Noninvasive Ventilation for Preoxygenation during Emergency Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, hypoxemia increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. The effect of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation, as compared with preoxygenation with an oxygen mask, on the incidence of hypoxemia during tracheal intubation is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 24 emergency departments and intensive care units in the United States, we randomly assigned critically ill adults (age, ≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation to receive preoxygenation with either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask. The primary outcome was hypoxemia during intubation, defined by an oxygen saturation of less than 85% during the interval between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Among the 1301 patients enrolled, hypoxemia occurred in 57 of 624 patients (9.1%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 118 of 637 patients (18.5%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -9.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.2 to -5.6; P<0.001). Cardiac arrest occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 7 patients (1.1%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.1). Aspiration occurred in 6 patients (0.9%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 9 patients (1.4%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation resulted in a lower incidence of hypoxemia during intubation than preoxygenation with an oxygen mask. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; PREOXI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05267652.).

Validation of a Novel, Rapid Sepsis Diagnostic for Emergency Department Use.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the in vitro IntelliSep test, a microfluidic assay that quantifies the state of immune activation by evaluating the biophysical properties of leukocytes, as a rapid diagnostic for sepsis. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five emergency departments (EDs) in Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Washington. PATIENTS: Adult patients presenting to the ED with signs (two of four Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome criteria, where one must be temperature or WBC count) or suspicion (provider-ordered culture) of infection. INTERVENTIONS: All patients underwent testing with the IntelliSep using ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid-anticoagulated whole blood followed by retrospective adjudication for sepsis by sepsis-3 criteria by a blinded panel of physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 599 patients enrolled, 572 patients were included in the final analysis. The result of the IntelliSep test is reported as the IntelliSep Index (ISI), ranging from 0.1 to 10.0, divided into three interpretation bands for the risk of sepsis: band 1 (low) to band 3 (high). The median turnaround time for ISI results was 7.2 minutes. The ISI resulted band 1 in 252 (44.1%), band 2 in 160 (28.0%), and band 3 in 160 (28.0%). Sepsis occurred in 26.6% (152 of 572 patients). Sepsis prevalence was 11.1% (95% CI, 7.5-15.7%) in band 1, 28.1% (95% CI, 21.3-35.8%) in band 2, and 49.4% (95% CI, 41.4-57.4%) in band 3. The Positive Percent Agreement of band 1 was 81.6% and the Negative Percent Agreement of band 3 was 80.7%, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74. Compared with band 1, band 3 correlated with adverse clinical outcomes, including mortality, and resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing ISI interpretation band is associated with increasing probability of sepsis in patients presenting to the ED with suspected infection.

Discordance Between Invasive and NonInvasive Oxygen Saturation in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate discordance in oxy-hemoglobin saturation measured both by pulse oximetry (SpO2) and arterial blood gas (ABG, SaO2) among critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19(+)) patients compared to COVID-19(-) patients. METHODS: Paired SpO2 and SaO2 readings were collected retrospectively from consecutive adult admissions to four critical care units in the United States between March and May 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of discordance (|SaO2-SpO2|>4%) in COVID-19(+) versus COVID-19(-) patients. The odds each cohort could have been incorrectly categorized as having a PaO2/FiO2 above or below 150 by their SpO2: Fractional inhaled oxygen ratio (pulse oximetry-derived oxyhemoglobin saturation:fraction of inspired oxygen ratio [SF]) was examined. A multivariate regression analysis assessed confounding by clinical differences between cohorts including pH, body temperature, renal replacement therapy at time of blood draw, and self-identified race. RESULTS: There were 263 patients (173 COVID-19(+)) included. The rate of saturation discordance between SaO2 and SpO2 in COVID-19(+) patients was higher than in COVID-19(-) patients (27.9% vs 16.7%, odds ratio [OR] 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11 to 2.27). The average difference between SaO2 and SpO2 for COVID-19(+) patients was -1.24% (limits of agreement, -13.6 to 11.1) versus -0.11 [-10.3 to 10.1] for COVID-19(-) patients. COVID-19(+) patients had higher odds (OR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.14-5.98) of having an SF that misclassified that patient as having a PaO2:FiO2 ratio above or below 150. There was not an association between discordance and the confounders of pH, body temperature, or renal replacement therapy at time of blood draw. After controlling for self-identified race, the association between COVID-19 status and discordance was lost. CONCLUSIONS: Pulse oximetry was discordant with ABG more often in critically ill COVID-19(+) than COVID-19(-) patients. However, these findings appear to be driven by racial differences between cohorts.

