High-Flow Nasal Cannula Versus Noninvasive Ventilation as Initial Treatment in Acute Hypoxia: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

IMPORTANCE: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with hypoxemia often have mixed or uncertain causes of respiratory failure. The optimal treatment for such patients is unclear. Both high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are used. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with HFNC versus NIV for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNC or NIV within 24 hours of arrival to the University of Michigan adult ED from January 2018 to December 2022. We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving NIV. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-d mortality, ventilator-free days, noninvasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a win ratio. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients were included. Seven hundred twenty-six (62.9%) received HFNC and 428 (37.1%) received NIV. We propensity score matched 668 of 1154 (57.9%) patients. Patients on NIV versus HFNC had lower 28-day mortality (16.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.033) and required noninvasive treatment for fewer hours (median 7.5 vs. 13.5, p < 0.001), but had no difference in ventilator-free days (median [interquartile range]: 28 [26, 28] vs. 28 [10.5, 28], p = 0.199). Win ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored NIV (1.38; 95% CI, 1.15-1.65; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with NIV compared with HFNC was associated with lower mortality and fewer composite major pulmonary adverse events calculated using a win ratio. These findings underscore the need for randomized controlled trials to further understand the impact of noninvasive respiratory support strategies.

Noninvasive respiratory support in the emergency department: Controversies and state-of-the-art recommendations.

Acute respiratory failure is a common reason for emergency department visits and hospital admissions. Diverse underlying physiologic abnormalities lead to unique aspects about the most common causes of acute respiratory failure: acute decompensated heart failure, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and acute de novo hypoxemic respiratory failure. Noninvasive respiratory support strategies are increasingly used methods to support work of breathing and improve gas exchange abnormalities to improve outcomes relative to conventional oxygen therapy or invasive mechanical ventilation. Noninvasive respiratory support includes noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow, each with unique physiologic mechanisms. This paper will review the physiology of respiratory failure and noninvasive respiratory support modalities and offer data and guideline-driven recommendations in the context of key clinical controversies.

The Impact of a Web-Based Preintubation Preparation Module on the Knowledge, Confidence, and Behavior of Critical Care Fellows: A Single-Center Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to standardize airway management among critical care fellows and to evaluate whether the completion of a web-based preintubation airway preparation module improves their knowledge and behaviors in the identification and preparation of difficult airways. METHODS: Critical care experts used international guidelines to develop the module, which contained mandatory readings, brief lectures, and a case-based activity. We measured learner satisfaction, improvements in fellows' preintubation preparation knowledge, and safety-oriented behavior. The paired t-test was used to compare knowledge assessment scores and the chi-square test was used to compare the categorical variables in the evaluation of the behavior construct. RESULTS: All trainees (N = 14) completed the module and were satisfied with its contents and structure. Fellows logged 114 intubations during the study period. The mean score on the knowledge test increased (pre 79% vs post 90%, P = .02) postmodule and there was a significant increase in documentation of airway risk stratification in fellows' procedure notes (65.9% vs 72.9%, P = .049). All respondents were confident that they would be able to apply what they learned in the module into clinical practice and that their patients would likely benefit from their new knowledge. CONCLUSION: The implementation of an asynchronous web-based module on airway assessment and intubation preparation was feasible. The module was engaging, enhanced the knowledge of our trainees, and improved procedural documentation.

Bayesian methods: a potential path forward for sepsis trials.

BACKGROUND: Given the success of recent platform trials for COVID-19, Bayesian statistical methods have become an option for complex, heterogenous syndromes like sepsis. However, study design will require careful consideration of how statistical power varies using Bayesian methods across different choices for how historical data are incorporated through a prior distribution and how the analysis is ultimately conducted. Our objective with the current analysis is to assess how different uses of historical data through a prior distribution, and type of analysis influence results of a proposed trial that will be analyzed using Bayesian statistical methods. METHODS: We conducted a simulation study incorporating historical data from a published multicenter, randomized clinical trial in the US and Canada of polymyxin B hemadsorption for treatment of endotoxemic septic shock. Historical data come from a 179-patient subgroup of the previous trial of adult critically ill patients with septic shock, multiple organ failure and an endotoxin activity of 0.60-0.89. The trial intervention consisted of two polymyxin B hemoadsorption treatments (2 h each) completed within 24 h of enrollment. RESULTS: In our simulations for a new trial of 150 patients, a range of hypothetical results were observed. Across a range of baseline risks and treatment effects and four ways of including historical data, we demonstrate an increase in power with the use of clinically defensible incorporation of historical data. In one possible trial result, for example, with an observed reduction in risk of mortality from 44 to 37%, the probability of benefit is 96% with a fixed weight of 75% on prior data and 90% with a commensurate (adaptive-weighting) prior; the same data give an 80% probability of benefit if historical data are ignored. CONCLUSIONS: Using Bayesian methods and a biologically justifiable use of historical data in a prior distribution yields a study design with higher power than a conventional design that ignores relevant historical data. Bayesian methods may be a viable option for trials in critical care medicine where beneficial treatments have been elusive.

