A survey of preferences for respiratory support in the intensive care unit for patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: When caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians' preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers. METHODS: We distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF. CONCLUSIONS: The responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.

Oxygenation targets in ICU patients with COVID-19: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the HOT-ICU trial.

BACKGROUND: Supplemental oxygen is the key intervention for severe and critical COVID-19 patients. With the unstable supplies of oxygen in many countries, it is important to define the lowest safe dosage. METHODS: In spring 2020, 110 COVID-19 patients were enrolled as part of the Handling Oxygenation Targets in the ICU trial (HOT-ICU). Patients were allocated within 12 h of ICU admission. Oxygen therapy was titrated to a partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2 ) of 8 kPa (lower oxygenation group) or a PaO2 of 12 kPa (higher oxygenation group) during ICU stay up to 90 days. We report key outcomes at 90 days for the subgroup of COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: At 90 days, 22 of 54 patients (40.7%) in the lower oxygenation group and 23 of 55 patients (41.8%) in the higher oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.32). The percentage of days alive without life support was significantly higher in the lower oxygenation group (p = 0.03). The numbers of severe ischemic events were low with no difference between the two groups. Proning and inhaled vasodilators were used more frequently, and the positive end-expiratory pressure was higher in the higher oxygenation group. Tests for interactions with the results of the remaining HOT-ICU population were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a PaO2 of 8 kPa may be beneficial in ICU patients with COVID-19. These results come with uncertainty due to the low number of patients in this unplanned subgroup analysis, and insignificant tests for interaction with the main HOT-ICU trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002. Date of registration: June 2, 2017.

New-onset atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit: Protocol for an international inception cohort study (AFIB-ICU).

INTRODUCTION: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is frequently observed in critically ill patients and may be associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased mortality. Considerable variation exists in the reported frequencies of NOAF due to the lack of a standardised definition and detection method. Importantly, there are limited data on NOAF in the intensive care unit (ICU). Thus, we aim to provide contemporary epidemiological data on NOAF in the ICU. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We have designed an international inception cohort study including at least 1,000 consecutive adult patients acutely admitted to the ICU without prior history of persistent or permanent AF. We will present data on the incidence, risk factors, used management strategies and outcomes of NOAF. We will register data daily during stay in the ICU for a maximum of 90 days after admission. The incidence of NOAF and management strategies used will be presented descriptively, and we will use Cox regression analyses including competing risk analyses to assess risk factors for NOAF and any association with 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: The outlined international AFIB-ICU inception cohort study will provide contemporary data on the incidence, risk factors, used management strategies and outcomes of NOAF in adult ICU patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This observational study poses no risk to the included patients. All participating sites will obtain relevant approvals according to national laws before patient enrollment. Funding sources will have no influence on data handling, analyses or writing of the manuscript. The study report(s) will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal.

Spontaneous versus controlled mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome - Protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: In caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between controlled or spontaneous breathing modes. Observational data indicate considerable practice variation which may be driven by differences in sedation and mobilisation practices. The benefits and harms of either strategy are largely unknown. METHODS: A scoping review will be prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews. We will review the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneous breathing in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS of any severity. Studies reporting on qualitative and/or quantitative data from any world region will be considered. For inclusion, studies must include data on mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS who are allowed spontaneous (triggered ventilation). Searches will be conducted in four electronic databases without any limitation on publication date and language. We will assess the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, where appropriate. CONCLUSION: We will perform a scoping review of the clinical literature on controlled vs spontaneously breathing in mechanically ventilated patients who fulfil ARDS criteria (including acute lung injury). This is to elucidate if a pragmatic clinical trial comparing controlled and spontaneous mechanical ventilation is warranted and will allow us to formulate relevant research questions.