The Potential Synergistic Risk of Albuterol and Vasoactives in Acute Lung Injury Trials.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are often prescribed both inhaled beta-agonists and intravenous vasoactive; however, the interaction of the additive beta-agonist effects of these 2 agents remains largely uncharacterized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate how concomitant use of albuterol and vasoactive or inotropes affected ventilator-free days (VFDs) by re-analyzing the data from the Albuterol to Treat Acute Lung Injury (ALTA) trial. METHODS: In this study, subjects were grouped to albuterol-vasoactive (n = 84) versus (vs) placebo-vasoactive (n = 62). Ventilator-free days, intensive care unit (ICU)-free days, organ failure-free days, cardiovascular adverse events, and 90-day mortality were compared. The primary outcome was VFDs. RESULTS: Patients in the albuterol-vasoactive group had significantly fewer VFDs than patients in the placebo-vasoactive group (11 vs 19, P = 0.05). Patients in the albuterol-vasoactive group also had significantly fewer ICU-free days (9.5 vs 18.5, P = .006). The 90-day mortality was similar between groups (36.9% vs 27.4%, P = .20). Similarly, no significant difference in cardiac adverse events between the groups (14.3% vs 11.3%, P = 0.59). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: This study has shown fewer VFDs for patients who received both vasoactive and albuterol. There were also fewer ICU-free days when compared to those on vasoactive only. Given the common use of both agents, a prospective evaluation of the additive adverse effects of beta-agonism is warranted.

Thoracic epidural analgesia in intensive care unit patients with acute pancreatitis: the EPIPAN multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Findings from preclinical studies and one pilot clinical trial suggest potential benefits of epidural analgesia in acute pancreatitis. We aimed to assess the efficacy of thoracic epidural analgesia, in addition to usual care, in improving clinical outcomes of intensive care unit patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial including adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute pancreatitis upon admission to the intensive care unit. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a strategy combining thoracic epidural analgesia and usual care (intervention group) or a strategy of usual care alone (control group). The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days from randomization until day 30. RESULTS: Between June 2014 and January 2019, 148 patients were enrolled, and 135 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 65 patients randomly assigned to the intervention group and 70 to the control group. The number of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups (median [interquartile range], 30 days [15-30] and 30 days [18-30], respectively; median absolute difference of - 0.0 days, 95% CI - 3.3 to 3.3; p = 0.59). Epidural analgesia was significantly associated with longer duration of invasive ventilation (median [interquartile range], 14 days [5-28] versus 6 days [2-13], p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In a population of intensive care unit adults with acute pancreatitis and low requirement for intubation, this first multicenter randomized trial did not show the hypothesized benefit of epidural analgesia in addition to usual care. Safety of epidural analgesia in this setting requires further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02126332 , April 30, 2014.

Ivermectin administration is associated with lower gastrointestinal complications and greater ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19: A propensity score analysis.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 patients have been reported to have digestive symptoms with poor outcome. Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug, has been used in COVID-19 patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether ivermectin has effects on gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days in ventilated patients with COVID-19. METHODS: COVID-19 patients who were mechanically ventilated in the ICU were included in this study. The ventilated patients who received ivermectin within 3 days after admission were assigned to the Ivermectin group, and the others were assigned to the Control group. Patients in the Ivermectin group received ivermectin 200 µg/kg via nasal tube. The incidence of gastrointestinal complications and ventilator-free days within 4 weeks from admission were evaluated as clinical outcomes using a propensity score with the inverse probability weighting method. RESULTS: We included 88 patients in this study, of whom 39 patients were classified into the Ivermectin group, and 49 patients were classified into the Control group. The hazard ratio for gastrointestinal complications in the Ivermectin group as compared with the Control group was 0.221 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.057 to 0.855; p = 0.029) in a Cox proportional-hazard regression model. The odds ratio for ventilator-free days as compared with the Control group was 1.920 (95% CI, 1.076 to 3.425; p = 0.027) in a proportional odds logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: Ivermectin improved gastrointestinal complications and the number of ventilator-free days in severe COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Prevention of gastrointestinal symptoms by SARS-Cov-2 might be associated with COVID-19 outcome.

