave (COVID-19 et non-COVID-19), entre le 1er décembre 2019 et le 30 novembre 2020. Les données relatives à la référence, à la décision de référence et aux motifs du refus ont été recueillies. Les motifs de refus ont été regroupés en trois catégories mutuellement exclusives sélectionnées a priori : « Trop malade maintenant ¼, « Trop malade avant ¼ et « Pas assez malade ¼. En ce qui concerne les références refusées, un sondage envoyé aux médecins traitant·es avait pour objectif de recueillir les devenirs des patient·es le jour 7 suivant la référence. Les critères d'évaluation principaux de l'étude étaient le résultat de la référence (accepté/refusé) et le devenir des patient·es (vivant·e/décédé·e). RéSULTATS: Au total, 193 références ont été incluses; le transfert a été refusé dans 73 % des cas. L'acceptation ou le refus de la référence était influencé par l'âge (rapport de cotes [RC], 0,97; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,95 à 0,96; P < 0,01) et la participation d'autres membres de l'équipe ECMO à la discussion (RC, 4,42; IC 95 %, 1,28 à 15,2; P < 0,01). Les devenirs des patient·es étaient manquants pour 46 (24 %) des personnes référées (incapacité de localiser les médecins traitant·es ou incapacité des médecins de se souvenir du devenir). À l'aide des données disponibles (95 références refusées et 52 références acceptées; n = 147), la survie jusqu'au jour 7 était de 49 % pour les références refusées (35 % pour la patientèle jugée « trop malade maintenant ¼, 53 % pour celle « trop malade avant ¼, 100 % pour celle « pas assez malade ¼ et 50 % pour les cas où la raison du refus n'était pas déclarée) et 98 % pour les patient·es transféré·es. L'analyse de sensibilité établissant les résultats manquants à des valeurs extrêmes directionnelles a conservé la robustesse des probabilités de survie. CONCLUSION: Près de la moitié des patient·es pour lesquel·les un traitement sous ECMO a été refusé étaient en vie au jour 7. Davantage d'informations concernant la trajectoire et les devenirs à long terme des patient·es refusé·es sont nécessaires pour parfaire les critères de sélection.

Lung Recruitment Assessed by Electrical Impedance Tomography (RECRUIT): A Multicenter Study of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Rationale: Defining lung recruitability is needed for safe positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection in mechanically ventilated patients. However, there is no simple bedside method including both assessment of recruitability and risks of overdistension as well as personalized PEEP titration. Objectives: To describe the range of recruitability using electrical impedance tomography (EIT), effects of PEEP on recruitability, respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, and a method to select optimal EIT-based PEEP. Methods: This is the analysis of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from an ongoing multicenter prospective physiological study including patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome of different causes. EIT, ventilator data, hemodynamics, and arterial blood gases were obtained during PEEP titration maneuvers. EIT-based optimal PEEP was defined as the crossing point of the overdistension and collapse curves during a decremental PEEP trial. Recruitability was defined as the amount of modifiable collapse when increasing PEEP from 6 to 24 cm H2O (ΔCollapse24-6). Patients were classified as low, medium, or high recruiters on the basis of tertiles of ΔCollapse24-6. Measurements and Main Results: In 108 patients with COVID-19, recruitability varied from 0.3% to 66.9% and was unrelated to acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. Median EIT-based PEEP differed between groups: 10 versus 13.5 versus 15.5 cm H2O for low versus medium versus high recruitability (P < 0.05). This approach assigned a different PEEP level from the highest compliance approach in 81% of patients. The protocol was well tolerated; in four patients, the PEEP level did not reach 24 cm H2O because of hemodynamic instability. Conclusions: Recruitability varies widely among patients with COVID-19. EIT allows personalizing PEEP setting as a compromise between recruitability and overdistension. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04460859).