High-flow nasal cannula vs non-invasive ventilation in acute hypoxia: Propensity score matched study.

RATIONALE: The optimal treatment for early hypoxemic respiratory failure is unclear, and both high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation are used. Determining clinically relevant outcomes for evaluating non-invasive respiratory support modalities remains a challenge. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of initial treatment with high-flow nasal cannula versus non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation within 24 hours of Emergency Department arrival (1/2018-12/2022). We matched patients 1:1 using a propensity score for odds of receiving non-invasive ventilation. The primary outcome was major adverse pulmonary events (28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, non-invasive respiratory support hours) calculated using a Win Ratio. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 1,265 patients met inclusion criteria. 795 (62.8%) received high-flow oxygen and 470 (37.2%) received non-invasive ventilation. We propensity score matched 736/1,265 (58.2%) patients. There was no difference between non-invasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal cannula in 28-day mortality (17.7% vs 23.1%, p=0.08) or ventilator-free days (median [Interquartile Range]: 28 [25, 28] vs 28 [13, 28], p=0.50), but patients on non-invasive ventilation required treatment for fewer hours (median 7 vs 13, p< 0.001). Win Ratio for composite major adverse pulmonary events favored non-invasive ventilation (1.26, 95%CI 1.06-1.49, p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, initial treatment with non-invasive ventilation was superior to high-flow nasal cannula for major pulmonary adverse events. Evaluation of composite outcomes is important in the assessment of respiratory support modalities.

A randomised trial of anti-GM-CSF otilimab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (OSCAR).

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. RESULTS: In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile.

Rapid Intensive Care Unit Onboarding in Response to a Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hospital resources have been stretched to their limits. We introduced an innovative course to rapidly on-board a group of non-intensive care unit (ICU) nurse practitioners as they begin to practice working in a critical care setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a brief educational course could improve non-ICU practitioners' knowledge and comfort in practicing in an intensive care setting. METHODS: We implemented a multi-strategy blended 12-week curriculum composed of bedside teaching, asynchronous online learning and simulation. The course content was a product of data collected from a targeted needs assessment. The cognitive learning objectives were taught through the online modules. Four simulation sessions were used to teach procedural skills. Bedside teaching simultaneously occurred from critical care faculty during daily rounds. We assessed learning through a pre and post knowledge multiple choice question (MCQ) test. Faculty assessed learners by direct observation and review of clinical documentation. We evaluated learner reaction and comfort in critical practice by comparing pre and post surveys. RESULTS: All 7 NPs were satisfied with the course and found the format to work well with their clinical schedules. The course also improved their self-reported comfort in managing critically ill patients in a medical ICU. There was an increase in the mean group score from the pre-to the post-course MCQ (60% vs 73%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 Critical Care Course (CCCC) for NPs was implemented in our ICU to better prepare for an anticipated second surge. It focused on delivering practical knowledge and skills as learners cared for critically ill COVID-19 patients. In a short period of time, it engaged participants in active learning and allowed them to feel more confident in applying their education.

Variation in Early Management Practices in Moderate-to-Severe ARDS in the United States: The Severe ARDS: Generating Evidence Study.

BACKGROUND: Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H2O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pao2 to Fio2 ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H2O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR. INTERPRETATION: Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Safety Assessment of a Noninvasive Respiratory Protocol for Adults With COVID-19.

As evidence emerged supporting noninvasive strategies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory distress, we implemented a noninvasive COVID-19 respiratory protocol (NCRP) that encouraged high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and self-proning across our healthcare system. To assess safety, we conducted a retrospective chart review evaluating mortality and other patient safety outcomes after implementation of the NCRP protocol (April 3, 2020, to April 15, 2020) for adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, compared with preimplementation outcomes (March 15, 2020, to April 2, 2020). During the study, there were 469 COVID-19 admissions. Fewer patients underwent intubation after implementation (10.7% [23 of 215]), compared with before implementation (25.2% [64 of 254]) (P < .01). Overall, 26.2% of patients died (24% before implementation vs 28.8% after implementation; P = .14). In patients without a do not resuscitate/do not intubate order prior to admission, mortality was 21.8% before implementation vs 21.9% after implementation. Overall, we found no significant increase in mortality following implementation of a noninvasive respiratory protocol that decreased intubations in patients with COVID-19.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results: Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.

