Epidemiology, ventilation management and outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients versus patients with ARDS due to pneumonia in the Pre-COVID era.

BACKGROUND: Ventilation management may differ between COVID-19 ARDS (COVID-ARDS) patients and patients with pre-COVID ARDS (CLASSIC-ARDS); it is uncertain whether associations of ventilation management with outcomes for CLASSIC-ARDS also exist in COVID-ARDS. METHODS: Individual patient data analysis of COVID-ARDS and CLASSIC-ARDS patients in six observational studies of ventilation, four in the COVID-19 pandemic and two pre-pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to compare epidemiology and ventilation characteristics. The primary endpoint were key ventilation parameters; other outcomes included mortality and ventilator-free days and alive (VFD-60) at day 60. RESULTS: This analysis included 6702 COVID-ARDS patients and 1415 CLASSIC-ARDS patients. COVID-ARDS patients received lower median VT (6.6 [6.0 to 7.4] vs 7.3 [6.4 to 8.5] ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001) and higher median PEEP (12.0 [10.0 to 14.0] vs 8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001), at lower median ΔP (13.0 [10.0 to 15.0] vs 16.0 [IQR 12.0 to 20.0] cm H2O; p < 0.001) and higher median Crs (33.5 [26.6 to 42.1] vs 28.1 [21.6 to 38.4] mL/cm H2O; p < 0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, higher ΔP had an independent association with higher 60-day mortality and less VFD-60 in both groups. Higher PEEP had an association with less VFD-60, but only in COVID-ARDS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show important differences in key ventilation parameters and associations thereof with outcomes between COVID-ARDS and CLASSIC-ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05650957), December 14, 2022.

Clustering COVID-19 ARDS patients through the first days of ICU admission. An analysis of the CIBERESUCICOVID Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can be classified into sub-phenotypes according to different inflammatory/clinical status. Prognostic enrichment was achieved by grouping patients into hypoinflammatory or hyperinflammatory sub-phenotypes, even though the time of analysis may change the classification according to treatment response or disease evolution. We aimed to evaluate when patients can be clustered in more than 1 group, and how they may change the clustering of patients using data of baseline or day 3, and the prognosis of patients according to their evolution by changing or not the cluster. METHODS: Multicenter, observational prospective, and retrospective study of patients admitted due to ARDS related to COVID-19 infection in Spain. Patients were grouped according to a clustering mixed-type data algorithm (k-prototypes) using continuous and categorical readily available variables at baseline and day 3. RESULTS: Of 6205 patients, 3743 (60%) were included in the study. According to silhouette analysis, patients were grouped in two clusters. At baseline, 1402 (37%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2341(63%) in cluster 2. On day 3, 1557(42%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2086 (57%) in cluster 2. The patients included in cluster 2 were older and more frequently hypertensive and had a higher prevalence of shock, organ dysfunction, inflammatory biomarkers, and worst respiratory indexes at both time points. The 90-day mortality was higher in cluster 2 at both clustering processes (43.8% [n = 1025] versus 27.3% [n = 383] at baseline, and 49% [n = 1023] versus 20.6% [n = 321] on day 3). Four hundred and fifty-eight (33%) patients clustered in the first group were clustered in the second group on day 3. In contrast, 638 (27%) patients clustered in the second group were clustered in the first group on day 3. CONCLUSIONS: During the first days, patients can be clustered into two groups and the process of clustering patients may change as they continue to evolve. This means that despite a vast majority of patients remaining in the same cluster, a minority reaching 33% of patients analyzed may be re-categorized into different clusters based on their progress. Such changes can significantly impact their prognosis.

Multidisciplinary Consensus on the Management of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the COVID-19 Patient.

Acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia often requires a comprehensive approach that includes non-pharmacological strategies such as non-invasive support (including positive pressure modes, high flow therapy or awake proning) in addition to oxygen therapy, with the primary goal of avoiding endotracheal intubation. Clinical issues such as determining the optimal time to initiate non-invasive support, choosing the most appropriate modality (based not only on the acute clinical picture but also on comorbidities), establishing criteria for recognition of treatment failure and strategies to follow in this setting (including palliative care), or implementing de-escalation procedures when improvement occurs are of paramount importance in the ongoing management of severe COVID-19 cases. Organizational issues, such as the most appropriate setting for management and monitoring of the severe COVID-19 patient or protective measures to prevent virus spread to healthcare workers in the presence of aerosol-generating procedures, should also be considered. While many early clinical guidelines during the pandemic were based on previous experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the landscape has evolved since then. Today, we have a wealth of high-quality studies that support evidence-based recommendations to address these complex issues. This document, the result of a collaborative effort between four leading scientific societies (SEDAR, SEMES, SEMICYUC, SEPAR), draws on the experience of 25 experts in the field to synthesize knowledge to address pertinent clinical questions and refine the approach to patient care in the face of the challenges posed by severe COVID-19 infection.

Frailty in severe COVID-19 survivors after ICU admission. A prospective and multicenter study in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the presence of frailty in survivors of severe COVID-19 admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and followed six months after discharge. DESIGN: An observational, prospective and multicenter, nation-wide study. SETTING: Eight adult ICU across eight academic acute care hospitals in Mexico. PATIENTS: All consecutive adult COVID-19 patients admitted in the ICU with acute respiratory failure between March 8, 2020 to February 28, 2021 were included. Frailty was defined according to the FRAIL scale, and was obtained at ICU admission and 6-month after hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: The primary endpoint was the frailty status 6-months after discharge. A regression model was used to evaluate the predictors during ICU stay associated with frailty. RESULTS: 196 ICU survivors were evaluated for basal frailty at ICU admission and were included in this analysis. After 6-months from discharge, 164 patients were evaluated for frailty: 40 patients (20.4%) were classified as non-frail, 67 patients (34.2%) as pre-frail and 57 patients (29.1%) as frail. After adjustment, the need of invasive mechanical ventilation was the only factor independently associated with frailty at 6 month follow-up (Odds Ratio [OR] 3.70, 95% confidence interval 1.40-9.81, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Deterioration of frailty was reported frequently among ICU survivors with severe COVID-19 at 6-months. The need of invasive mechanical ventilation in ICU survivors was the only predictor independently associated with frailty.

Decline in Ventilatory Ratio as a Predictor of Mortality in Adults With ARDS Receiving Prone Positioning.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning reduces mortality in patients with moderate/severe ARDS. It remains unclear which physiological parameters could guide clinicians to assess which patients are likely to benefit from prone position. This study aimed to determine the association between relative changes in physiological parameters at 24 h of prone positioning and ICU mortality in adult subjects with ARDS. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using the VENTILA database, including adults with ARDS receiving prone positioning. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between relative changes in physiological parameters (PaO2 /FIO2 , dynamic driving pressure, PaCO2 , and ventilatory ratio defined as [minute ventilation [mL/min] × PaCO2 [mm Hg]]/[predicted body weight × 100 [mL/min] × 37.5 [mm Hg] with ICU mortality) (primary outcome). We report adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI as measures of association. RESULTS: We included 156 subjects of which 82 (53%) died in the ICU. A relative decline in the ventilatory ratio at 24 h was associated with lower ICU mortality (odds ratio 0.80 [95% CI 0.66-0.97], every 10% decrease). Relative changes in PaO2 /FIO2 (odds ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.03], every 25% increase), PaCO2 (odds ratio 0.97 [95% CI 0.82-1.16], every 10% decrease), and dynamic driving pressure (odds ratio 0.98 [95% CI 0.89-1.07], every 10% decrease) were not associated with ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with ARDS receiving prone positioning, a relative decline in the ventilatory ratio at 24 h was associated with lower ICU mortality.