Long-term (180-Day) Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 in the REMAP-CAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The longer-term effects of therapies for the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19 are unknown. Objective: To determine the effect of multiple interventions for critically ill adults with COVID-19 on longer-term outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prespecified secondary analysis of an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing interventions within multiple therapeutic domains in which 4869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between March 9, 2020, and June 22, 2021, from 197 sites in 14 countries. The final 180-day follow-up was completed on March 2, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 1 or more interventions within 6 treatment domains: immune modulators (n = 2274), convalescent plasma (n = 2011), antiplatelet therapy (n = 1557), anticoagulation (n = 1033), antivirals (n = 726), and corticosteroids (n = 401). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was survival through day 180, analyzed using a bayesian piecewise exponential model. A hazard ratio (HR) less than 1 represented improved survival (superiority), while an HR greater than 1 represented worsened survival (harm); futility was represented by a relative improvement less than 20% in outcome, shown by an HR greater than 0.83. Results: Among 4869 randomized patients (mean age, 59.3 years; 1537 [32.1%] women), 4107 (84.3%) had known vital status and 2590 (63.1%) were alive at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.74 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.61-0.90]) and antiplatelet agents had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival (adjusted HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.71-1.03]) compared with the control, while the probability of trial-defined statistical futility (HR >0.83) was high for therapeutic anticoagulation (99.9%; HR, 1.13 [95% CrI, 0.93-1.42]), convalescent plasma (99.2%; HR, 0.99 [95% CrI, 0.86-1.14]), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%; HR, 1.06 [95% CrI, 0.82-1.38]) and the probabilities of harm from hydroxychloroquine (96.9%; HR, 1.51 [95% CrI, 0.98-2.29]) and the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine (96.8%; HR, 1.61 [95% CrI, 0.97-2.67]) were high. The corticosteroid domain was stopped early prior to reaching a predefined statistical trigger; there was a 57.1% to 61.6% probability of improving 6-month survival across varying hydrocortisone dosing strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 randomized to receive 1 or more therapeutic interventions, treatment with an IL-6 receptor antagonist had a greater than 99.9% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control, and treatment with an antiplatelet had a 95.0% probability of improved 180-day mortality compared with patients randomized to the control. Overall, when considered with previously reported short-term results, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects of Therapeutic-Dose Heparin in Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19.

Importance: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants: Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures: Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Organ support-free days, assigning a value of -1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support-free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support-free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI <30) vs higher BMI groups (BMI ≥30; posterior probability of difference in ORs >90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT04372589.

Evaluation and Management of Dyspnea in Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Generalized Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder: Protocol for a Pilot and Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a prevalent symptom in individuals with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) and generalized hypermobility spectrum disorder (G-HSD), yet its contributors have not been identified. One known contributor to dyspnea is respiratory muscle weakness. The feasibility and effectiveness of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in combination with standard-of-care rehabilitation (aerobic, resistance, neuromuscular stabilization, and balance and proprioception exercises) in improving respiratory muscle strength and patient-reported outcomes in patients with hEDS or G-HSD have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate dyspnea, respiratory muscle strength, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hEDS or G-HSD compared with healthy controls and to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of IMT and standard-of-care rehabilitation for improving respiratory muscle strength, exercise capacity, and PROMs compared with standard-of-care rehabilitation in hEDS and G-HSD. METHODS: The study will include 34 participants with hEDS or G-HSD and 17 healthy, age- and sex-matched controls to compare respiratory muscle structure and function and PROMs. After baseline assessments, participants with hEDS or G-HSD will be randomized into the intervention group and provided IMT combined with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome standard-of-care rehabilitation or into the usual care group, and provided only standard-of-care rehabilitation for 8 weeks. The intervention group will be prescribed IMT in their home environment using the POWERbreathe K5 IMT device (POWERbreathe International Ltd). IMT will comprise 2 daily sessions of 30 breaths for 5 days per week, with IMT progressing from 20% to 60% of the baseline maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) over an 8-week period. Feasibility will be assessed through rates of recruitment, attrition, adherence, adverse events, and participant satisfaction. The primary pilot outcome is MIP change over an 8-week period in hEDS or G-HSD. Secondary outcomes will include the evaluation of dyspnea using Medical Research Council Scale and 18-point qualitative dyspnea descriptors; diaphragmatic thickening fraction using ultrasound; respiratory muscle endurance; pulmonary function; prefrontal cortical activity using functional near-infrared spectroscopy; aerobic capacity during cardiopulmonary exercise testing; quality of life using Short Form-36; and scores from the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale-21. These measures will also be performed once in healthy controls to compare normative values. Multivariable regression will be used to assess the contributors to dyspnea. Paired 2-tailed t tests will be used to assess the changes in MIP and secondary measures after 8 weeks of IMT. RESULTS: Study recruitment began in August 2021 and, with several disruptions owing to COVID-19, is expected to be completed by December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide a better understanding of the factors associated with dyspnea and the feasibility and effectiveness of IMT combined with standard-of-care rehabilitation. IMT may be a novel therapeutic strategy for improving respiratory muscle function and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with hEDS or G-HSD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04972565; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04972565. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/44832.