Early corticosteroids are associated with lower mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) have a high fatality rate likely due to a dysregulated immune response. Corticosteroids could attenuate this inappropriate response, although there are still some concerns regarding its use, timing, and dose. METHODS: This is a nationwide, prospective, multicenter, observational, cohort study in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Spain from 12th March to 29th June 2020. Using a multivariable Cox model with inverse probability weighting, we compared relevant outcomes between patients treated with early corticosteroids (before or within the first 48 h of ICU admission) with those who did not receive early corticosteroids (delayed group) or any corticosteroids at all (never group). Primary endpoint was ICU mortality. Secondary endpoints included 7-day mortality, ventilator-free days, and complications. RESULTS: A total of 691 patients out of 882 (78.3%) received corticosteroid during their hospital stay. Patients treated with early-corticosteroids (n = 485) had lower ICU mortality (30.3% vs. never 36.6% and delayed 44.2%) and lower 7-day mortality (7.2% vs. never 15.2%) compared to non-early treated patients. They also had higher number of ventilator-free days, less length of ICU stay, and less secondary infections than delayed treated patients. There were no differences in medical complications between groups. Of note, early use of moderate-to-high doses was associated with better outcomes than low dose regimens. CONCLUSION: Early use of corticosteroids in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality than no or delayed use, and fewer complications than delayed use.

High-flow nasal oxygen in patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory failure.

PURPOSE: Whether the use of high-flow nasal oxygen in adult patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure improves clinically relevant outcomes remains unclear. We thus sought to assess the effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on ventilator-free days, compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation, on adult patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre cohort study using a prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 associated acute respiratory failure admitted to 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs). Main exposure was the use of high-flow nasal oxygen (conservative group), while early invasive mechanical ventilation (within the first day of ICU admission; early intubation group) served as the comparator. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at 28 days. ICU length of stay and all-cause in-hospital mortality served as secondary outcomes. We used propensity score matching to adjust for measured confounding. RESULTS: Out of 468 eligible patients, a total of 122 matched patients were included in the present analysis (61 for each group). When compared to early intubation, the use of high-flow nasal oxygen was associated with an increase in ventilator-free days (mean difference: 8.0 days; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.4 to 11.7 days) and a reduction in ICU length of stay (mean difference: - 8.2 days; 95% CI - 12.7 to - 3.6 days). No difference was observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality between groups (odds ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: The use of high-flow nasal oxygen upon ICU admission in adult patients with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure may lead to an increase in ventilator-free days and a reduction in ICU length of stay, when compared to early initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation. Future studies should confirm our findings.

Low Free T3 Is Associated With Worse Outcomes in Patients in the ICU Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVE: Critical illness causes a decrease in serum free triiodothyronine (T3) levels. This condition, known as nonthyroidal illness syndrome (NTIS), is associated with poor outcomes. The association of NTIS and outcomes in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) requiring mechanical ventilation has not been well studied. This study aimed to determine the impact of NTIS on the outcomes of these patients. METHODS: This prospective study included 162 patients in the ICU who underwent mechanical ventilation. Serum free T3 levels were tested on the day of initiation of mechanical ventilation. The rates of in-hospital mortality and ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28 after the initiation of mechanical ventilation were compared between patients with low (<2.3 pg/mL) and normal (≥2.3 pg/mL) free T3 levels. Patients who died while on mechanical ventilation were assigned a VFD of 0. RESULTS: Low T3 was present in 60% of study patients. The in-hospital mortality rate of the entire cohort was 39%, and the mean and median VFDs at day 28 were 13.5 and 21 days, respectively. Compared to patients with normal free T3, patients with low free T3 had higher in-hospital mortality (52% vs 19%, P < .001) and less mean and median VFDs at day 28 (10.7 vs 18 and 0 vs 23, respectively. P < .001 for both mean and median VFDs). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of low T3 due to NTIS in patients in the ICU requiring mechanical ventilation is associated with poor outcomes.

Reappraisal of Ventilator-Free Days in Critical Care Research.

