The respiratory oxygenation index for identifying the risk of orotracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula oxygen.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the respiratory oxygenation index (ROX index) measured after the start of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy can help identify the need for intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted at the intensive care units of six Brazilian hospitals from March to December 2020. The primary outcome was the need for intubation up to 7 days after starting the high-flow nasal cannula. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were included in the study, and 261 (58.7%) were subjected to intubation. An analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) showed that the ability to discriminate between successful and failed high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy within 7 days was greater for the ROX index measured at 24 hours (AUROC 0.80; 95%CI 0.76 - 0.84). The median interval between high-flow nasal cannula initiation and intubation was 24 hours (24 - 72), and the most accurate predictor of intubation obtained before 24 hours was the ROX index measured at 12 hours (AUROC 0.75; 95%CI 0.70 - 0.79). Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a greater probability of intubation within 7 days in patients with a ROX index ≤ 5.54 at 12 hours (hazard ratio 3.07; 95%CI 2.24 - 4.20) and ≤ 5.96 at 24 hours (hazard ratio 5.15; 95%CI 3.65 - 7.27). CONCLUSION: The ROX index can aid in the early identification of patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who will progress to the failure of high-flow nasal cannula supportive therapy and the need for intubation.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. CONCLUSION: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

The respiratory oxygenation index for identifying the risk of orotracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula oxygen / Índice de oxigenação respiratória para identificar risco de intubação orotraqueal em pacientes com COVID-19 que recebem oxigênio por cânula nasal de alto fluxo

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess whether the respiratory oxygenation index (ROX index) measured after the start of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy can help identify the need for intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019. Methods: This retrospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted at the intensive care units of six Brazilian hospitals from March to December 2020. The primary outcome was the need for intubation up to 7 days after starting the high-flow nasal cannula. Results: A total of 444 patients were included in the study, and 261 (58.7%) were subjected to intubation. An analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) showed that the ability to discriminate between successful and failed high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy within 7 days was greater for the ROX index measured at 24 hours (AUROC 0.80; 95%CI 0.76 - 0.84). The median interval between high-flow nasal cannula initiation and intubation was 24 hours (24 - 72), and the most accurate predictor of intubation obtained before 24 hours was the ROX index measured at 12 hours (AUROC 0.75; 95%CI 0.70 - 0.79). Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a greater probability of intubation within 7 days in patients with a ROX index ≤ 5.54 at 12 hours (hazard ratio 3.07; 95%CI 2.24 - 4.20) and ≤ 5.96 at 24 hours (hazard ratio 5.15; 95%CI 3.65 - 7.27). Conclusion: The ROX index can aid in the early identification of patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 who will progress to the failure of high-flow nasal cannula supportive therapy and the need for intubation.

RESUMO Objetivo: Avaliar se o índice de oxigenação respiratória medido após o início da terapia de oxigênio com cânula nasal de alto fluxo pode ajudar a identificar a necessidade de intubação em pacientes com insuficiência respiratória aguda devido à COVID-19. Métodos: Este estudo retrospectivo, observacional e multicêntrico foi realizado nas unidades de terapia intensiva de seis hospitais brasileiros, de março a dezembro de 2020. O desfecho primário foi a necessidade de intubação até 7 dias após o início da cânula nasal de alto fluxo. Resultados: O estudo incluiu 444 pacientes; 261 (58,7%) foram submetidos à intubação. Uma análise da área sob a curva receiver operating characteristic (ASC ROC) mostrou que a capacidade de discriminar entre o sucesso e o fracasso da oxigenoterapia com cânula nasal de alto fluxo dentro de 7 dias foi maior para o índice de oxigenação respiratória medido em 24 horas (ASC ROC 0,80; IC95% 0,76 - 0,84). O intervalo médio entre o início da cânula nasal de alto fluxo e a intubação foi de 24 horas (24 - 72), e o preditor mais preciso de intubação obtido antes de 24 horas foi o índice de oxigenação respiratória medido em 12 horas (ASC ROC 0,75; IC95% 0,70 - 0,79). As curvas de Kaplan-Meier revelaram maior probabilidade de intubação em 7 dias em pacientes com índice de oxigenação respiratória ≤ 5,54 em 12 horas (razão de risco 3,07; IC95% 2,24 - 4,20) e ≤ 5,96 em 24 horas (razão de risco 5,15; IC95% 3,65 - 7,27). Conclusões: O índice de oxigenação respiratória pode ajudar na identificação precoce de pacientes com insuficiência respiratória aguda devido à COVID-19 que evoluirão para o fracasso da terapia de suporte com cânula nasal de alto fluxo e a necessidade de intubação.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessing the effects of a driving pressure-limiting strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia (STAMINA trial): protocol and statistical analysis plan / Estudo randomizado prospectivo e controlado de avaliação dos efeitos de uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade (estudo STAMINA): protocolo e plano de análise estatística