Immune checkpoint inhibition in sepsis: a Phase 1b randomized study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of nivolumab.

PURPOSE: Sepsis-associated immunosuppression increases hospital-acquired infection and viral reactivation risk. A key underlying mechanism is programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)-mediated T-cell function impairment. This is one of the first clinical safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) assessments of the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab and its effect on immune biomarkers in sepsis. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase 1b study in 31 adults at 10 US hospital ICUs with sepsis diagnosed ≥ 24 h before study treatment, ≥ 1 organ dysfunction, and absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.1 × 103 cells/µL. Participants received one nivolumab dose [480 mg (n = 15) or 960 mg (n = 16)]; follow-up was 90 days. Primary endpoints were safety and PK parameters. RESULTS: Twelve deaths occurred [n = 6 per study arm; 40% (480 mg) and 37.5% (960 mg)]. Serious AEs occurred in eight participants [n = 1, 6.7% (480 mg); n = 7, 43.8% (960 mg)]. AEs considered by the investigator to be possibly drug-related and immune-mediated occurred in five participants [n = 2, 13.3% (480 mg); n = 3, 18.8% (960 mg)]. Mean ± SD terminal half-life was 14.7 ± 5.3 (480 mg) and 15.8 ± 7.9 (960 mg) days. All participants maintained > 90% receptor occupancy (RO) 28 days post-infusion. Median (Q1, Q3) mHLA-DR levels increased to 11,531 (6528, 19,495) and 11,449 (6225, 16,698) mAbs/cell in the 480- and 960-mg arms by day 14, respectively. Pro-inflammatory cytokine levels did not increase. CONCLUSIONS: In this sepsis population, nivolumab administration did not result in unexpected safety findings or indicate any 'cytokine storm'. The PK profile maintained RO > 90% for ≥ 28 days. Further efficacy and safety studies are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (CLINICALTRIALS.GOV): NCT02960854.

Prospective Assessment of the Feasibility of a Trial of Low-Tidal Volume Ventilation for Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure.

RATIONALE: Low-tidal volume ventilation (LTVV; 6 ml/kg) benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and may aid those with other causes of respiratory failure. Current early ventilation practices are poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: We observed patients with acute respiratory failure to assess the feasibility of a pragmatic trial of LTVV and to guide experimental design. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to intensive care units expected to participate in the proposed trial. We collected clinical data as well as information on initial and daily ventilator settings and inpatient mortality. We estimated the benefit of LTVV using predictive linear and nonlinear models. We simulated models to estimate power and feasibility of a cluster-randomized trial of LTVV versus usual care in acute respiratory failure. RESULTS: We included 2,484 newly mechanically ventilated patients (31% with acute respiratory distress syndrome) from 49 hospitals. Hospital mortality was 28%. Mean initial tidal volume was 7.1 ml/kg predicted body weight (95% confidence interval, 7.1-7.2), with 78% of patients receiving tidal volumes less than or equal to 8 ml/kg. Our models estimated a mortality benefit of 0-2% from LTVV compared with usual care. Simulation of a stepped-wedged cluster-randomized trial suggested that enrollment of 106,361 patients would be necessary to achieve greater than 90% power. CONCLUSIONS: Use of initial tidal volumes less than 8 ml/kg predicted body weight was common at hospitals participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network. After considering the size and budgetary requirement for a cluster-randomized trial of LTVV versus usual care in acute respiratory failure, the PETAL Network deemed the proposed trial infeasible. A rapid observational study and simulations to model anticipated power may help better design trials.

Use of the blood substitute HBOC-201 in critically ill patients during sickle crisis: a three-case series.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is an important treatment modality during severe sickle cell crisis (SCC). SCC patients who refuse, or cannot accept, RBCs present a unique challenge. Acellular hemoglobin (Hb)-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs) might be an alternative for critically ill patients in SCC with multiorgan failure due to life-threatening anemia. HBOC-201 (HbO2 Therapeutics) has been administered to more than 800 anemic patients in 22 clinical trials, but use of any HBOCs in critically ill sickle cell patients with organ failure is exceedingly rare. In the United States, HBOC-201 is currently only available for expanded access. CASE REPORT: We report three cases of HBOC-201 administered to critically ill sickle cell disease patients in SCC with multiorgan failure, either who refused RBCs (Jehovah's Witnesses) or for whom compatible RBCs were not available. RESULTS: Two patients received more than 20 units of HBOC-201, while the other received 6. The 27 units used in the third case equals the largest volume a patient has successfully received to date. All three patients survived to hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: These reports suggest that blood substitutes such as HBOC-201 can provide an oxygen bridge in SCC with multiorgan failure, until corpuscular Hb levels recover to meet metabolic demand, and highlight the compelling biochemical properties that warrant further investigation.