Methodology and design of platform trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features among these studies, and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate. RESULTS: We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n = 67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020 and 2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n = 39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n = 31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials, including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer-reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%), and of those, two (8%) used a predefined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer-reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%. CONCLUSION: We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date.

Helmet noninvasive support for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: rationale, mechanism of action and bedside application.

INTRODUCTION: Helmet noninvasive support may provide advantages over other noninvasive oxygenation strategies in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this narrative review based on a systematic search of the literature, we summarize the rationale, mechanism of action and technicalities for helmet support in hypoxemic patients. MAIN RESULTS: In hypoxemic patients, helmet can facilitate noninvasive application of continuous positive-airway pressure or pressure-support ventilation via a hood interface that seals at the neck and is secured by straps under the arms. Helmet use requires specific settings. Continuous positive-airway pressure is delivered through a high-flow generator or a Venturi system connected to the inspiratory port of the interface, and a positive end-expiratory pressure valve place at the expiratory port of the helmet;  alternatively, pressure-support ventilation is delivered by connecting the helmet to a mechanical ventilator through a bi-tube circuit. The helmet interface allows continuous treatments with high positive end-expiratory pressure with good patient comfort. Preliminary data suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may provide physiological benefits compared to other noninvasive oxygenation strategies (conventional oxygen, facemask NIV, high-flow nasal oxygen) in non-hypercapnic patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg), possibly because higher positive end-expiratory pressure (10-15 cmH2O) can be applied for prolonged periods with good tolerability. This improves oxygenation, limits ventilator inhomogeneities, and may attenuate the potential harm of lung and diaphragm injury caused by vigorous inspiratory effort. The potential superiority of helmet support for reducing the risk of intubation has been hypothesized in small, pilot randomized trials and in a network metanalysis. CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive support represents a promising tool for the initial management of patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Currently, the lack of confidence with this and technique and the absence of conclusive data regarding its efficacy render helmet use limited to specific settings, with expert and trained personnel. As per other noninvasive oxygenation strategies, careful clinical and physiological monitoring during the treatment is essential to early identify treatment failure and avoid delays in intubation.

Association of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and Lung Recruitment Selection Strategies with Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

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.

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support-Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Personalized Ventilation to Multiple Patients Using a Single Ventilator: Description and Proof of Concept.

OBJECTIVES: To design and test a ventilator circuit that can be used for ventilation of two or more patients with a single ventilator, while allowing individualization of tidal volume, fractional concentration of oxygen, and positive end-expiratory pressure to each patient, irrespective of the other patient's respiratory system mechanics. DESIGN: Description and proof of concept studies. SETTINGS: Respiratory therapy laboratory. SUBJECTS: Ventilation of mechanical test lungs. INTERVENTIONS: Following a previously advocated design, we used components readily available in our hospital to assemble two "bag-in-a-box" breathing circuits. Each patient circuit consisted of a flexible bag in a rigid container connected via one-way valve to a test lung, along with an inline positive end-expiratory pressure valve, connected to the ventilator's expiratory limb. Compressed gas fills the bags during "patient" exhalation. During inspiration, gas from the ventilator, in pressure control mode, enters the containers and displaces gas from the bags to the test lungs. We varied tidal volume, "respiratory system" compliance, and positive end-expiratory pressure in one lung and observed the effect on the tidal volume of the other. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We were able to obtain different tidal volume, dynamic driving pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure in the two lungs under widely different compliances in both lungs. Complete obstruction, or disconnection at the circuit connection to one test lung, had minimal effect (< 5% on average) on the ventilation to the co-ventilated lung. CONCLUSIONS: A secondary circuit "bag-in-the-box" system enables individualized ventilation of two lungs overcoming many of the concerns of ventilating more than one patient with a single ventilator.

