Effect of Lung Recruitment and Titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs Low PEEP on Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Interventions: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.

Clinical outcomes and lung mechanics characteristics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a propensity score analysis of two major randomized trials. / Desfechos clínicos e características da mecânica pulmonar entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a não associada à COVID-19: uma análise de escore de propensão de dois importantes ensaios randomizados.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.

OBJETIVO: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). CONCLUSÃO: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.

Desfechos clínicos e características da mecânica pulmonar entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a não associada à COVID-19: uma análise de escore de propensão de dois importantes ensaios randomizados / Clinical outcomes and lung mechanics characteristics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a propensity score analysis of two major randomized trials

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Métodos: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Resultados: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). Conclusão: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Methods: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Results: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). Conclusion: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.

Brazilian recommendations of mechanical ventilation 2013. Part I.

Perspectives on invasive and noninvasive ventilatory support for critically ill patients are evolving, as much evidence indicates that ventilation may have positive effects on patient survival and the quality of the care provided in intensive care units in Brazil. For those reasons, the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB) and the Brazilian Thoracic Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumonia e Tisiologia - SBPT), represented by the Mechanical Ventilation Committee and the Commission of Intensive Therapy, respectively, decided to review the literature and draft recommendations for mechanical ventilation with the goal of creating a document for bedside guidance as to the best practices on mechanical ventilation available to their members. The document was based on the available evidence regarding 29 subtopics selected as the most relevant for the subject of interest. The project was developed in several stages, during which the selected topics were distributed among experts recommended by both societies with recent publications on the subject of interest and/or significant teaching and research activity in the field of mechanical ventilation in Brazil. The experts were divided into pairs that were charged with performing a thorough review of the international literature on each topic. All the experts met at the Forum on Mechanical Ventilation, which was held at the headquarters of AMIB in São Paulo on August 3 and 4, 2013, to collaboratively draft the final text corresponding to each sub-topic, which was presented to, appraised, discussed and approved in a plenary session that included all 58 participants and aimed to create the final document.

Recomendações brasileiras de ventilação mecânica 2013. Parte I / Brazilian recommendations of mechanical ventilation 2013. Part I

O suporte ventilatório artificial invasivo e não invasivo ao paciente crítico tem evoluído e inúmeras evidências têm surgido, podendo ter impacto na melhora da sobrevida e da qualidade do atendimento oferecido nas unidades de terapia intensiva no Brasil. Isto posto, a Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB) e a Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumonia e Tisiologia (SBPT) - representadas pelo seus Comitê de Ventilação Mecânica e Comissão de Terapia Intensiva, respectivamente, decidiram revisar a literatura e preparar recomendações sobre ventilação mecânica objetivando oferecer aos associados um documento orientador das melhores práticas da ventilação mecânica na beira do leito, baseado nas evidencias existentes, sobre os 29 subtemas selecionados como mais relevantes no assunto. O projeto envolveu etapas visando distribuir os subtemas relevantes ao assunto entre experts indicados por ambas as sociedades que tivessem publicações recentes no assunto e/ou atividades relevantes em ensino e pesquisa no Brasil na área de ventilação mecânica. Esses profissionais, divididos por subtemas em duplas, responsabilizaram-se por fazer revisão extensa da literatura mundial sobre cada subtema. Reuniram-se todos no Forum de Ventilação Mecânica na sede da AMIB em São Paulo, em 03 e 04 de agosto de 2013 para finalização conjunta do texto de cada subtema e apresentação, apreciação, discussão e aprovação em plenária pelos 58 participantes, permitindo a elaboração de um documento final.

Perspectives on invasive and noninvasive ventilatory support for critically ill patients are evolving, as much evidence indicates that ventilation may have positive effects on patient survival and the quality of the care provided in intensive care units in Brazil. For those reasons, the Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB) and the Brazilian Thoracic Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumonia e Tisiologia - SBPT), represented by the Mechanical Ventilation Committee and the Commission of Intensive Therapy, respectively, decided to review the literature and draft recommendations for mechanical ventilation with the goal of creating a document for bedside guidance as to the best practices on mechanical ventilation available to their members. The document was based on the available evidence regarding 29 subtopics selected as the most relevant for the subject of interest. The project was developed in several stages, during which the selected topics were distributed among experts recommended by both societies with recent publications on the subject of interest and/or significant teaching and research activity in the field of mechanical ventilation in Brazil. The experts were divided into pairs that were charged with performing a thorough review of the international literature on each topic. All the experts met at the Forum on Mechanical Ventilation, which was held at the headquarters of AMIB in São Paulo on August 3 and 4, 2013, to collaboratively draft the final text corresponding to each sub-topic, which was presented to, appraised, discussed and approved in a plenary session that included all 58 participants and aimed to create the final document.