Ventilator-free days (VFDs) are a commonly reported composite outcome measure in acute respiratory distress syndrome trials. VFDs combine survival and duration of ventilation in a manner that summarizes the "net effect" of an intervention on these two outcomes. However, this combining of outcome measures makes VFDs difficult to understand and analyze, which contributes to imprecise interpretations. We discuss the strengths and limitations of VFDs and other "failure-free day" composites, and we provide a framework for when and how to use these outcome measures. We also provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting VFDs, including Student's t tests and rank-sum tests, as well as competing risk regressions treating extubation as the primary outcome and death as the competing risk. Using simulations, we illustrate how the statistical test with optimal power depends on the relative contributions of mortality and ventilator duration on the composite effect size. Finally, we recommend a simple analysis and reporting framework using the competing risk approach, which provides clear information on the effect size of an intervention, a statistical test and measure of confidence with the ability to adjust for baseline factors and allow interim monitoring for trials. We emphasize that any approach to analyzing a composite outcome, including other "failure-free day" constructs, should also be accompanied by an examination of the components.

Composite Outcomes for Clinical Trials in Critical Care: The Devil is in the Detail.

How to cite this article: Lalgudi Ganesan S, Parameswaran N. Composite Outcomes for Clinical Trials in Critical Care: The Devil is in the Detail. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(10):903-904.

Comparison of Ventilator-free Days at 14 and 28 days as a Clinical Trial Outcome in Low- and Middle-income Countries.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Reporting ventilator-free days (VFDs) with time frame of 28 days is a popular composite outcome measure (COM) in trials. However, early deaths and shorter pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) stay predominate in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A shorter time frame may reduce sample size required. We planned to compute sample size requirements for different effect sizes from datasets of previously conducted prospective studies for 28-day and 14-day time frames (VFD28 vs VFD14) to examine the hypothesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VFD28 and VFD14 were defined. Datasets of five prospective studies from PICU of our hospital were analyzed to estimate sample sizes for target reductions of 1-9 days in VFDs and other COMs for the two time frames. Reconfirmation of results was done with datasets of two other studies from PICUs of two geographical extremes of the country. RESULTS: Time-to-event occurred within 14 days in majority of patients. Sample size required for VFD14 is about one-fifth to one-sixth of what is required for VFD28 for target reductions of 1-9 days for all the enrolled studies. The same was true for other COMs as well. The hypothesis was supported by datasets of two other studies used for reconfirmation. CONCLUSION: Choice of time frame for assessing VFDs and other COMs in clinical trials should be guided by the clinical context. A shorter time frame may be rewarding in terms of smaller sample size in the prevalent clinical setting of LMICs. Further confirmation with more datasets and prospective studies is desirable. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Baranwal AK, Kumar MP, Gupta PK. Comparison of Ventilator-free Days at 14 and 28 days as a Clinical Trial Outcome in Low- and Middle-income Countries. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(10):960-966.

High-dose Oral Ambroxol for Early Treatment of Pulmonary Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: an Exploratory, Randomized, Controlled Pilot Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy of high-dose oral ambroxol in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with respect to ventilator-free days (VFD). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, blinded pilot trial. PATIENTS: Sixty-six mechanically ventilated patients (1 month to 12 years) with ARDS who were hand-ventilated for <24 hr before pediatric intensive care unit admission. INTERVENTIONS: Patients randomized to oral ambroxol (40 mg/kg/day, in four divided doses) (n = 32) or placebo (n = 34) until 10 days, extubation or death whichever is earlier. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Majority (91%) had pneumonia and bronchiolitis. Two study groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Mean partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen and oxygenation index were >175 and <10, respectively, with no difference in the two study groups. VFD were similar in the two study groups. Overall mortality was 26%. No adverse events were noted with ambroxol. CONCLUSIONS: Among ventilated pulmonary ARDS patients with oxygenation index of <10, mortality was 26%. Ambroxol did not improve VFD. Study with higher and more frequently administered doses of ambroxol in larger sample is suggested after having generated relevant pharmacokinetic data among critically ill children.

