ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies.

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Lung Recruitment Assessed by Electrical Impedance Tomography (RECRUIT): A Multicenter Study of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Rationale: Defining lung recruitability is needed for safe positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection in mechanically ventilated patients. However, there is no simple bedside method including both assessment of recruitability and risks of overdistension as well as personalized PEEP titration. Objectives: To describe the range of recruitability using electrical impedance tomography (EIT), effects of PEEP on recruitability, respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, and a method to select optimal EIT-based PEEP. Methods: This is the analysis of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from an ongoing multicenter prospective physiological study including patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome of different causes. EIT, ventilator data, hemodynamics, and arterial blood gases were obtained during PEEP titration maneuvers. EIT-based optimal PEEP was defined as the crossing point of the overdistension and collapse curves during a decremental PEEP trial. Recruitability was defined as the amount of modifiable collapse when increasing PEEP from 6 to 24 cm H2O (ΔCollapse24-6). Patients were classified as low, medium, or high recruiters on the basis of tertiles of ΔCollapse24-6. Measurements and Main Results: In 108 patients with COVID-19, recruitability varied from 0.3% to 66.9% and was unrelated to acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. Median EIT-based PEEP differed between groups: 10 versus 13.5 versus 15.5 cm H2O for low versus medium versus high recruitability (P < 0.05). This approach assigned a different PEEP level from the highest compliance approach in 81% of patients. The protocol was well tolerated; in four patients, the PEEP level did not reach 24 cm H2O because of hemodynamic instability. Conclusions: Recruitability varies widely among patients with COVID-19. EIT allows personalizing PEEP setting as a compromise between recruitability and overdistension. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04460859).

Clinical risk factors for increased respiratory drive in intubated hypoxemic patients.

BACKGROUND: There is very limited evidence identifying factors that increase respiratory drive in hypoxemic intubated patients. Most physiological determinants of respiratory drive cannot be directly assessed at the bedside (e.g., neural inputs from chemo- or mechano-receptors), but clinical risk factors commonly measured in intubated patients could be correlated with increased drive. We aimed to identify clinical risk factors independently associated with increased respiratory drive in intubated hypoxemic patients. METHODS: We analyzed the physiological dataset from a multicenter trial on intubated hypoxemic patients on pressure support (PS). Patients with simultaneous assessment of the inspiratory drop in airway pressure at 0.1-s during an occlusion (P0.1) and risk factors for increased respiratory drive on day 1 were included. We evaluated the independent correlation of the following clinical risk factors for increased drive with P0.1: severity of lung injury (unilateral vs. bilateral pulmonary infiltrates, PaO2/FiO2, ventilatory ratio); arterial blood gases (PaO2, PaCO2 and pHa); sedation (RASS score and drug type); SOFA score; arterial lactate; ventilation settings (PEEP, level of PS, addition of sigh breaths). RESULTS: Two-hundred seventeen patients were included. Clinical risk factors independently correlated with higher P0.1 were bilateral infiltrates (increase ratio [IR] 1.233, 95%CI 1.047-1.451, p = 0.012); lower PaO2/FiO2 (IR 0.998, 95%CI 0.997-0.999, p = 0.004); higher ventilatory ratio (IR 1.538, 95%CI 1.267-1.867, p < 0.001); lower pHa (IR 0.104, 95%CI 0.024-0.464, p = 0.003). Higher PEEP was correlated with lower P0.1 (IR 0.951, 95%CI 0.921-0.982, p = 0.002), while sedation depth and drugs were not associated with P0.1. CONCLUSIONS: Independent clinical risk factors for higher respiratory drive in intubated hypoxemic patients include the extent of lung edema and of ventilation-perfusion mismatch, lower pHa, and lower PEEP, while sedation strategy does not affect drive. These data underline the multifactorial nature of increased respiratory drive.

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS: WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0-4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2-6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital. INTERPRETATION: In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates. FUNDING: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society.