ABSTRACT Background: Driving pressure has been suggested to be the main driver of ventilator-induced lung injury and mortality in observational studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy can improve clinical outcomes is unclear. Objective: To describe the protocol and statistical analysis plan that will be used to test whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy including positive end-expiratory pressure titration according to the best respiratory compliance and reduction in tidal volume is superior to a standard strategy involving the use of the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in terms of increasing the number of ventilator-free days in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia. Methods: The ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA (STAMINA) study is a randomized, multicenter, open-label trial that compares a driving pressure-limiting strategy to the ARDSnet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to community-acquired pneumonia admitted to intensive care units. We expect to recruit 500 patients from 20 Brazilian and 2 Colombian intensive care units. They will be randomized to a driving pressure-limiting strategy group or to a standard strategy using the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table. In the driving pressure-limiting strategy group, positive end-expiratory pressure will be titrated according to the best respiratory system compliance. Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days. The secondary outcomes are in-hospital and intensive care unit mortality and the need for rescue therapies such as extracorporeal life support, recruitment maneuvers and inhaled nitric oxide. Conclusion: STAMINA is designed to provide evidence on whether a driving pressure-limiting strategy is superior to the ARDSNet low-positive end-expiratory pressure table strategy for increasing the number of ventilator-free days within 28 days in patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Here, we describe the rationale, design and status of the trial.

RESUMO Contexto: Em estudos observacionais sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, sugeriu-se que a driving pressure é o principal fator de lesão pulmonar induzida por ventilador e de mortalidade. Não está claro se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure pode melhorar os desfechos clínicos. Objetivo: Descrever o protocolo e o plano de análise estatística que serão usados para testar se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure envolvendo a titulação da pressão positiva expiratória final de acordo com a melhor complacência respiratória e a redução do volume corrente é superior a uma estratégia padrão envolvendo o uso da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSNet, em termos de aumento do número de dias sem ventilador em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade. Métodos: O estudo STAMINA (ventilator STrAtegy for coMmunIty acquired pNeumoniA) é randomizado, multicêntrico e aberto e compara uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure com a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave devido à pneumonia adquirida na comunidade internados em unidades de terapia intensiva. Esperamos recrutar 500 pacientes de 20 unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras e duas colombianas. Eles serão randomizados para um grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure ou para um grupo de estratégia padrão usando a tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet. No grupo da estratégia de limitação da driving pressure, a pressão positiva expiratória final será titulada de acordo com a melhor complacência do sistema respiratório. Desfechos: O desfecho primário é o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias. Os desfechos secundários são a mortalidade hospitalar e na unidade de terapia intensiva e a necessidade de terapias de resgate, como suporte de vida extracorpóreo, manobras de recrutamento e óxido nítrico inalado. Conclusão: O STAMINA foi projetado para fornecer evidências sobre se uma estratégia de limitação da driving pressure é superior à estratégia da tabela de pressão positiva expiratória final baixa do protocolo ARDSnet para aumentar o número de dias sem ventilador em 28 dias em pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo moderada a grave. Aqui, descrevemos a justificativa, o desenho e o status do estudo.

Incidence of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients With and Without COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: It is known that patients with COVID-19 are at high risk of developing delirium. The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of delirium between critically ill patients with and without a diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted in a southern Brazilian hospital from March 2020 to January 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: the COVID-19 group consisted of patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) or serological tests who were admitted to specific ICUs. The non-COVID-19 group consisted of patients with other surgical and medical diagnoses who were admitted to non-COVID ICUs. All patients were evaluated daily using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). The two cohorts were compared in terms of the diagnosis of delirium. RESULTS: Of the 649 patients who remained more than 48 h in the ICU, 523 were eligible for the study (COVID-19 group: 292, non-COVID-19 group: 231). There were 119 (22.7%) patients who had at least one episode of delirium, including 96 (32.9%) in the COVID-19 group and 23 (10.0%) in the non-COVID-19 group (odds ratio [OR] 4.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69 to 7.26; p < 0.001). Among patients mechanically ventilated for two days or more, the incidence of delirium did not differ between groups (COVID-19: 89/211, 42.1% vs non-COVID-19: 19/47, 40.4%; p = 0.82). Logistic regression showed that the duration of mechanical ventilation was the only independent factor associated with delirium (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: COVID-19 can be associated with a higher incidence of delirium among critically ill patients, but there was no difference in this incidence between groups when mechanical ventilation lasted two days or more.