A pilot clinical trial of recombinant human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) signaling and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) have been implicated in the pathogenesis of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We postulated that repleting ACE2 using GSK2586881, a recombinant form of human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (rhACE2), could attenuate acute lung injury. METHODS: We conducted a two-part phase II trial comprising an open-label intrapatient dose escalation and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase in ten intensive care units in North America. Patients were between the ages of 18 and 80 years, had an American-European Consensus Criteria consensus diagnosis of ARDS, and had been mechanically ventilated for less than 72 h. In part A, open-label GSK2586881 was administered at doses from 0.1 mg/kg to 0.8 mg/kg to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. Following review of data from part A, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of twice-daily doses of GSK2586881 (0.4 mg/kg) for 3 days was conducted (part B). Biomarkers, physiological assessments, and clinical endpoints were collected over the dosing period and during follow-up. RESULTS: Dose escalation in part A was well-tolerated without clinically significant hemodynamic changes. Part B was terminated after 39 of the planned 60 patients following a planned futility analysis. Angiotensin II levels decreased rapidly following infusion of GSK2586881, whereas angiotensin-(1-7) and angiotensin-(1-5) levels increased and remained elevated for 48 h. Surfactant protein D concentrations were increased, whereas there was a trend for a decrease in interleukin-6 concentrations in rhACE2-treated subjects compared with placebo. No significant differences were noted in ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen, oxygenation index, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. CONCLUSIONS: GSK2586881 was well-tolerated in patients with ARDS, and the rapid modulation of RAS peptides suggests target engagement, although the study was not powered to detect changes in acute physiology or clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01597635 . Registered on 26 January 2012.

Nonlinear Imputation of PaO2/FIO2 From SpO2/FIO2 Among Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the ICU: A Prospective, Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: In the contemporary ICU, mechanically ventilated patients may not have arterial blood gas measurements available at relevant timepoints. Severity criteria often depend on arterial blood gas results. Retrospective studies suggest that nonlinear imputation of PaO2/FIO2 from SpO2/FIO2 is accurate, but this has not been established prospectively among mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The objective was to validate the superiority of nonlinear imputation of PaO2/FIO2 among mechanically ventilated patients and understand what factors influence the accuracy of imputation. DESIGN: Simultaneous SpO2, oximeter characteristics, receipt of vasopressors, and skin pigmentation were recorded at the time of a clinical arterial blood gas. Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria were recorded. For each imputation method, we calculated both imputation error and the area under the curve for patients meeting criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300) and moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 150). SETTING: Nine hospitals within the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury network. PATIENTS: We prospectively enrolled 703 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the emergency departments or ICUs of participating study hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We studied 1,034 arterial blood gases from 703 patients; 650 arterial blood gases were associated with SpO2 less than or equal to 96%. Nonlinear imputation had consistently lower error than other techniques. Among all patients, nonlinear had a lower error (p < 0.001) and higher (p < 0.001) area under the curve (0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.90) for PaO2/FIO2 less than or equal to 300 than linear/log-linear (0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83) imputation. All imputation methods better identified moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 150); nonlinear imputation remained superior (p < 0.001). For PaO2/FIO2 less than or equal to 150, the sensitivity and specificity for nonlinear imputation were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93), respectively. Skin pigmentation and receipt of vasopressors were not associated with imputation accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients, nonlinear imputation of PaO2/FIO2 from SpO2/FIO2 seems accurate, especially for moderate-severe hypoxemia. Linear and log-linear imputations cannot be recommended.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Thiamine as a Metabolic Resuscitator in Septic Shock: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if intravenous thiamine would reduce lactate in patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Two US hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult patients with septic shock and elevated (> 3 mmol/L) lactate between 2010 and 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Thiamine 200 mg or matching placebo twice daily for 7 days or until hospital discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was lactate levels 24 hours after the first study dose. Of 715 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 88 patients were enrolled and received study drug. There was no difference in the primary outcome of lactate levels at 24 hours after study start between the thiamine and placebo groups (median: 2.5 mmol/L [1.5, 3.4] vs. 2.6 mmol/L [1.6, 5.1], p = 0.40). There was no difference in secondary outcomes including time to shock reversal, severity of illness and mortality. 35% of the patients were thiamine deficient at baseline. In this predefined subgroup, those in the thiamine treatment group had statistically significantly lower lactate levels at 24 hours (median 2.1 mmol/L [1.4, 2.5] vs. 3.1 [1.9, 8.3], p = 0.03). There was a statistically significant decrease in mortality over time in those receiving thiamine in this subgroup (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Administration of thiamine did not improve lactate levels or other outcomes in the overall group of patients with septic shock and elevated lactate. In those with baseline thiamine deficiency, patients in the thiamine group had significantly lower lactate levels at 24 hours and a possible decrease in mortality over time.

