Fluid Intake in Critically Ill Patients: The "Save Useless Fluids For Intensive Resuscitation" Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients at risk of adverse effects related to positive fluid balance could benefit from fluid intake optimization. Less attention is paid to nonresuscitation fluids. We aim to evaluate the heterogeneity of fluid intake at the initial phase of resuscitation. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Thirty ICUs across France and one in Spain. PATIENTS: Patients requiring vasopressors and/or invasive mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All fluids administered by vascular or enteral lines were recorded over 24 hours following admission and were classified in four main groups according to their predefined indication: fluids having a well-documented homeostasis goal (resuscitation fluids, rehydration, blood products, and nutrition), drug carriers, maintenance fluids, and fluids for technical needs. Models of regression were constructed to determine fluid intake predicted by patient characteristics. Centers were classified according to tertiles of fluid intake. The cohort included 296 patients. The median total volume of fluids was 3546 mL (interquartile range, 2441-4955 mL), with fluids indisputably required for body fluid homeostasis representing 36% of this total. Saline, glucose-containing high chloride crystalloids, and balanced crystalloids represented 43%, 27%, and 16% of total volume, respectively. Whatever the class of fluids, center of inclusion was the strongest factor associated with volumes. Compared with the first tertile, the difference between the volume predicted by patient characteristics and the volume given was +1.2 ± 2.0 L in tertile 2 and +3.0 ± 2.8 L in tertile 3. CONCLUSIONS: Fluids indisputably required for body fluid homeostasis represent the minority of fluid intake during the 24 hours after ICU admission. Center effect is the strongest factor associated with the volume of fluids. Heterogeneity in practices suggests that optimal strategies for volume and goals of common fluids administration need to be developed.

Early non-invasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy for preventing endotracheal intubation in hypoxemic blunt chest trauma patients: the OptiTHO randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The benefit-risk ratio of prophylactic non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC-O2) during the early stage of blunt chest trauma remains controversial because of limited data. The main objective of this study was to compare the rate of endotracheal intubation between two NIV strategies in high-risk blunt chest trauma patients. METHODS: The OptiTHO trial was a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial over a two-year period. Every adult patients admitted in intensive care unit within 48 h after a high-risk blunt chest trauma (Thoracic Trauma Severity Score ≥ 8), an estimated PaO2/FiO2 ratio < 300 and no evidence of acute respiratory failure were eligible for study enrollment (Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03943914). The primary objective was to compare the rate of endotracheal intubation for delayed respiratory failure between two NIV strategies: i) a prompt association of HFNC-O2 and "early" NIV in every patient for at least 48 h with vs. ii) the standard of care associating COT and "late" NIV, indicated in patients with respiratory deterioration and/or PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 200 mmHg. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of chest trauma-related complications (pulmonary infection, delayed hemothorax or moderate-to-severe ARDS). RESULTS: Study enrollment was stopped for futility after a 2-year study period and randomization of 141 patients. Overall, 11 patients (7.8%) required endotracheal intubation for delayed respiratory failure. The rate of endotracheal intubation was not significantly lower in patients treated with the experimental strategy (7% [5/71]) when compared to the control group (8.6% [6/70]), with an adjusted OR = 0.72 (95%IC: 0.20-2.43), p = 0.60. The occurrence of pulmonary infection, delayed hemothorax or delayed ARDS was not significantly lower in patients treated by the experimental strategy (adjusted OR = 1.99 [95%IC: 0.73-5.89], p = 0.18, 0.85 [95%IC: 0.33-2.20], p = 0.74 and 2.14 [95%IC: 0.36-20.77], p = 0.41, respectively). CONCLUSION: A prompt association of HFNC-O2 with preventive NIV did not reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation or secondary respiratory complications when compared to COT and late NIV in high-risk blunt chest trauma patients with non-severe hypoxemia and no sign of acute respiratory failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03943914, Registered 7 May 2019.

PEEP titration in moderate to severe ARDS: plateau versus transpulmonary pressure.

BACKGROUND: Although lung protection with low tidal volume and limited plateau pressure (Pplat) improves survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (ARDS), the best way to set positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is still debated. METHODS: This study aimed to compare two strategies using individual PEEP based on a maximum Pplat (28-30 cmH2O, the Express group) or on keeping end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure positive (0-5 cmH2O, PLexpi group). We estimated alveolar recruitment (Vrec), end-expiratory lung volume and alveolar distension based on elastance-related end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure (PL,EL). RESULTS: Nineteen patients with moderate to severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mmHg) were included with a baseline PEEP of 7.0 ± 1.8 cmH2O and a PaO2/FiO2 of 91.2 ± 31.2 mmHg. PEEP and oxygenation increased significantly from baseline with both protocols; PEEP Express group was 14.2 ± 3.6 cmH2O versus 16.7 ± 5.9 cmH2O in PLexpi group. No patient had the same PEEP with the two protocols. Vrec was higher with the latter protocol (299 [0 to 875] vs. 222 [47 to 483] ml, p = 0.049) and correlated with improved oxygenation (R2 = 0.45, p = 0.002). Two and seven patients in the Express and PL,expi groups, respectively, had PL,EL > 25 cmH2O. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great heterogeneity of PLexpi when Pplat is used to titrate PEEP but with limited risk of over-distension. A PEEP titration for a moderate positive level of PLexpi might slightly improve alveolar recruitment and oxygenation but increases the risk of over-distension in one-third of patients.