The i-gel® supraglottic airway device compared to endotracheal intubation as the initial prehospital advanced airway device: A natural experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: Unlike randomized controlled trials, practical real-world studies can offer important information about implementation of prehospital interventions, particularly in community settings where there may be reluctance to adopt new practices. We present the results of a natural experiment that was driven by mandated COVID-19 pandemic-driven shift from endotracheal intubation (ETI) to the i-gel® supraglottic airway (SGA) as a primary advanced airway management device in the prehospital setting to reduce emergency medical services (EMS) personnel exposure to potentially infectious secretions. The objective was to compare first-pass success and timing to successful airway placement between ETI and the i-gel® SGA under extenuating circumstances. Methods: This pre/post study compared airway placement metrics in prehospital patients requiring advance airway management for non-trauma-related conditions. Data from EMS records were extracted over 2 years, 12 months pre-pandemic, and 12 months post-pandemic. During the pre-COVID-19 year, the EMS protocols utilized ETI as the primary advanced airway device (ETI group). Post-pandemic paramedics were mandated to utilize i-gel® SGA as the primary advanced airway device to reduce exposure to secretions (SGA group). Results: There were 199 adult patients, 83 (42%) in the ETI group and 116 (58%) in the SGA group. First-pass success was significantly higher with SGA 96% (92%-99%) than ETI 68% (57%-78%) with paramedics citing the inability to visualize the airway in 52% of ETI cases. Time to first-pass success was significantly shorter in the SGA group (5.9 min [5.1-6.7 min]) than in the ETI group (8.3 min [6.9-9.6 min]), as was time to overall successful placement at 6.0 min (5.1-6.8 min) versus 9.6 min (8.2-11.1 min), respectively. Multiple placement attempts were required in 26% of ETI cases and 1% of the SGA cases. There were no statistically significant differences in the number and types of complications between the cohorts. Return of spontaneous circulation (on/before emergency department [ED] arrival), mortality at 28 days, intensive care unit length of stay, or ventilator-free days between the groups were not statistically different between the groups. Conclusion: In this natural experiment, the SGA performed significantly better than ETI in first-pass airway device placement success and was significantly faster in achieving first-pass success, and overall airway placement, thus potentially reducing exposure to respiratory pathogens. Practical real-world studies can offer important information about implementation of prehospital interventions, particularly in community settings and in systems with a low frequency of tracheal intubations.

Early administration of mucoactive agents and ventilator-free days: a propensity score-matched study.

Background: Mucoactive agents are often prescribed for the management of airway secretions. However, it is unclear whether they improve respiratory outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. Methods: We examined the association between the early administration of mucoactive agents in ventilated patients and increased ventilator-free days (VFDs). This retrospective observational study was conducted in two intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary care hospital in Japan. We applied 1:1 propensity score matching between the early mucoactive agent group and the on-demand mucoactive agent group. We compared VFDs during the first 28 days of ICU stay as the primary outcome between the groups. Results: In total, 662 participants were eligible for this study, and 94 participants (47 in each group) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in the median VFDs between the groups [21 days; interquartile (IQR) 1-24 for the early group vs. 20 days; IQR 13-24 for the on-demand group; P=0.53]. The median ICU-free days were 19 (range, 12-22) days and 19 (range, 13-22) days for the early and on-demand mucoactive agent groups, respectively (P=0.72). Conclusions: Early administration of mucoactive agents was not associated with increased VFDs.