High-Flow Versus VenturiMask Oxygen Therapy to Prevent Reintubation in Hypoxemic Patients after Extubation: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rationale: When compared with VenturiMask after extubation, high-flow nasal oxygen provides physiological advantages. Objectives: To establish whether high-flow oxygen prevents endotracheal reintubation in hypoxemic patients after extubation, compared with VenturiMask. Methods: In this multicenter randomized trial, 494 patients exhibiting PaO2:FiO2 ratio ⩽ 300 mm Hg after extubation were randomly assigned to receive high-flow or VenturiMask oxygen, with the possibility to apply rescue noninvasive ventilation before reintubation. High-flow use in the VenturiMask group was not permitted. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was the rate of reintubation within 72 hours according to predefined criteria, which were validated a posteriori by an independent adjudication committee. Main secondary outcomes included reintubation rate at 28 days and the need for rescue noninvasive ventilation according to predefined criteria. After intubation criteria validation (n = 492 patients), 32 patients (13%) in the high-flow group and 27 patients (11%) in the VenturiMask group required reintubation at 72 hours (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.26 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-2.26]; P = 0.49). At 28 days, the rate of reintubation was 21% in the high-flow group and 23% in the VenturiMask group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.60-1.31]; P = 0.55). The need for rescue noninvasive ventilation was significantly lower in the high-flow group than in the VenturiMask group: at 72 hours, 8% versus 17% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.71]; P = 0.002) and at 28 days, 12% versus 21% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32-0.83]; P = 0.007). Conclusions: Reintubation rate did not significantly differ between patients treated with VenturiMask or high-flow oxygen after extubation. High-flow oxygen yielded less frequent use of rescue noninvasive ventilation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02107183).

The PROMIZING trial enrollment algorithm for early identification of patients ready for unassisted breathing.

BACKGROUND: Liberating patients from mechanical ventilation (MV) requires a systematic approach. In the context of a clinical trial, we developed a simple algorithm to identify patients who tolerate assisted ventilation but still require ongoing MV to be randomized. We report on the use of this algorithm to screen potential trial participants for enrollment and subsequent randomization in the Proportional Assist Ventilation for Minimizing the Duration of MV (PROMIZING) study. METHODS: The algorithm included five steps: enrollment criteria, pressure support ventilation (PSV) tolerance trial, weaning criteria, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) tolerance trial (0 cmH2O during 2 min) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT): on fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) 40% for 30-120 min. Patients who failed the weaning criteria, CPAP Zero trial, or SBT were randomized. We describe the characteristics of patients who were initially enrolled, but passed all steps in the algorithm and consequently were not randomized. RESULTS: Among the 374 enrolled patients, 93 (25%) patients passed all five steps. At time of enrollment, most patients were on PSV (87%) with a mean (± standard deviation) FiO2 of 34 (± 6) %, PSV of 8.7 (± 2.9) cmH2O, and positive end-expiratory pressure of 6.1 (± 1.6) cmH2O. Minute ventilation was 9.0 (± 3.1) L/min with a respiratory rate of 17.4 (± 4.4) breaths/min. Patients were liberated from MV with a median [interquartile range] delay between initial screening and extubation of 5 [1-49] hours. Only 7 (8%) patients required reintubation. CONCLUSION: The trial algorithm permitted identification of 93 (25%) patients who were ready to extubate, while their clinicians predicted a duration of ventilation higher than 24 h.