Prophylactic Administration of Vasopressors Prior to Emergency Intubation in Critically Ill Patients: A Secondary Analysis of Two Multicenter Clinical Trials.

Hypotension affects approximately 40% of critically ill patients undergoing emergency intubation and is associated with an increased risk of death. The objective of this study was to examine the association between prophylactic vasopressor administration and the incidence of peri-intubation hypotension and other clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials. The clinical effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration was estimated using a one-to-one propensity-matched cohort of patients with and without prophylactic vasopressors. SETTING: Seven emergency departments and 17 ICUs across the United States. PATIENTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-eight critically ill patients who underwent emergency intubation at the study sites between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was peri-intubation hypotension defined as a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg occurring between induction and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. A total of 187 patients (10%) received prophylactic vasopressors prior to intubation. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic vasopressors, those who did were older, had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, were more likely to have a diagnosis of sepsis, had lower pre-induction systolic blood pressures, and were more likely to be on continuous vasopressor infusions prior to intubation. In our propensity-matched cohort, prophylactic vasopressor administration was not associated with reduced risk of peri-intubation hypotension (41% vs 32%; p = 0.08) or change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (-12 vs -11 mm Hg; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of prophylactic vasopressors was not associated with a lower incidence of peri-intubation hypotension in our propensity-matched analysis. To address potential residual confounding, randomized clinical trials should examine the effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration on peri-intubation outcomes.

Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Whether video laryngoscopy as compared with direct laryngoscopy increases the likelihood of successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 17 emergency departments and intensive care units (ICUs), we randomly assigned critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation to the video-laryngoscope group or the direct-laryngoscope group. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications during intubation; severe complications were defined as severe hypoxemia, severe hypotension, new or increased vasopressor use, cardiac arrest, or death. RESULTS: The trial was stopped for efficacy at the time of the single preplanned interim analysis. Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis (91.5% of whom underwent intubation that was performed by an emergency medicine resident or a critical care fellow), successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 of the 705 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 of the 712 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct-laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; DEVICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05239195.).

Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation: Does Use of a Video Laryngoscope Facilitate Both Steps of the Procedure?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of the use of a video laryngoscope versus a direct laryngoscope on each step of emergency intubation: laryngoscopy (step 1) and intubation of the trachea (step 2). METHODS: In a secondary observational analysis of data from 2 multicenter, randomized trials that enrolled critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation but did not control for laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models examining the 1) the association between laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope) and the Cormack-Lehane grade of view and 2) the interaction between grade of view, laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), and the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,786 patients: 467 (26.2%) in the direct laryngoscope group and 1,319 (73.9%) in the video laryngoscope group. The use of a video laryngoscope was associated with an improved grade of view as compared with a direct laryngoscope (adjusted odds ratio for increasingly favorable grade of view 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47 to 3.99). Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 83.2% of patients in the video laryngoscope group and 72.2% of patients in the direct laryngoscope group (absolute difference 11.1%, 95% CI 6.5% to 15.6%). Video laryngoscope use modified the association between grade of view and successful intubation on the first attempt such that intubation on the first attempt was similar between video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope at a grade 1 view and higher for video laryngoscope than direct laryngoscope at grade 2 to 4 views (P<.001 for interaction term). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, the use of a video laryngoscope was associated both with a better view of the vocal cords and with a higher probability of successfully intubating the trachea when the view of the vocal cords was incomplete in this observational analysis. However, a multicenter, randomized trial directly comparing the effect of a video laryngoscope with a direct laryngoscope on the grade of view, success, and complications is needed.