Complications of Critical COVID-19: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Considerations for the Mechanically Ventilated Patient.

Patients admitted to the ICU with critical COVID-19 often require prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation. Difficulty weaning, lack of progress, and clinical deterioration are commonly encountered. These conditions should prompt a thorough evaluation for persistent or untreated manifestations of COVID-19, as well as complications from COVID-19 and its various treatments. Inflammation may persist and lead to fibroproliferative changes in the lungs. Infectious complications may arise including bacterial superinfection in the earlier stages of disease. Use of immunosuppressants may lead to the dissemination of latent infections, and to opportunistic infections. Venous thromboembolic disease is common, as are certain neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 including delirium and stroke. High levels of ventilatory support may lead to ventilator-induced injury to the lungs and diaphragm. We present diagnostic and therapeutic considerations for the mechanically ventilated patient with COVID-19 who shows persistent or worsening signs of critical illness, and we offer an approach to treating this complex but common scenario.

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Noncritically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Heparin in Critically Ill Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19. METHODS: In an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. RESULTS: The trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio <1.2], 99.9%). The percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (62.7% and 64.5%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio, 0.84; 95% credible interval, 0.64 to 1.11). Major bleeding occurred in 3.8% of the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 2.3% of those assigned to usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin did not result in a greater probability of survival to hospital discharge or a greater number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support than did usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. (REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT04372589.).

Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.

Anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials and call for international collaboration.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high incidence of thrombosis and mortality despite standard anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. There is equipoise regarding the optimal dose of anticoagulant intervention in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and consequently, immediate answers from high-quality randomized trials are needed. METHODS: The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was searched on June 17, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing increased dose to standard dose anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Two authors independently screened the full records for eligibility and extracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: A total of 20 trials were included in the review. All trials are open label, 5 trials use an adaptive design, 1 trial uses a factorial design, 2 trials combine multi-arm parallel group and factorial designs in flexible platform trials, and at least 15 trials have multiple study sites. With individual target sample sizes ranging from 30 to 3000 participants, the pooled sample size of all included trials is 12 568 participants. Two trials include only intensive care unit patients, and 10 trials base patient eligibility on elevated D-dimer levels. Therapeutic intensity anticoagulation is evaluated in 14 trials. All-cause mortality is part of the primary outcome in 14 trials. DISCUSSION: Several trials evaluate different dose regimens of anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Because these trials compete for sites and study participants, a collaborative effort is needed to complete trials faster, conduct pooled analyses and bring effective interventions to patients more quickly.

Anti-Thrombotic Therapy to Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 (ATTACC): Study design and methodology for an international, adaptive Bayesian randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from COVID-19 is high among hospitalized patients and effective therapeutics are lacking. Hypercoagulability, thrombosis and hyperinflammation occur in COVID-19 and may contribute to severe complications. Therapeutic anticoagulation may improve clinical outcomes through anti-thrombotic, anti-inflammatory and anti-viral mechanisms. Our primary objective is to evaluate whether therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin prevents mechanical ventilation and/or death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to usual care. METHODS: An international, open-label, adaptive randomized controlled trial. Using a Bayesian framework, the trial will declare results as soon as pre-specified posterior probabilities for superiority, futility, or harm are reached. The trial uses response-adaptive randomization to maximize the probability that patients will receive the more beneficial treatment approach, as treatment effect information accumulates within the trial. By leveraging a common data safety monitoring board and pooling data with a second similar international Bayesian adaptive trial (REMAP-COVID anticoagulation domain), treatment efficacy and safety will be evaluated as efficiently as possible. The primary outcome is an ordinal endpoint with three possible outcomes based on the worst status of each patient through day 30: no requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSION: Using an adaptive trial design, the Anti-Thrombotic Therapy To Ameliorate Complications of COVID-19 trial will establish whether therapeutic anticoagulation can reduce mortality and/or avoid the need for mechanical ventilation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Leveraging existing networks to recruit sites will increase enrollment and mitigate enrollment risk in sites with declining COVID-19 cases.