Spontaneous breathing trial with pressure support on positive end-expiratory pressure and extensive use of non-invasive ventilation versus T-piece in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess whether a strategy combining spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) with both pressure support (PS) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and extended use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (extensively-assisted weaning) would shorten the time until successful extubation as compared with SBT with T-piece (TP) and post-extubation NIV performed in selected patients as advocated by guidelines (standard weaning), in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation. METHODS: The study is a single-center prospective open label, randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel groups and balanced randomization with a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were intubated patients mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h who failed their first SBT using TP. In the extensively-assisted weaning group, SBT was performed with PS (7 cmH2O) and PEEP (5 cmH2O). In case of SBT success, an additional SBT with TP was performed. Failure of this SBT-TP was an additional criterion for post-extubation NIV in this group in addition to other recommended criteria. In the standard weaning group, SBT was performed with TP, and NIV was performed according to international guidelines. The primary outcome criterion was the time between inclusion and successful extubation evaluated with a Cox model with adjustment on randomization strata. RESULTS: From May 2019 to March 2023, 98 patients were included and randomized in the study (49 in each group). Four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat population (2 in both groups); therefore, 47 patients were analyzed in each group. The extensively-assisted weaning group had a higher median age (68 [58-73] vs. 62 [55-71] yrs.) and similar sex ratio (62% male vs. 57%). Time until successful extubation was not significantly different between extensively-assisted and standard weaning groups (median, 172 [50-436] vs. 95 [47-232] hours, Cox hazard ratio for successful extubation, 0.88 [95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.42] using the standard weaning group as a reference; p = 0.60). All secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: An extensively-assisted weaning strategy did not lead to a shorter time to successful extubation than a standard weaning strategy. Trial registration The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03861117), on March 1, 2019, before the inclusion of the first patient. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03861117 .

Precision of CT-derived alveolar recruitment assessed by human observers and a machine learning algorithm in moderate and severe ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Assessing measurement error in alveolar recruitment on computed tomography (CT) is of paramount importance to select a reliable threshold identifying patients with high potential for alveolar recruitment and to rationalize positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) setting in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The aim of this study was to assess both intra- and inter-observer smallest real difference (SRD) exceeding measurement error of recruitment using both human and machine learning-made lung segmentation (i.e., delineation) on CT. This single-center observational study was performed on adult ARDS patients. CT were acquired at end-expiration and end-inspiration at the PEEP level selected by clinicians, and at end-expiration at PEEP 5 and 15 cmH2O. Two human observers and a machine learning algorithm performed lung segmentation. Recruitment was computed as the weight change of the non-aerated compartment on CT between PEEP 5 and 15 cmH2O. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were included, of whom 11 (85%) presented a severe ARDS. Intra- and inter-observer measurements of recruitment were virtually unbiased, with 95% confidence intervals (CI95%) encompassing zero. The intra-observer SRD of recruitment amounted to 3.5 [CI95% 2.4-5.2]% of lung weight. The human-human inter-observer SRD of recruitment was slightly higher amounting to 5.7 [CI95% 4.0-8.0]% of lung weight, as was the human-machine SRD (5.9 [CI95% 4.3-7.8]% of lung weight). Regarding other CT measurements, both intra-observer and inter-observer SRD were close to zero for the CT-measurements focusing on aerated lung (end-expiratory lung volume, hyperinflation), and higher for the CT-measurements relying on accurate segmentation of the non-aerated lung (lung weight, tidal recruitment…). The average symmetric surface distance between lung segmentation masks was significatively lower in intra-observer comparisons (0.8 mm [interquartile range (IQR) 0.6-0.9]) as compared to human-human (1.0 mm [IQR 0.8-1.3] and human-machine inter-observer comparisons (1.1 mm [IQR 0.9-1.3]). CONCLUSIONS: The SRD exceeding intra-observer experimental error in the measurement of alveolar recruitment may be conservatively set to 5% (i.e., the upper value of the CI95%). Human-machine and human-human inter-observer measurement errors with CT are of similar magnitude, suggesting that machine learning segmentation algorithms are credible alternative to humans for quantifying alveolar recruitment on CT.

Pressure support and positive end-expiratory pressure versus T-piece during spontaneous breathing trial in difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation: study protocol for the SBT-ICU study.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous breathing trials are performed in critically ill intubated patients in order to assess readiness to be weaned from mechanical ventilation. In patients with difficult weaning (i.e. not extubated after their first SBT), performing SBT using pressure support with or without positive end-expiratory pressure or using T-piece is debated. As ventilatory support during SBT is greater on pressure support than on T-piece and as positive end-expiratory pressure can prevent weaning-induced pulmonary oedema, we hypothesized that their combination and large use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation may shorten the time until successful extubation as compared with T-piece, without increasing the rate of reintubation. METHODS: SBT-ICU is a monocentric prospective open labelled, randomized controlled superiority trial comparing two mechanical ventilation weaning strategies; i.e. daily spontaneous breathing trials using pressure support with positive end-expiratory pressure or T-piece. The primary outcome will be time until successful extubation (defined by as extubation, without reintubation or death within the seven following days). DISCUSSION: This paper describes the protocol of the SBT-ICU trial. Enrolment of patients in the study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03861117. Registered on March 1, 2019, before the beginning of inclusion.

Response to PEEP in COVID-19 ARDS patients with and without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. A multicenter case-control computed tomography study.

BACKGROUND: PEEP selection in severe COVID-19 patients under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is challenging as no study has assessed the alveolar recruitability in this setting. The aim of the study was to compare lung recruitability and the impact of PEEP on lung aeration in moderate and severe ARDS patients with or without ECMO, using computed tomography (CT). METHODS: We conducted a two-center prospective observational case-control study in adult COVID-19-related patients who had an indication for CT within 72 h of ARDS onset in non-ECMO patients or within 72  h after ECMO onset. Ninety-nine patients were included, of whom 24 had severe ARDS under ECMO, 59 severe ARDS without ECMO and 16 moderate ARDS. RESULTS: Non-inflated lung at PEEP 5 cmH2O was significantly greater in ECMO than in non-ECMO patients. Recruitment induced by increasing PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH2O was not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO patients, while PEEP-induced hyperinflation was significantly lower in the ECMO group and virtually nonexistent. The median [IQR] fraction of recruitable lung mass between PEEP 5 and 15 cmH2O was 6 [4-10]%. Total superimposed pressure at PEEP 5 cmH2O was significantly higher in ECMO patients and amounted to 12 [11-13] cmH2O. The hyperinflation-to-recruitment ratio (i.e., a trade-off index of the adverse effects and benefits of PEEP) was significantly lower in ECMO patients and was lower than one in 23 (96%) ECMO patients, 41 (69%) severe non-ECMO patients and 8 (50%) moderate ARDS patients. Compliance of the aerated lung at PEEP 5 cmH2O corrected for PEEP-induced recruitment (CBABY LUNG) was significantly lower in ECMO patients than in non-ECMO patients and was linearly related to the logarithm of the hyperinflation-to-recruitment ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Lung recruitability of COVID-19 pneumonia is not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO patients, with substantial interindividual variations. The balance between hyperinflation and recruitment induced by PEEP increase from 5 to 15 cmH2O appears favorable in virtually all ECMO patients, while this PEEP level is required to counteract compressive forces leading to lung collapse. CBABY LUNG is significantly lower in ECMO patients, independently of lung recruitability.