Defining Successful Intubation on the First Attempt Using Both Laryngoscope and Endotracheal Tube Insertions: A Secondary Analysis of Clinical Trial Data.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Successful intubation on the first attempt has historically been defined as successful placement of an endotracheal tube (ETT) using a single laryngoscope insertion. More recent studies have defined successful placement of an ETT using a single laryngoscope insertion followed by a single ETT insertion. We sought to estimate the prevalence of first-attempt success using these 2 definitions and estimate their associations with the duration of intubation and serious complications. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from 2 multicenter randomized trials of critically ill adults being intubated in the emergency department or ICU. We calculated the percent difference in successful intubations on the first attempt, median difference in the duration of intubation, and percent difference in the development of serious complications by definition. RESULTS: The study population included 1,863 patients. Successful intubation on the first attempt decreased by 4.9% (95% confidence interval 2.5% to 7.3%) when defined as 1 laryngoscope insertion followed by 1 ETT insertion (81.2%) compared with when defined as only 1 laryngoscope insertion (86.0%). When successful intubation with 1 laryngoscope and 1 ETT insertion was compared with 1 laryngoscope and multiple ETT insertions, the median duration of intubation decreased by 35.0 seconds (95% confidence interval 8.9 to 61.1 seconds). CONCLUSION: Defining successful intubation on the first attempt as placement of an ETT in the trachea using 1 laryngoscope and 1 ETT insertion identifies attempts with the shortest apneic time.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the PREOXI trial of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen mask.

Background: Hypoxemia is a common and life-threatening complication during emergency tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. The administration of supplemental oxygen prior to the procedure ("preoxygenation") decreases the risk of hypoxemia during intubation. Research Question: Whether preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation prevents hypoxemia during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults, compared to preoxygenation with oxygen mask, remains uncertain. Study Design and Methods: The PRagmatic trial Examining OXygenation prior to Intubation (PREOXI) is a prospective, multicenter, non-blinded randomized comparative effectiveness trial being conducted in 7 emergency departments and 17 intensive care units across the United States. The trial compares preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation versus oxygen mask among 1300 critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask prior to induction. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxemia, defined as a peripheral oxygen saturation <85% between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. The secondary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. Enrollment began on 10 March 2022 and is expected to conclude in 2023. Interpretation: The PREOXI trial will provide important data on the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation and oxygen mask preoxygenation for the prevention of hypoxemia during emergency tracheal intubation. Specifying the protocol and statistical analysis plan prior to the conclusion of enrollment increases the rigor, reproducibility, and interpretability of the trial. Clinical trial registration number: NCT05267652.

Effect of Laryngoscope Blade Size on First Pass Success of Tracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Adults.

Tracheal intubation (TI) is a common procedure in critical care, often performed with a Macintosh curved blade used for direct laryngoscopy (DL). Minimal evidence informs the choice between Macintosh blade sizes during TI. We hypothesized that Macintosh 4 blade would have higher first-attempt success than Macintosh 3 blade during DL. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis using a propensity score and inverse probability weighting of data from six prior multicenter randomized trials. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients who underwent nonelective TI at participating emergency departments and ICUs. We compared the first-pass success of TI with DL in subjects intubated with a size 4 Macintosh blade on the first TI attempt to subjects with a size 3 Macintosh blade on the first TI attempt. MAIN RESULTS: Among 979 subjects, 592 (60.5%) had TI using DL with a Macintosh blade, of whom 362 (37%) were intubated with a size 4 blade and 222 (22.7%) with a size 3 blade. We used inverse probability weighting with a propensity score for analyzing data. We found that patients intubated with a size 4 blade had a worse (higher) Cormack-Lehane grade of glottic view than patients intubated with a size 3 blade (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.458; 95% CI, 1.064-2.003; p = 0.02). Patients intubated with a size 4 blade had a lower first pass success than those with a size 3 blade (71.1% vs 81.2%; aOR, 0.566; 95% CI, 0.372-0.850; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In critically ill adults undergoing TI using DL with a Macintosh blade, patients intubated using a size 4 blade on first attempt had a worse glottic view and a lower first pass success than patients intubated with a size 3 Macintosh blade. Further prospective studies are needed to examine the optimal approach to selecting laryngoscope blade size during TI of critically ill adults.