Factors Associated With Prolonged Ventilation in Patients Receiving Prone Positioning Protocol With Muscle Relaxants for Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are frequently used to treat severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 pneumonia. Prone positioning has shown to improve mortality, whereas NMBAs are used to prevent ventilator asynchrony and reduce patient self-inflicted lung injury. However, despite the use of lung-protective strategies, high death rates in this patient population have been reported. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the factors affecting prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects receiving prone positioning plus muscle relaxants. The medical records of 170 patients were reviewed. Subjects were divided into 2 groups according to ventilator-free days (VFDs) at day 28. Whereas subjects with VFDs < 18 d were defined as prolonged mechanical ventilation, subjects with VFDs ≥18 d were defined as short-term mechanical ventilation. Subjects' baseline status, status at ICU admission, therapy before ICU admission, and treatment in the ICU were studied. RESULTS: Under the proning protocol for COVID-19, the mortality rate in our facility was 11.2%. The prognosis may be improved by avoiding lung injury in the early stages of mechanical ventilation. According to multifactorial logistic regression analysis, persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood (P = .03), higher daily corticosteroid use before ICU admission (P = .007), delayed recovery of lymphocyte count (P < .001), and higher maximal fibrinogen degradation products (P = .039) were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation. A significant relationship was found between daily corticosteroid use before admission and VFDs by squared regression analysis (y = -0.00008522x2 + 0.01338x + 12.8; x: daily corticosteroids dosage before admission [prednisolone mg/d]; y: VFDs/28 d, R2 = 0.047, P = .02). The peak point of the regression curve was 13.4 d at 78.5 mg/d of the equivalent prednisolone dose, which corresponded to the longest VFDs. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding in blood, high corticosteroid dose from the onset of symptoms to ICU admission, slow recovery of lymphocyte counts, and high levels of fibrinogen degradation products after admission were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation in subjects with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Re-analysis of ventilator-free days (VFD) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) studies.

BACKGROUND: Over recent decades, improvements in healthcare have reduced mortality and morbidity rates in many conditions. This has resulted, in part, from the identification of effective interventions in randomised trials, and in conducting such trials, a composite outcome measure (COM) with multiple components will increase event rates, which allows study completion with a smaller sample size. In critical care research, the COM "ventilator-free days" (VFD) combines mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) into a single continuous measure, which can be analysed in a variety of ways. This study investigates the usefulness of Poisson and two-part Poisson models compared to t-distribution for the analysis of VFD. METHODS: Data from four studies (ALbuterol for the Treatment of ALI (ALTA), Early vs. Delayed Enteral Nutrition (EDEN), Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in Acute Lung Injury (ALI) to reduce pulmonary dysfunction (HARP-2), Statins for Acutely Injured Lungs from Sepsis (SAILS)) were used for analysis, with the VFD results summarised using mean, standard deviation (SD), median, interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles) and minimum and maximum values. The statistical analyses that are compared used the t-test, Poisson, zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) and two-part Logit-Poisson hurdle models. The analyses were exploratory in nature, and the significance level for differences in the estimates was set to 0.05. RESULTS: In HARP-2, which compared simvastatin and placebo, the mean (SD) VFD for all patients was 12.0 (10.2), but this mean value did not represent the data distribution as it falls in a zone between two peaks, with the lowest frequency of occurrence. The mean (SD) VFD after excluding patients who died before day 28 and patients who did not achieve unassisted breathing were 15.9 (8.7) and 18.2 (6.6), respectively. The mean difference (95% CI) between the two groups was 1.1 (95% CI: 0.7 to 2.8; p = 0.20) based on an independent t-test. However, when the two-part hurdle model was used, the simvastatin arm had a significantly higher number of non-zero values compared to the placebo group, which indicated that more patients were alive and free of mechanical ventilation in the simvastatin group. Similarly, in ALTA, this model found that significantly more patients were alive and free of MV in the control group. In EDEN and SAILS, there was no significant difference between the control and intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Our analyses show that the t-test and Poisson model are not appropriate for bi-modal data (such as VFD) where there is a large number of zero events. The two-part hurdle model was the most promising approach. There is a need for future research to investigate other analysis techniques, such as two-part quantile regression and to determine the impact on sample size requirements for comparative effectiveness trials.

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Proportional Assist Ventilation for Minimizing the Duration of Mechanical Ventilation: the PROMIZING study.

