Impact of Macintosh blade size on endotracheal intubation success in intensive care units: a retrospective multicenter observational MacSize-ICU study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact of Macintosh blade size used during direct laryngoscopy (DL) on first-attempt intubation success of orotracheal intubation in French intensive care units (ICUs). We hypothesized that success rate would be higher with Macintosh blade size No3 than with No4. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective observational study based on data from prospective trials conducted in 48 French ICUs of university, and general and private hospitals. After each intubation using Macintosh DL, patients' and operators' characteristics, Macintosh blade size, results of first DL and alternative techniques used, as well as the need of a second operator were collected. Complications rates associated with intubation were investigated. Primary outcome was success rate of first DL using Macintosh blade. RESULTS: A total of 2139 intubations were collected, 629 with a Macintosh blade No3 and 1510 with a No4. Incidence of first-pass intubation after first DL was significantly higher with Macintosh blade No3 (79.5 vs 73.3%, p = 0.0025), despite equivalent Cormack-Lehane scores (p = 0.48). Complications rates were equivalent between groups. Multivariate analysis concluded to a significant impact of Macintosh blade size on first DL success in favor of blade No3 (OR 1.44 [95% CI 1.14-1.84]; p = 0.0025) without any significant center effect on the primary outcome (p = 0.18). Propensity scores and adjustment analyses concluded to equivalent results. CONCLUSION: In the present study, Macintosh blade No3 was associated with improved first-passed DL in French ICUs. However, study design requires the conduct of a nationwide prospective multicenter randomized trial in different settings to confirm these results.

One-year patient outcomes based on lung morphology in acute respiratory distress syndrome: secondary analysis of LIVE trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has different phenotypes and distinct short-term outcomes. Patients with non-focal ARDS have a higher short-term mortality than focal ones. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the morphological phenotypes of ARDS on long-term outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the LIVE study, a prospective, randomised control trial, assessing the usefulness of a personalised ventilator setting according to lung morphology in moderate-to-severe ARDS. ARDS was classified as focal (consolidations only in the infero-posterior part of the lungs) or non-focal. Outcomes were assessed using mortality and functional scores for quality of life at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 124 focal ARDS and 236 non-focal ARDS cases were included. The 1-year mortality was higher for non-focal ARDS than for focal ARDS (37% vs. 24%, p = 0.012). Non-focal ARDS (hazard ratio, 3.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.80-6.59; p < 0.001), age, McCabe score, haematological cancers, SAPS II, and renal replacement therapy were independently associated with 1-year mortality. This difference was driven by mortality during the first 90 days (28 vs. 16%, p = 0.010) but not between 90 days and 1 year (7 vs. 6%, p = 0.591), at which point only the McCabe score was independently associated with mortality. Morphological phenotypes had no impact on patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Lung morphologies reflect the acute phase of ARDS and its short-term impact but not long-term outcomes, which seem only influenced by comorbidities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02149589; May 29, 2014.

Design and Rationale of the Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SESAR) Randomized Controlled Trial.

Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics may have beneficial effects on injured lungs, and pilot clinical data support improved arterial oxygenation, attenuated inflammation, and decreased lung epithelial injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving inhaled sevoflurane compared to intravenous midazolam. Whether sevoflurane is effective in improving clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS is unknown, and the benefits and risks of inhaled sedation in ARDS require further evaluation. Here, we describe the SESAR (Sevoflurane for Sedation in ARDS) trial designed to address this question. SESAR is a two-arm, investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment designed to test the efficacy of sedation with sevoflurane compared to intravenous propofol in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and off the ventilator at 28 days, considering death as a competing event, and the key secondary outcome is 90 day survival. The planned enrollment is 700 adult participants at 37 French academic and non-academic centers. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated, and biomarker measurements will help better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and Sedana Medical.

Personalised mechanical ventilation tailored to lung morphology versus low positive end-expiratory pressure for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in France (the LIVE study): a multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of personalised mechanical ventilation on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain and needs to be evaluated. We aimed to test whether a mechanical ventilation strategy that was personalised to individual patients' lung morphology would improve the survival of patients with ARDS when compared with standard of care. METHODS: We designed a multicentre, single-blind, stratified, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS in 20 university or non-university intensive care units in France. Patients older than 18 years with early ARDS for less than 12 h were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the control group or the personalised group using a minimisation algorithm and stratified according to the study site, lung morphology, and duration of mechanical ventilation. Only the patients were masked to allocation. In the control group, patients received a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg per predicted bodyweight and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was selected according to a low PEEP and fraction of inspired oxygen table, and early prone position was encouraged. In the personalised group, the treatment approach was based on lung morphology; patients with focal ARDS received a tidal volume of 8 mL/kg, low PEEP, and prone position. Patients with non-focal ARDS received a tidal volume of 6 mL/kg, along with recruitment manoeuvres and high PEEP. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality as established by intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered online with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02149589. FINDINGS: From June 12, 2014, to Feb 2, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. 11 patients were excluded in the personalised group and nine patients were excluded in the control group; 196 patients in the personalised group and 204 in the control group were included in the analysis. In a multivariate analysis, there was no difference in 90-day mortality between the group treated with personalised ventilation and the control group in the intention-to-treat analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1·01; 95% CI 0·61-1·66; p=0·98). However, misclassification of patients as having focal or non-focal ARDS by the investigators was observed in 85 (21%) of 400 patients. We found a significant interaction between misclassification and randomised group allocation with respect to the primary outcome (p<0·001). In the subgroup analysis, the 90-day mortality of the misclassified patients was higher in the personalised group (26 [65%] of 40 patients) than in the control group (18 [32%] of 57 patients; HR 2·8; 95% CI 1·5-5·1; p=0·012. INTERPRETATION: Personalisation of mechanical ventilation did not decrease mortality in patients with ARDS, possibly because of the misclassification of 21% of patients. A ventilator strategy misaligned with lung morphology substantially increases mortality. Whether improvement in ARDS phenotyping can decrease mortality should be assessed in a future clinical trial. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique InterRégional 2013).