COVID-19: Lessons Learned, Lessons Unlearned, Lessons for the Future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned.

Effect of Fluid Bolus Administration on Cardiovascular Collapse Among Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain. Objective: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction of anesthesia and 1 hour after tracheal intubation). The secondary outcome was the incidence of death prior to day 28, which was censored at hospital discharge. Results: Among 1067 patients randomized, 1065 (99.8%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-70 years]; 42.1% were women). Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 113 patients (21.0%) in the fluid bolus group and in 96 patients (18.2%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 7.7%]; P = .25). New or increased receipt of vasopressors occurred in 20.6% of patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 17.6% of patients in the no fluid bolus group, a systolic blood pressure of less than 65 mm Hg occurred in 3.9% vs 4.2%, respectively, cardiac arrest occurred in 1.7% vs 1.5%, and death occurred in 0.7% vs 0.6%. Death prior to day 28 (censored at hospital discharge) occurred in 218 patients (40.5%) in the fluid bolus group compared with 223 patients (42.3%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -7.9% to 4.3%]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, administration of an intravenous fluid bolus compared with no fluid bolus did not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiovascular collapse. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03787732.

Bag-Mask Ventilation Versus Apneic Oxygenation During Tracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Trials.

Background: Hypoxemia is common during tracheal intubation in intensive care units. To prevent hypoxemia during intubation, 2 methods of delivering oxygen between induction and laryngoscopy have been proposed: bag-mask ventilation and supplemental oxygen delivered by nasal cannula without ventilation (apneic oxygenation). Whether one of these approaches is more effective for preventing hypoxemia during intubation of critically ill patients is unknown. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from 138 patients enrolled in 2, consecutive randomized trials of airway management in an academic intensive care unit. A total of 61 patients were randomized to receive bag-mask ventilation in a trial comparing bag-mask ventilation to none, and 77 patients were randomized to receive 100% oxygen at 15 L/min by nasal cannula in a trial comparing apneic oxygenation to none. Using multivariable linear regression accounting for age, body mass index, severity of illness, and oxygen saturation at induction, we compared patients assigned to bag-mask ventilation with those assigned to apneic oxygenation regarding lowest oxygen saturations from induction to 2 min after intubation. Results: Patients assigned to bag-mask ventilation and apneic oxygenation were similar at baseline. The median lowest oxygen saturation was 96% (interquartile range [IQR] 89%-100%) in the bag-mask ventilation group and 92% (IQR 84%-99%) in the apneic oxygenation group. After adjustment for prespecified confounders, bag-mask ventilation was associated with a higher lowest oxygen saturation compared to apneic oxygenation (mean difference, 4.2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%-7.8%; P = .02). The incidence of severe hypoxemia (oxygen saturation<80%) was 6.6% in the bag-mask ventilation group and 15.6% in the apneic oxygenation group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P = .09). Conclusions: This secondary analysis of patients assigned to bag-mask ventilation and apneic oxygenation during 2 clinical trials suggests that bag-mask ventilation is associated with higher oxygen saturation during intubation compared to apneic oxygenation.