BACKGROUND: Proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) is a mechanical ventilation mode that delivers assistance to breathe in proportion to the patient's effort. The proportional assistance, called the gain, can be adjusted by the clinician to maintain the patient's respiratory effort or workload within a normal range. Short-term and physiological benefits of this mode compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV) include better patient-ventilator synchrony and a more physiological response to changes in ventilatory demand. METHODS: The objective of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if, for patients with acute respiratory failure, ventilation with PAV+ will result in a shorter time to successful extubation than with PSV. This multi-centre open-label clinical trial plans to involve approximately 20 sites in several continents. Once eligibility is determined, patients must tolerate a short-term PSV trial and either (1) not meet general weaning criteria or (2) fail a 2-min Zero Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Trial using the rapid shallow breathing index, or (3) fail a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), in this sequence. Then, participants in this study will be randomized to either PSV or PAV+ in a 1:1 ratio. PAV+ will be set according to a target of muscular pressure. The weaning process will be identical in the two arms. Time to liberation will be the primary outcome; ventilator-free days and other outcomes will be measured. DISCUSSION: Meta-analyses comparing PAV+ to PSV suggest PAV+ may benefit patients and decrease healthcare costs but no powered study to date has targeted the difficult to wean patient population most likely to benefit from the intervention, or used consistent timing for the implementation of PAV+. Our enrolment strategy, primary outcome measure, and liberation approaches may be useful for studying mechanical ventilation and weaning and can offer important results for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02447692 . Prospectively registered on May 19, 2015.

The Impact of Recombinant Human Erythropoietin Administration in Critically ill COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

The use of erythropoietin-stimulating agents (ESAs) as adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 may have a potential benefit. This study aims to evaluate the effect of ESAs on the clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was conducted from 01-03-2020 to 31-07-2021. We included adult patients who were ≥ 18 years old with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 infection and admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Patients were categorized depending on ESAs administration during their ICU stay. The primary endpoint was the length of stay; other endpoints were considered secondary. After propensity score matching (1:3), the overall included patients were 120. Among those, 30 patients received ESAs. A longer duration of ICU and hospital stay was observed in the ESA group (beta coefficient: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.97; P = < .01, beta coefficient: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12-0.69; P = < .01, respectively). In addition, the ESA group's ventilator-free days (VFDs) were significantly shorter than the control group. Moreover, patients who received ESAs have higher odds of liver injury and infections during ICU stay than the control group. The use of ESAs in COVID-19 critically ill patients was associated with longer hospital and ICU stays, with no survival benefits but linked with lower VFDs.

Randomized controlled trial of ultra-protective vs. protective ventilation strategy in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients with refractory cardiogenic shock: a study protocol for the ultra-ECMO trial.

Background: A protective or ultra-protective tidal volume strategy is widely applied to patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of very low tidal volume has the potential to further redece ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI) comparde with a "normal" lung protective management. Plus, cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) caused by hydrostatic mechanisms in patients with cardiogenic shock has similar respiratory mechanics to those found in patients with ARDS. And no consensus exists on mechanical ventilation parameter settings in patients with VA-ECMO. The study aimed to investigate the impact of an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy on the 28-day ventilator-free day (VFD) number in VA-ECMO-supported patients with refractory cardiogenic shock, including cardiac arrest. Methods: The Ultra-ECMO trial is a randomized controlled, open-label, single-center prospective superiority trial. At the onset of ECMO initiation, we will divide patients randomly into an intervention group and a control group in a 1:1 ratio. The control group will adopt protective ventilation settings [initial tidal volume: 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW)] for ventilation, and the intervention group will adopt ultra-protective ventilation settings (initial tidal volume: 4 ml/kg of PBW) for ventilation. The procedure is expected to last 72 h, after which the ventilator settings will be at the intensivists' discretion. The primary outcome is the VFD number at 28 days after inclusion. The secondary outcomes will include respiratory mechanics; analgesic/sedation dosage; lung ultrasound score; interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 levels in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid at the moment of enrollment (T0), 24, 48, and 72 h (T1, T2, and T3, respectively) after ECMO initiation; total time (in days) required for ECMO weaning; length of stay in the intensive care unit; total cost of hospitalization; amounts of resuscitative fluids; and in-hospital mortality. Discussion: VA-ECMO-treated patients without ARDS possess abnormal lung function. CPE, thoracic compliance reduction, and poor pulmonary blood perfusion are frequently present, and these patients can more easily progress to ARDS. It seems that targeting the protective tidal volume can lower adverse outcome incidence rates, even in patients without ARDS. This trial seeks to answer the question of whether adopting an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy can lead to superior primary and secondary outcomes compared to adopting a protective tidal volume strategy in patients treated by VA-ECMO. The Ultra-ECMO trial will provide an innovative mechanical ventilation strategy for VA-ECMO-supported patients for improving treatment outcomes at biological and potentially clinical levels. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2200067118.