Summary of Recommendations and Key Points of the Consensus of Spanish Scientific Societies (SEPAR, SEMICYUC, SEMES; SECIP, SENEO, SEDAR, SENP) on the Use of Non-Invasive Ventilation and High-Flow Oxygen Therapy with Nasal Cannulas in Adult, Pediatric, and Neonatal Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Failure / Sumario de recomendaciones y puntos clave del Consenso de las Sociedades Científicas Españolas (SEPAR, SEMICYUC, SEMES; SECIP, SENeo, SEDAR, SENP) para la utilización de la ventilación no invasiva y terapia de alto flujo con cánulas nasales en el paciente adulto, pediátrico y neonatal con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda grave

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) in adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) comprises two treatment modalities, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy. However, experts from different specialties disagree on the benefit of these techniques in different clinical settings. The objective of this consensus was to develop a series of good clinical practice recommendations for the application of non-invasive support in patients with ARF, endorsed by all scientific societies involved in the management of adult and pediatric/neonatal patients with ARF.To this end, the different societies involved were contacted, and they in turn appointed a group of 26 professionals with sufficient experience in the use of these techniques. Three face-to-face meetings were held to agree on recommendations (up to a total of 71) based on a literature review and the latest evidence associated with 3 categories: indications, monitoring and follow-up of NIRS. Finally, the experts from each scientific society involved voted telematically on each of the recommendations. To classify the degree of agreement, an analog classification system was chosen that was easy and intuitive to use and that clearly stated whether the each NIRS intervention should be applied, could be applied, or should not be applied. (AU)

El soporte respiratorio no invasivo (SRNI) comprende 2 modalidades de tratamiento, la ventilación mecánica no invasiva (VMNI) y la terapia de alto flujo con cánulas nasales (TAFCN) que se aplican en pacientes adultos, pediátricos y neonatales con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda (IRA). Sin embargo, el grado de acuerdo entre las distintas especialidades sobre el beneficio de estas técnicas en diferentes escenarios clínicos es controvertido. El objetivo del presente consenso fue elaborar una serie de recomendaciones de buena práctica clínica para la aplicación de soporte no invasivo en pacientes con IRA, avaladas por todas las sociedades científicas involucradas en el manejo del paciente adulto y pediátrico/neonatal con IRA.Para ello se contactó con las diferentes sociedades implicadas, quienes designaron a su vez a un grupo de 26 profesionales con suficiente experiencia en su aplicación. Se realizaron 3 reuniones presenciales para consensuar las recomendaciones (hasta un total de 71) fundamentadas en la revisión de la literatura y en la actualización de la evidencia disponible en relación con 3 categorías: indicaciones, monitorización y seguimiento del SRNI. Finalmente, se procedió a votación telemática de cada una de las recomendaciones, por parte de los expertos de cada sociedad científica implicada. Para la clasificación del grado de acuerdo se optó por un sistema analógico de clasificación fácil e intuitivo de usar, y que expresara con claridad si el procedimiento relacionado con el SRNI debía hacerse, podía hacerse o no debía hacerse. (AU)

Ventilar o no ventilar con mascarilla-bolsa autoinflable (Ambú(R)) antes de la intubación urgente, ¿había alguna duda? / Whether or not to ventilate with self-inflating bag-valve-mask (Ambú(R)) before urgent intubation ¿Were there any doubts?

Objetivo: Determinar el efecto de la ventilación con mascarilla-bolsa autoinflable (Ambú(R)) sobre la hipoxemia durante la intubación traqueal en pacientes críticos. La hipótesis planteada es que la ventilación con mascarilla-bolsa autoinflable durante el intervalo desde la inducción anestésica hasta la laringoscopia mejora la SpO2 en comparación con la no ventilación. Diseño: Ensayo clínico, pragmático, no ciego, con asignación aleatoria realizado en 7 Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos en EEUU desde marzo de 2017 a mayo de 2018. Dada la naturaleza de la intervención, los pacientes, los clínicos y el personal de investigación conocían el grupo al que el paciente era asignado. Pacientes:Criterios de inclusión: adultos > 18 años que son sometidos a inducción anestésica e intubación traqueal. Criterios de exclusión: necesidad inmediata de intubación que impide la aleatorización; consideración por parte del médico encargado de necesidad de ventilación con mascarilla-bolsa autoinflable por hipoxemia o acidemia muy graves, contraindicación para ventilación por alto riesgo de aspiración debido a vómitos, hematemesis o hemoptisis; embarazadas; presos. Las causas para la exclusión fueron: indicación urgente para ventilación (42%), indicación urgente para intubación (35%), contraindicación para ventilación (22%), otras (1%)

No disponible