Closed-Loop ventilation using sidestream versus mainstream capnography for automated adjustments of minute ventilation-A randomized clinical trial in cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a closed-loop ventilation mode that uses capnography to adjust tidal volume (VT) and respiratory rate according to a user-set end-tidal CO2 (etCO2) target range. We compared sidestream versus mainstream capnography with this ventilation mode with respect to the quality of breathing in patients after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Single-center, single-blinded, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial in adult patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery that were expected to receive at least two hours of postoperative ventilation in the ICU. Patients were randomized 1:1 to closed-loop ventilation with sidestream or mainstream capnography. Each breath was classified into a zone based on the measured VT, maximum airway pressure, etCO2 and pulse oximetry. The primary outcome was the proportion of breaths spent in a predefined 'optimal' zone of ventilation during the first three hours of postoperative ventilation, with a non-inferiority margin for the difference in the proportions set at -20%. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of breaths in predefined 'acceptable' and 'critical' zones of ventilation, and the proportion of breaths with hypoxemia. RESULTS: Of 80 randomized subjects, 78 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. We could not confirm the non-inferiority of closed-loop ventilation using sidestream with respect to the proportion of breaths in the 'optimal' zone (mean ratio 0.87 [0.77 to ∞]; P = 0.116 for non-inferiority). The proportion of breaths with hypoxemia was higher in the sidestream capnography group versus the mainstream capnography group. CONCLUSIONS: We could not confirm that INTELLiVENT-ASV using sidestream capnography is non-inferior to INTELLiVENT-ASV using mainstream capnography with respect to the quality of breathing in subjects receiving postoperative ventilation after cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04599491 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Safety and Feasibility of Intraoperative High PEEP Titrated to the Lowest Driving Pressure (ΔP)-Interim Analysis of DESIGNATION.

Uncertainty remains about the best level of intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). An ongoing RCT ('DESIGNATION') compares an 'individualized high PEEP' strategy ('iPEEP')-titrated to the lowest driving pressure (ΔP) with recruitment maneuvers (RM), with a 'standard low PEEP' strategy ('low PEEP')-using 5 cm H2O without RMs with respect to the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. This report is an interim analysis of safety and feasibility. From September 2018 to July 2022, we enrolled 743 patients. Data of 698 patients were available for this analysis. Hypotension occurred more often in 'iPEEP' vs. 'low PEEP' (54.7 vs. 44.1%; RR, 1.24 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.44); p < 0.01). Investigators were compliant with the study protocol 285/344 patients (82.8%) in 'iPEEP', and 345/354 patients (97.5%) in 'low PEEP' (p < 0.01). Most frequent protocol violation was missing the final RM at the end of anesthesia before extubation; PEEP titration was performed in 99.4 vs. 0%; PEEP was set correctly in 89.8 vs. 98.9%. Compared to 'low PEEP', the 'iPEEP' group was ventilated with higher PEEP (10.0 (8.0-12.0) vs. 5.0 (5.0-5.0) cm H2O; p < 0.01). Thus, in patients undergoing general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery, an individualized high PEEP ventilation strategy is associated with hypotension. The protocol is feasible and results in clear contrast in PEEP. DESIGNATION is expected to finish in late 2023.

Low tidal volume ventilation is associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients-Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study.

PURPOSE: Low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) is associated with mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We investigated the association of LTVV with mortality in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a national observational study in COVID-19 patients in the first wave of the pandemic. We compared COVID-19 patients that received LTVV, defined as controlled ventilation with a median tidal volume ≤ 6 mL/kg predicted body weight over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation, with patients that did not receive LTVV. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. In addition, we identified factors associated with use of LTVV. RESULTS: Of 903 patients, 294 (32.5%) received LTVV. Disease severity scores and ARDS classification was not different between the two patient groups. The primary endpoint, 28-day mortality, was met in 68 out of 294 patients (23.1%) that received LTVV versus in 193 out of 609 patients (31.7%) that did not receive LTVV (P < 0.001). LTVV was independently associated with 28-day mortality (HR, 0.68 (0.45 to 0.95); P = 0.025). Age, height, the initial tidal volume and continuous muscle paralysis was independently associated with use of LTVV. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, approximately a third of patients received LTVV. Use of LTVV was independently associated with reduced 28-day mortality. The initial tidal volume and continuous muscle paralysis were potentially modifiable factors associated with use of LTVV. These findings are important as they could help clinicians to recognize patients who are at risk of not receiving LTVV.