Fluid management with a simplified conservative protocol for the acute respiratory distress syndrome*.

OBJECTIVES: In the Fluid and Catheter Treatment Trial (FACTT) of the National Institutes of Health Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network, a conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Conservative) resulted in a lower cumulative fluid balance and better outcomes than a liberal fluid protocol (FACTT Liberal). Subsequent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network studies used a simplified conservative fluid protocol (FACTT Lite). The objective of this study was to compare the performance of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal protocols. DESIGN: Retrospective comparison of FACTT Lite, FACTT Conservative, and FACTT Liberal. Primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance over 7 days. Secondary outcomes were 60-day adjusted mortality and ventilator-free days through day 28. Safety outcomes were prevalence of acute kidney injury and new shock. SETTING: ICUs of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network participating hospitals. PATIENTS: Five hundred three subjects managed with FACTT Conservative, 497 subjects managed with FACTT Liberal, and 1,124 subjects managed with FACTT Lite. INTERVENTIONS: Fluid management by protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cumulative fluid balance was 1,918 ± 323 mL in FACTT Lite, -136 ± 491 mL in FACTT Conservative, and 6,992 ± 502 mL in FACTT Liberal (p < 0.001). Mortality was not different between groups (24% in FACTT Lite, 25% in FACTT Conservative and Liberal, p = 0.84). Ventilator-free days in FACTT Lite (14.9 ± 0.3) were equivalent to FACTT Conservative (14.6 ± 0.5) (p = 0.61) and greater than in FACTT Liberal (12.1 ± 0.5, p < 0.001 vs Lite). Acute kidney injury prevalence was 58% in FACTT Lite and 57% in FACTT Conservative (p = 0.72). Prevalence of new shock in FACTT Lite (9%) was lower than in FACTT Conservative (13%) (p = 0.007 vs Lite) and similar to FACTT Liberal (11%) (p = 0.18 vs Lite). CONCLUSIONS: FACTT Lite had a greater cumulative fluid balance than FACTT Conservative but had equivalent clinical and safety outcomes. FACTT Lite is an alternative to FACTT Conservative for fluid management in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Effect of eritoran, an antagonist of MD2-TLR4, on mortality in patients with severe sepsis: the ACCESS randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Eritoran is a synthetic lipid A antagonist that blocks lipopolysaccharide (LPS) from binding at the cell surface MD2-TLR4 receptor. LPS is a major component of the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria and is a potent activator of the acute inflammatory response. OBJECTIVE: To determine if eritoran, a TLR4 antagonist, would significantly reduce sepsis-induced mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial in 197 intensive care units. Patients were enrolled from June 2006 to September 2010 and final follow-up was completed in September 2011. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with severe sepsis (n = 1961) were randomized and treated within 12 hours of onset of first organ dysfunction in a 2:1 ratio with a 6-day course of either eritoran tetrasodium (105 mg total) or placebo, with n = 1304 and n = 657 patients, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was 28-day all-cause mortality. The secondary end points were all-cause mortality at 3, 6, and 12 months after beginning treatment. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 2 study groups were similar. In the modified intent-to-treat analysis (randomized patients who received at least 1 dose) there was no significant difference in the primary end point of 28-day all-cause mortality with 28.1% (366/1304) in the eritoran group vs 26.9% (177/657) in the placebo group (P = .59; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88-1.26; difference in mortality rate, -1.1; 95% CI, -5.3 to 3.1) or in the key secondary end point of 1-year all-cause mortality with 44.1% (290/657) in the eritoran group vs 43.3% (565/1304) in the placebo group, Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to death by 1 year, P = .79 (hazard ratio, 0.98; 0.85-1.13). No significant differences were observed in any of the prespecified subgroups. Adverse events, including secondary infection rates, did not differ between study groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with severe sepsis, the use of eritoran, compared with placebo, did not result in reduced 28-day mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00334828.