Effect of Tocilizumab on "Ventilator Free Days" Composite Outcome in SARS-CoV-2 Patients: A Retrospective Competing Risk Analysis.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity. More severe cases demonstrate a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6, hence IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was tried for the management of severe cases. Aims: Effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free days among critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients. Method: Retrospective propensity score matching study, comparing mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group. Results: 29 patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. Matched groups were similar. Ventilator-free days were more numerous in the intervention group (SHR 2.7, 95% CI: 1.2 - 6.3; p = 0.02), ICU mortality rate was not different (37.9% versus 62%, p = 0.1), actual ventilator-free periods were significantly longer in tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio of death in tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25 - 0.97; p = 0.04). There was no difference in positive cultures among groups (55.2% in tocilizumab group versus 34.5% in the control; p = 0.1). Conclusion: Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated SARS-CoV-2 patients; it is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free periods, and insignificantly lower mortality and higher superinfection.

"Ventilator-free days" composite outcome in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection treated with tocilizumab: A retrospective competing risk analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection demonstrates a wide range of severity, with more severe cases presenting with a cytokine storm with elevated serum interleukin-6; hence, the interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab was used for the management of severe cases. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of tocilizumab on ventilator-free day composite outcomes among critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This retrospective propensity score-matching study compared mechanically ventilated patients who received tocilizumab to a control group. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients in the intervention group were compared to 29 controls. The matched groups were similar. The ventilator-free days composite outcome was higher in the intervention group (sub-distribution hazard ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-6.3; p = 0.02), the mortality rate in the intensive care unit was not different (37.9% vs 62%, p = 0.1), and actual ventilator-free days were significantly longer in the tocilizumab group (mean difference 4.7 days; p = 0.02). Sensitivity analysis showed a significantly lower hazard ratio for death in the tocilizumab group (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25-0.97; p = 0.04). Positive cultures were not significantly different among the groups (55.2% vs 34.5% in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively; p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab may improve the composite outcome of ventilator-free days at day 28 among mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is associated with significantly longer actual ventilator-free days, insignificantly lower mortality, and higher superinfection.

Effect of dexamethasone in patients with ARDS and COVID-19 (REMED trial)-study protocol for a prospective, multi-centre, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2019, SARS-CoV-2 virus has infected millions of people worldwide. In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in need of oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation, dexamethasone 6 mg per day is currently recommended. However, the dose of 6 mg of dexamethasone is currently being reappraised and may miss important therapeutic potential or may prevent potential deleterious effects of higher doses of corticosteroids. METHODS: REMED is a prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial testing the superiority of dexamethasone 20 mg (dexamethasone 20 mg on days 1-5, followed by dexamethasone 10 mg on days 6-10) vs 6 mg administered once daily intravenously for 10 days in adult patients with moderate or severe ARDS due to confirmed COVID-19. Three hundred participants will be enrolled and followed up for 360 days after randomization. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio into one of the two treatment arms. The following stratification factors will be applied: age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, CRP levels and trial centre. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days after randomisation. The secondary endpoints are mortality from any cause at 60 days after randomisation; dynamics of the inflammatory marker, change in WHO Clinical Progression Scale at day 14; and adverse events related to corticosteroids and independence at 90 days after randomisation assessed by the Barthel Index. The long-term outcomes of this study are to assess long-term consequences on mortality and quality of life at 180 and 360 days. The study will be conducted in the intensive care units (ICUs) of ten university hospitals in the Czech Republic. DISCUSSION: We aim to compare two different doses of dexamethasone in patients with moderate to severe ARDS undergoing mechanical ventilation regarding efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No. 2020-005887-70. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04663555. Registered on December 11, 2020.