Associations of dynamic driving pressure and mechanical power with postoperative pulmonary complications-posthoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials in open abdominal surgery.

Background: While an association of the intraoperative driving pressure with postoperative pulmonary complications has been described before, it is uncertain whether the intraoperative mechanical power is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods: Posthoc analysis of two international, multicentre randomised clinical trials (ISRCTN70332574 and NCT02148692) conducted between 2011-2013 and 2014-2018, in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery comparing the effect of two different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels on postoperative pulmonary complications. Time-weighted average dynamic driving pressure and mechanical power were calculated for individual patients. A multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for confounders was used to assess the independent associations of driving pressure and mechanical power with the occurrence of a composite of postoperative pulmonary complications, the primary endpoint of this posthoc analysis. Findings: In 1191 patients included, postoperative pulmonary complications occurrence was 35.9%. Median time-weighted average driving pressure and mechanical power were 14·0 [11·0-17·0] cmH2O, and 7·6 [5·1-10·0] J/min, respectively. While driving pressure was not independently associated with postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio, 1·06 [95% CI 0·88-1·28]; p=0.534), the mechanical power had an independent association with the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications (odds ratio, 1·28 [95% CI 1·05-1·57]; p=0.016). These findings were independent of body mass index or the level of PEEP used, i.e., independent of the randomisation arm. Interpretation: In this merged cohort of surgery patients, higher intraoperative mechanical power was independently associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. Mechanical power could serve as a summary ventilatory biomarker for the risk for postoperative pulmonary complications in these patients, but our findings need confirmation in other, preferably prospective studies. Funding: The two original studies were supported by unrestricted grants from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Location AMC. For this current analysis, no additional funding was requested. The funding sources had neither a role in the design, collection of data, statistical analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, nor in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Geo-economic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management and outcome of patients receiving intraoperative ventilation during general anesthesia- posthoc analysis of an observational study in 29 countries.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this analysis is to determine geo-economic variations in epidemiology, ventilator settings and outcome in patients receiving general anesthesia for surgery. METHODS: Posthoc analysis of a worldwide study in 29 countries. Lower and upper middle-income countries (LMIC and UMIC), and high-income countries (HIC) were compared. The coprimary endpoint was the risk for and incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC); secondary endpoints were intraoperative ventilator settings, intraoperative complications, hospital stay and mortality. RESULTS: Of 9864 patients, 4% originated from LMIC, 11% from UMIC and 85% from HIC. The ARISCAT score was 17.5 [15.0-26.0] in LMIC, 16.0 [3.0-27.0] in UMIC and 15.0 [3.0-26.0] in HIC (P = .003). The incidence of PPC was 9.0% in LMIC, 3.2% in UMIC and 2.5% in HIC (P < .001). Median tidal volume in ml kg- 1 predicted bodyweight (PBW) was 8.6 [7.7-9.7] in LMIC, 8.4 [7.6-9.5] in UMIC and 8.1 [7.2-9.1] in HIC (P < .001). Median positive end-expiratory pressure in cmH2O was 3.3 [2.0-5.0]) in LMIC, 4.0 [3.0-5.0] in UMIC and 5.0 [3.0-5.0] in HIC (P < .001). Median driving pressure in cmH2O was 14.0 [11.5-18.0] in LMIC, 13.5 [11.0-16.0] in UMIC and 12.0 [10.0-15.0] in HIC (P < .001). Median fraction of inspired oxygen in % was 75 [50-80] in LMIC, 50 [50-63] in UMIC and 53 [45-70] in HIC (P < .001). Intraoperative complications occurred in 25.9% in LMIC, in 18.7% in UMIC and in 37.1% in HIC (P < .001). Hospital mortality was 0.0% in LMIC, 1.3% in UMIC and 0.6% in HIC (P = .009). CONCLUSION: The risk for and incidence of PPC is higher in LMIC than in UMIC and HIC. Ventilation management could be improved in LMIC and UMIC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , identifier: NCT01601223.