Effect of Use of a Bougie vs Endotracheal Tube With Stylet on Successful Intubation on the First Attempt Among Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in up to 20% of cases and is associated with severe hypoxemia and cardiac arrest. Whether using a tracheal tube introducer ("bougie") increases the likelihood of successful intubation compared with using an endotracheal tube with stylet remains uncertain. Objective: To determine the effect of use of a bougie vs an endotracheal tube with stylet on successful intubation on the first attempt. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bougie or Stylet in Patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently (BOUGIE) trial was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial among 1102 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in 7 emergency departments and 8 intensive care units in the US between April 29, 2019, and February 14, 2021; the date of final follow-up was March 14, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to use of a bougie (n = 556) or use of an endotracheal tube with stylet (n = 546). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the incidence of severe hypoxemia, defined as a peripheral oxygen saturation less than 80%. Results: Among 1106 patients randomized, 1102 (99.6%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years; 41.0% women). Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 447 patients (80.4%) in the bougie group and 453 patients (83.0%) in the stylet group (absolute risk difference, -2.6 percentage points [95% CI, -7.3 to 2.2]; P = .27). A total of 58 patients (11.0%) in the bougie group experienced severe hypoxemia, compared with 46 patients (8.8%) in the stylet group (absolute risk difference, 2.2 percentage points [95% CI, -1.6 to 6.0]). Esophageal intubation occurred in 4 patients (0.7%) in the bougie group and 5 patients (0.9%) in the stylet group, pneumothorax was present after intubation in 14 patients (2.5%) in the bougie group and 15 patients (2.7%) in the stylet group, and injury to oral, glottic, or thoracic structures occurred in 0 patients in the bougie group and 3 patients (0.5%) in the stylet group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, use of a bougie did not significantly increase the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt compared with use of an endotracheal tube with stylet. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03928925

Impact of Clinician Recognition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Evidenced-Based Interventions in the Medical ICU.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome is underrecognized in the ICU, but it remains uncertain if acute respiratory distress syndrome recognition affects evidence-based acute respiratory distress syndrome care in the modern era. We sought to determine the rate of clinician-recognized acute respiratory distress syndrome in an academic medical ICU and understand how clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome affects clinical care and patient-centered outcomes. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Single medical ICU at an academic tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: Nine hundred seventy-seven critically ill adults (381 with expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome) enrolled from 2006 to 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome was identified using an electronic keyword search of clinical notes in the electronic health record. We assessed the classification performance of clinician-recognized acute respiratory distress syndrome for identifying expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome. We also compared differences in ventilator settings, diuretic prescriptions, and cumulative fluid balance between clinician-recognized acute respiratory distress syndrome and unrecognized acute respiratory distress syndrome. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall, clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome had a sensitivity of 47.5%, specificity 91.1%, positive predictive value 77.4%, and negative predictive value 73.1% for expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Among the 381 expert-adjudicated acute respiratory distress syndrome cases, we did not observe any differences in ventilator tidal volumes between clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome and unrecognized acute respiratory distress syndrome, but clinician-recognized-acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had a more negative cumulative fluid balance (mean difference, -781 mL; 95% CI, [-1,846 to +283]) and were more likely to receive diuretics (49.3% vs 35.7%, p = 0.02). There were no differences in mortality, ICU length of stay, or ventilator-free days. CONCLUSIONS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome recognition was low in this single-center study. Although acute respiratory distress syndrome recognition was not associated with lower ventilator volumes, it was associated with differences in behaviors related to fluid management. These findings have implications for the design of future studies promoting evidence-based acute respiratory distress syndrome interventions in the ICU.

Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in New Orleans and Care With an Evidence-Based Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Characteristics of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in an academic safety net hospital and the effect of evidence-based practices in these patients are unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to a network of hospitals in New Orleans, Louisiana, and what is an evidence-based protocol for care associated with improved outcomes? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this multi-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of ICUs in four hospitals in New Orleans, Louisiana, we collected data on adults admitted to an ICU and tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between March 9, 2020 and April 14, 2020. The exposure of interest was admission to an ICU that implemented an evidence-based protocol for COVID-19 care. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days. RESULTS: The initial 147 patients admitted to any ICU and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 constituted the cohort for this study. In the entire network, exposure to an evidence-based protocol was associated with more ventilator-free days (25 days; 0-28) compared with non-protocolized ICUs (0 days; 0-23, P = .005), including in adjusted analyses (P = .02). Twenty patients (37%) admitted to protocolized ICUs died compared with 51 (56%; P = .02) in non-protocolized ICUs. Among 82 patients admitted to the academic safety net hospital's ICUs, the median number of ventilator-free days was 22 (interquartile range, 0-27) and mortality rate was 39%. INTERPRETATION: Care of critically ill COVID-19 patients with an evidence-based protocol is associated with increased time alive and free of invasive mechanical ventilation. In-hospital survival occurred in most critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to an academic safety net hospital's ICUs despite a high rate of comorbidities.

