Comparing Ventilation Parameters for COVID-19 Patients Using Both Long-Term ICU and Anesthetic Ventilators in Times of Shortage.

In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, many patients were treated in hospitals using mechanical ventilation. However, due to a shortage of ICU ventilators, hospitals worldwide needed to deploy anesthesia machines for ICU ventilation (which is off-label use). A joint guidance was written to apply anesthesia machines for long-term ventilation. The goal of this research is to retrospectively evaluate the differences in measurable ventilation parameters between the ICU ventilator and the anesthesia machine as used for COVID-19 patients. In this study, we included 32 patients treated in March and April 2020, who had more than 3 days of mechanical ventilation, either in the regular ICU with ICU ventilators (Hamilton S1), or in the temporary emergency ICU with anesthetic ventilators (Aisys, GE). The data acquired during regular clinical treatment was collected from the Patient Data Management Systems. Available ventilation parameters (pressures and volumes: PEEP, Ppeak, Pinsp, Vtidal), monitored parameters EtCO2, SpO2, derived compliance C, and resistance R were processed and analyzed. A sub-analysis was performed to compare closed-loop ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV) to other ventilation modes. The results showed no major differences in the compared parameters, except for Pinsp. PEEP was reduced over time in the with Hamilton treated patients. This is most likely attributed to changing clinical protocol as more clinical experience and literature became available. A comparison of compliance between the 2 ventilators could not be made due to variances in the measurement of compliance. Closed loop ventilation could be used in 79% of the time, resulting in more stable EtCO2. From the analysis it can be concluded that the off-label usage of the anesthetic ventilator in our hospital did not result in differences in ventilation parameters compared to the ICU treatment in the first 4 days of ventilation.

Pharmacokinetics of midazolam in resuscitated patients treated with moderate hypothermia.

BACKGROUND: Patients who remain comatose after resuscitation are treated with moderate hypothermia. Little is known about the pharmacokinetics of drugs in patients who are treated with moderate hypothermia. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the pharmacokinetics of midazolam in resuscitated patients treated with moderate hypothermia in comparison to normothermic and non-resuscitated patients. SETTING: This study was performed on the ICU of a Dutch non-academic hospital. The study population consisted of nine patients in the hypothermic group and eight patients in the control group. METHOD: The resuscitated patients were cooled to a target temperature of 33 °C and rewarmed 24 h after start of cooling. Midazolam was given as continuous infusion. The control group consisted of non-resuscitated ICU-patients who were treated with midazolam as sedative. Plasma concentration-time data were collected for midazolam and its metabolites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Non-linear mixed effect modelling was used to analyze midazolam population pharmacokinetics and identify possible covariates. RESULTS: A two-compartment pharmacokinetic model best describes the data. The pharmacokinetic models of the investigated groups are not significantly different. Pharmacokinetic parameter estimates for midazolam for the hypothermic group are a body clearance (CL) of 12.6 l/h, an apparent volume of the central compartment (V1) of 19.1 l, an apparent volume of the peripheral compartment (V2) of 108 l and an intercompartmental clearance (Q) of 18.4 l/h. Estimated parameters for the control group are CL of 14.2 l/h, a V1 of 15.7 l, a V2 of 171 l and Q of 25.6 l/h. In the covariate analysis, body temperature did not significantly improve the model. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the pharmacokinetics of midazolam between resuscitated patients treated with hypothermia during 24 h and the control group.

Validation of the urine column measurement as an estimation of the intra-abdominal pressure.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the urine column (UC) measurement compared to the intra-vesicular pressure (IVP) measurement as an estimation of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) in patients with IAP up to 30 mmHg. METHODS: Fifteen patients undergoing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy were studied. All patients were catheterized. IVP measurements were performed using a pressure transducer connected to the culture aspiration port. UC measurements were done by holding up the tubing against a measuring rod. The symphysis pubis was used as the zero-reference. IAP was raised from 0 to 30 mmHg using increments of 5 mmHg, during which first the IVP and then UC measurement series were recorded end-expiratory. Fifty and 100 ml of saline were used as a priming volume. RESULTS: The IVP and UC measurements showed a significant correlation with IAP. Comparing IVP and UC showed a correlation of 0.91 (p < 0.001) for 50 ml and 0.87 (p < 0.001) for 100 ml of saline as a priming volume. Using 50 ml of saline, UC was 0.68 mmHg higher than IVP (95% CI -7.21 to +5.85 mmHg). For 100 ml of saline, UC was 1.23 mmHg lower than IVP (95% CI -7.41 to +9.87 mmHg). CONCLUSION: UC measurement shows significant correlation to IVP measurement as an estimation of the IAP. Further study needs to be done to conclude whether UC measurement is a reliable clinical alternative to IVP measurement.