Practice of adjunctive treatments in critically ill COVID-19 patients-rational for the multicenter observational PRoAcT-COVID study in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may need hospitalization for supplemental oxygen, and some need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for escalation of care. Practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments remain uncertain and may vary widely between countries, within countries between hospitals, and possibly even within ICUs. We aim to investigate practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments, and their associations with outcome, in critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: The 'PRactice of Adjunctive Treatments in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019' (PRoAcT-COVID) study is a national, observational study to be undertaken in a large set of ICUs in The Netherlands. The PRoAcT-COVID includes consecutive ICU patients, admitted because of COVID-19 to one of the participating ICUs during a 3-month period. Daily follow-up lasts 28 days. The primary endpoint is a combination of adjunctive treatments, including types of oxygen support, ventilation, rescue therapies for hypoxemia refractory to supplementary oxygen or during invasive ventilation, other adjunctive and supportive treatments, and experimental therapies. We will also collect tracheostomy rate, duration of invasive ventilation and ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), ICU and hospital length of stay, and the mortality rates in the ICU, hospital and at day 90. DISCUSSION: The PRoAcT-COVID study is an observational study combining high density treatment data with relevant clinical outcomes. Information on treatment practices, and their associations with outcomes in COVID-19 patients in highly and urgently needed. The results of the PRoAcT-COVID study will be rapidly available, and circulated through online presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in peer-reviewed journals-findings will also be presented at a dedicated website. At request, and after agreement of the PRoAcT-COVID steering committee, source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PRoAcT-COVID study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04719182).

Sex difference and intra-operative tidal volume: Insights from the LAS VEGAS study.

BACKGROUND: One key element of lung-protective ventilation is the use of a low tidal volume (VT). A sex difference in use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) has been described in critically ill ICU patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a sex difference in use of LTVV also exists in operating room patients, and if present what factors drive this difference. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND SETTING: This is a posthoc analysis of LAS VEGAS, a 1-week worldwide observational study in adults requiring intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals in 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women and men were compared with respect to use of LTVV, defined as VT of 8 ml kg-1 or less predicted bodyweight (PBW). A VT was deemed 'default' if the set VT was a round number. A mediation analysis assessed which factors may explain the sex difference in use of LTVV during intra-operative ventilation. RESULTS: This analysis includes 9864 patients, of whom 5425 (55%) were women. A default VT was often set, both in women and men; mode VT was 500 ml. Median [IQR] VT was higher in women than in men (8.6 [7.7 to 9.6] vs. 7.6 [6.8 to 8.4] ml kg-1 PBW, P < 0.001). Compared with men, women were twice as likely not to receive LTVV [68.8 vs. 36.0%; relative risk ratio 2.1 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.1), P < 0.001]. In the mediation analysis, patients' height and actual body weight (ABW) explained 81 and 18% of the sex difference in use of LTVV, respectively; it was not explained by the use of a default VT. CONCLUSION: In this worldwide cohort of patients receiving intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery, women received a higher VT than men during intra-operative ventilation. The risk for a female not to receive LTVV during surgery was double that of males. Height and ABW were the two mediators of the sex difference in use of LTVV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01601223.

Sex Differences in Use of Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in COVID-19-Insights From the PRoVENT-COVID Study.