Strategies to Optimize ICU Liberation (A to F) Bundle Performance in Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has stretched ICU resources in an unprecedented fashion and outstripped personal protective equipment supplies. The combination of a novel disease, resource limitations, and risks to medical personnel health have created new barriers to implementing the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; and "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, a proven ICU care approach that reduces delirium, shortens mechanical ventilation duration, prevents post-ICU syndrome, and reduces healthcare costs. This narrative review acknowledges barriers and offers strategies to optimize Bundle performance in coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. DATA SOURCES STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: The most relevant literature, media reports, and author experiences were assessed for inclusion in this narrative review including PubMed, national newspapers, and critical care/pharmacology textbooks. DATA SYNTHESIS: Uncertainty regarding coronavirus disease 2019 clinical course, shifts in attitude, and changes in routine behavior have hindered Bundle use. A domino effect results from: 1) changes to critical care hierarchy, priorities, and ICU team composition; 2) significant personal protective equipment shortages cause; 3) reduced/restricted physical bedside presence favoring; 4) increased depth of sedation and use of neuromuscular blockade; 5) which exacerbate drug shortages; and 6) which require prolonged use of limited ventilator resources. Other identified barriers include manageable knowledge deficits among non-ICU clinicians unfamiliar with the Bundle or among PICU specialists deploying pediatric-based Bundle approaches who are unfamiliar with adult medicine. Both groups have been enlisted to augment the adult ICU work force to meet demand. Strategies were identified to facilitate Bundle performance to liberate patients from the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: We acknowledge current challenges that interfere with comprehensive management of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Rapid response to new circumstances precisely requires established safety mechanisms and protocols like the ABCDEF Bundle to increase ICU and ventilator capacity and help survivors maximize recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 as early as possible.

Conservative Fluid Management After Sepsis Resuscitation: A Pilot Randomized Trial.

RATIONALE: The feasibility and clinical outcomes of conservative fluid management after sepsis resuscitation remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a conservative fluid management protocol on fluid balance and intensive care unit (ICU)-free days among patients with sepsis. METHODS: In a single-center phase II/III randomized trial, we enrolled adults with suspected infection, ≥2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and either shock (mean arterial pressure <60 mm Hg or vasopressors) or respiratory insufficiency (mechanical ventilation or oxygen saturation <97% and fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.3). Patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care or a conservative fluid management protocol. The protocol restricted intravenous fluid administration during shock to treatment of oliguria or increasing vasopressor requirement. In the absence of shock, loop diuretic infusion targeted equal fluid input and output each study day. The primary outcomes were mean daily fluid balance (phase II) and ICU-free days (phase III). RESULTS: At the completion of phase II (n = 30), the difference in mean daily fluid balance between groups (-398 mL) was less than the prespecified threshold (-500 mL) and the trial was stopped. Patients in the conservative fluid management (n = 15) and usual care (n = 15) groups experienced similar cumulative fluid input (8450 mL vs 7049 mL; P = .90) of which only 14% was intravenous crystalloid or colloid. Loop diuretic infusion occurred more frequently in the conservative fluid management group (40% vs 0%; P = .02), and cumulative fluid output was 10 645 mL in the conservative fluid management group compared to 6286 mL in the usual care group (P = .39). Hemodynamic, respiratory, and renal function did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase II trial, a conservative fluid management protocol did not decrease mean daily fluid balance by more than 500 mL among patients with sepsis. REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02159079.