Spontaneous breathing trial with pressure support on positive end-expiratory pressure and extensive use of non-invasive ventilation versus T-piece in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to assess whether a strategy combining spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) with both pressure support (PS) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and extended use of post-extubation non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (extensively-assisted weaning) would shorten the time until successful extubation as compared with SBT with T-piece (TP) and post-extubation NIV performed in selected patients as advocated by guidelines (standard weaning), in difficult-to-wean patients from mechanical ventilation. METHODS: The study is a single-center prospective open label, randomized controlled superiority trial with two parallel groups and balanced randomization with a 1:1 ratio. Eligible patients were intubated patients mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h who failed their first SBT using TP. In the extensively-assisted weaning group, SBT was performed with PS (7 cmH2O) and PEEP (5 cmH2O). In case of SBT success, an additional SBT with TP was performed. Failure of this SBT-TP was an additional criterion for post-extubation NIV in this group in addition to other recommended criteria. In the standard weaning group, SBT was performed with TP, and NIV was performed according to international guidelines. The primary outcome criterion was the time between inclusion and successful extubation evaluated with a Cox model with adjustment on randomization strata. RESULTS: From May 2019 to March 2023, 98 patients were included and randomized in the study (49 in each group). Four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat population (2 in both groups); therefore, 47 patients were analyzed in each group. The extensively-assisted weaning group had a higher median age (68 [58-73] vs. 62 [55-71] yrs.) and similar sex ratio (62% male vs. 57%). Time until successful extubation was not significantly different between extensively-assisted and standard weaning groups (median, 172 [50-436] vs. 95 [47-232] hours, Cox hazard ratio for successful extubation, 0.88 [95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.42] using the standard weaning group as a reference; p = 0.60). All secondary outcomes were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: An extensively-assisted weaning strategy did not lead to a shorter time to successful extubation than a standard weaning strategy. Trial registration The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03861117), on March 1, 2019, before the inclusion of the first patient. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03861117 .

Critically Ill Patients with Visceral Nocardia Infection, France and Belgium, 2004-2023.

We studied 50 patients with invasive nocardiosis treated during 2004-2023 in intensive care centers in France and Belgium. Most (65%) died in the intensive care unit or in the year after admission. Nocardia infections should be included in the differential diagnoses for patients in the intensive care setting.

Response to PEEP in COVID-19 ARDS patients with and without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. A multicenter case-control computed tomography study.

BACKGROUND: PEEP selection in severe COVID-19 patients under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is challenging as no study has assessed the alveolar recruitability in this setting. The aim of the study was to compare lung recruitability and the impact of PEEP on lung aeration in moderate and severe ARDS patients with or without ECMO, using computed tomography (CT). METHODS: We conducted a two-center prospective observational case-control study in adult COVID-19-related patients who had an indication for CT within 72 h of ARDS onset in non-ECMO patients or within 72  h after ECMO onset. Ninety-nine patients were included, of whom 24 had severe ARDS under ECMO, 59 severe ARDS without ECMO and 16 moderate ARDS. RESULTS: Non-inflated lung at PEEP 5 cmH2O was significantly greater in ECMO than in non-ECMO patients. Recruitment induced by increasing PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH2O was not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO patients, while PEEP-induced hyperinflation was significantly lower in the ECMO group and virtually nonexistent. The median [IQR] fraction of recruitable lung mass between PEEP 5 and 15 cmH2O was 6 [4-10]%. Total superimposed pressure at PEEP 5 cmH2O was significantly higher in ECMO patients and amounted to 12 [11-13] cmH2O. The hyperinflation-to-recruitment ratio (i.e., a trade-off index of the adverse effects and benefits of PEEP) was significantly lower in ECMO patients and was lower than one in 23 (96%) ECMO patients, 41 (69%) severe non-ECMO patients and 8 (50%) moderate ARDS patients. Compliance of the aerated lung at PEEP 5 cmH2O corrected for PEEP-induced recruitment (CBABY LUNG) was significantly lower in ECMO patients than in non-ECMO patients and was linearly related to the logarithm of the hyperinflation-to-recruitment ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Lung recruitability of COVID-19 pneumonia is not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO patients, with substantial interindividual variations. The balance between hyperinflation and recruitment induced by PEEP increase from 5 to 15 cmH2O appears favorable in virtually all ECMO patients, while this PEEP level is required to counteract compressive forces leading to lung collapse. CBABY LUNG is significantly lower in ECMO patients, independently of lung recruitability.