The purpose of this study was to compare and understand differences in the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) between females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is a post-hoc analysis of an observational study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19 in 22 ICUs in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint was the use of LTVV, defined as having received a median tidal volume (VT) ≤6 ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW) during controlled ventilation. A mediation analysis was used to investigate the impact of anthropometric factors, next to the impact of sex per se. The analysis included 934 patients, 251 females and 683 males. All the patients had ARDS, and there were no differences in ARDS severity between the sexes. On the first day of ventilation, females received ventilation with a higher median VT compared with males [6.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 6.0-7.6 vs. 6.3 (IQR 5.8-6.9) ml/kg PBW; p < 0.001]. Consequently, females received LTVV less often than males (23 vs. 34%; p = 0.003). The difference in the use of LTVV became smaller but persisted over the next days (27 vs. 36%; p = 0.046 at day 2 and 28 vs. 38%; p = 0.030 at day 3). The difference in the use LTVV was significantly mediated by sex per se [average direct effect of the female sex, 7.5% (95% CI, 1.7-13.3%); p = 0.011] and by differences in the body height [average causal mediation effect, -17.5% (-21.5 to -13.5%); p < 0.001], but not by the differences in actual body weight [average causal mediation effect, 0.2% (-0.8 to 1.2%); p = 0.715]. In conclusion, in this cohort of patients with ARDS related to COVID-19, females received LTVV less often than males in the first days of invasive ventilation. The difference in the use of LTVV was mainly driven by an anthropometric factor, namely, body height. Use of LTVV may improve by paying attention to correct titration of VT, which should be based on PBW, which is a function of body height.

Perioperative Lung Protection: Clinical Implications.

In the past, it was common practice to use a high tidal volume (VT) during intraoperative ventilation, because this reduced the need for high oxygen fractions to compensate for the ventilation-perfusion mismatches due to atelectasis in a time when it was uncommon to use positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the operating room. Convincing and increasing evidence for harm induced by ventilation with a high VT has emerged over recent decades, also in the operating room, and by now intraoperative ventilation with a low VT is a well-adopted approach. There is less certainty about the level of PEEP during intraoperative ventilation. Evidence for benefit and harm of higher PEEP during intraoperative ventilation is at least contradicting. While some PEEP may prevent lung injury through reduction of atelectasis, higher PEEP is undeniably associated with an increased risk of intraoperative hypotension that frequently requires administration of vasoactive drugs. The optimal level of inspired oxygen fraction (FIO2) during surgery is even more uncertain. The suggestion that hyperoxemia prevents against surgical site infections has not been confirmed in recent research. In addition, gas absorption-induced atelectasis and its association with adverse outcomes like postoperative pulmonary complications actually makes use of a high FIO2 less attractive. Based on the available evidence, we recommend the use of a low VT of 6-8 mL/kg predicted body weight in all surgery patients, and to restrict use of a high PEEP and high FIO2 during intraoperative ventilation to cases in which hypoxemia develops. Here, we prefer to first increase FIO2 before using high PEEP.

Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prediction of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) enables individually applied preventive measures and maybe even early treatment if a PPC eventually starts to develop. The purpose of this review is to describe crucial steps in the development and validation of prediction models, examine these steps in the current literature and describe what the future holds for PPC prediction. RECENT FINDINGS: A systematic search of the medical literature identified 21 articles reporting on prediction models for PPCs. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to design, derivation cohort and whether or not a validation cohort was used. Furthermore, as definitions for PPCs varied substantially, PPC rates were quite different. One-third of the studies had a sufficient sample size for building a prediction model. In most articles, an internal validation step was reported, suggesting a good fit. In the four articles that reported an externally validation step, in three the prognostic model performed less well in external validation. The ARISCAT risk score was the only score that kept sufficient predictive power in external validation, albeit that the sample sizes of the cohorts used may have been too small. Analysis by machine learning could help building new prediction models, as unbiased cluster analyses could uncover clusters of patients with specific underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Adding biomarkers to the model could optimize identification of biological phenotypes of risk groups. SUMMARY: Many predictive models for PPCs have been reported on. Development of more robust PPC prediction models could be supported by machine learning.