ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Physiologic dead space is independently associated with mortality and discharge of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS: a retrospective study.

Physiologic dead space is a well-established independent predictor of death in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Here, we explore the association between a surrogate measure of dead space (DS) and early outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) because of COVID-19-associated ARDS. Retrospective cohort study on data derived from Italian ICUs during the first year of the COVID-19 epidemic. A competing risk Cox proportional hazard model was applied to test for the association of DS with two competing outcomes (death or discharge from the ICU) while adjusting for confounders. The final population consisted of 401 patients from seven ICUs. A significant association of DS with both death (HR 1.204; CI 1.019-1.423; p = 0.029) and discharge (HR 0.434; CI 0.414-0.456; p [Formula: see text]) was noticed even when correcting for confounding factors (age, sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, PaO[Formula: see text]/FiO[Formula: see text], tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure, and systolic blood pressure). These results confirm the important association between DS and death or ICU discharge in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Further work is needed to identify the optimal role of DS monitoring in this setting and to understand the physiological mechanisms underlying these associations.

Forgoing life-sustaining treatments in the ICU. To withhold or to withdraw: is that the question?

In the last decades, mortality from severe acute illnesses has considerably declined thanks to the advances in intensive care medicine. Meanwhile, critical care physicians realized that life-sustaining treatments (LST) may not be appropriate for every patient, and end-of-life care in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) started to receive growing attention. Most deaths occurring in the ICU now follow a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatments (DFLST), which can be implemented either by withdrawing (WDLST) or withholding (WHLST) life-sustaining treatments. Despite the broad consensus about the equivalence of the two practices from an ethical point of view, the issue of the best option between WDLST and WHLST constantly gives rise to controversies in clinical practice. This review is not intended to take a stand for or against WDLST or WHLST. Based on available evidence, the definitions of the two practices are first presented. Secondly, the preferences of ICU physicians towards WDLST and WHLST are examined. Finally, some arguments are offered outlining pros and cons of WDLST and WHLST, stressing that the clinician's attention should focus on an early and thorough recognition of patients in need of a DFLST, rather than on the theoretical strength and weakness of the two practices. This approach will enable physicians to make informed decisions on how to implement the limitation of LSTs, considering the patients' clinical conditions and preferences, the circumstances and needs of their families.

Making a case for controlled organ donation after cardiac death: the story of Italy's first experience.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is a valuable option for the procurement of organs for transplantation. In Italy, organ procurement after controlled DCD is legally and ethically conceivable within the current legislative framework. However, although formal impediments do not exist, the health care team is faced with many obstacles that may hinder the implementation of such programs. We report the case of Italy's first controlled DCD, specifically discussing the role of the patient's family in the shared decision-making process. In our case, the death of the patient subsequent to the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies was consistent with the patient's wishes, showing respect for his dignity and honoring his autonomy, as expressed to his family previously. By making donation possible, the medical team was able to fulfill the family's last request on behalf of the patient. This case should stimulate deliberation regarding the potential to shorten the 20-minute no-touch period currently in place in Italy. Such an action would not have injured this patient and would certainly have increased the quality of the procured organs.