Non-invasive oxygenation support in acutely hypoxemic COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: a multicenter observational retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive oxygenation strategies have a prominent role in the treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the efficacy of these therapies has been studied in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the clinical outcomes associated with oxygen masks, high-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients remain unclear. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we used the best of nine covariate balancing algorithms on all baseline covariates in critically ill COVID-19 patients supported with > 10 L of supplemental oxygen at one of the 26 participating ICUs in Catalonia, Spain, between March 14 and April 15, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 1093 non-invasively oxygenated patients at ICU admission treated with one of the three stand-alone non-invasive oxygenation strategies, 897 (82%) required endotracheal intubation and 310 (28%) died during the ICU stay. High-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula (n = 439) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 101) were associated with a lower rate of endotracheal intubation (70% and 88%, respectively) than oxygen masks (n = 553 and 91% intubated), p < 0.001. Compared to oxygen masks, high-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula was associated with lower ICU mortality (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.58-0.98), and the hazard ratio for ICU mortality was 1.21 [95% CI 0.80-1.83] for non-invasive mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSION: In critically ill COVID-19 ICU patients and, in the absence of conclusive data, high-flow oxygen therapy by nasal cannula may be the approach of choice as the primary non-invasive oxygenation support strategy.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Long-term survival of mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Information is lacking regarding long-term survival and predictive factors for mortality in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to estimate 180-day mortality of patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive ventilation, and to develop a predictive model for long-term mortality. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study between March 8 and April 30, 2020 in 16 intensive care units (ICU) in Spain. Participants were consecutive adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection detected in positive testing of a nasopharyngeal sample and confirmed by real time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rt-PCR). The primary outcomes was 180-day survival after hospital admission. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU and in-hospital mortality. A predictive model was developed to estimate the probability of 180-day mortality. RESULTS: 868 patients were included (median age, 64 years [interquartile range [IQR], 56-71 years]; 72% male). Severity at ICU admission, estimated by SAPS3, was 56 points [IQR 50-63]. Prior to intubation, 26% received some type of noninvasive respiratory support. The unadjusted overall 180-day survival rates was 59% (95% CI 56-62%). The predictive factors measured during ICU stay, and associated with 180-day mortality were: age [Odds Ratio [OR] per 1-year increase 1.051, 95% CI 1.033-1.068)), SAPS3 (OR per 1-point increase 1.027, 95% CI 1.011-1.044), diabetes (OR 1.546, 95% CI 1.085-2.204), neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio (OR per 1-unit increase 1.008, 95% CI 1.001-1.016), failed attempt of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation prior to orotracheal intubation (OR 1.878 (95% CI 1.124-3.140), use of selective digestive decontamination strategy during ICU stay (OR 0.590 (95% CI 0.358-0.972) and administration of low dosage of corticosteroids (methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg) (OR 2.042 (95% CI 1.205-3.460). CONCLUSION: The long-term survival of mechanically ventilated patients with severe COVID-19 reaches more than 50% and may help to provide individualized risk stratification and potential treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04379258. Registered 10 April 2020 (retrospectively registered).

Reclutamiento alveolar agresivo en el SDRA: más sombras que luces / Aggressive alveolar recruitment in ARDS: more shadows than lights

Reclutamiento alveolar en el síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA) se define como la entrada de gas en zonas previamente no ventiladas o en zonas pobremente ventiladas. El reclutamiento alveolar durante una maniobra de reclutamiento (MR) dependerá de la duración de la maniobra, del tejido pulmonar reclutable, del balance entre reclutamiento de áreas colapsadas y sobredistensión de las áreas ventiladas. La estimación del reclutamiento alveolar se realiza con la tomografía computarizada de tórax y,a pie de cama, con la construcción de curvas de volumen y presión, la ecografía pulmonar y la tomografía por impedancia. La evidencia científica nos indica que la utilización de las MR en pacientes con SDRA sigue sujeta a controversia. Estudios aleatorizados del SDRA o bien no han demostrado beneficio o bien han revelado un incremento de la mortalidad y, por ello, no se recomienda su uso rutinario. (AU)

Alveolar recruitment in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is defined as the penetration of gas into previously unventilated areas or poorly ventilated areas. Alveolar recruitment during recruitment maneuvering (RM) depends on the duration of the maneuver, the recruitable lung tissue, and the balance between the recruitment of collapsed areas and over-insufflation of the ventilated areas. Alveolar recruitment is estimated using computed tomography of the lung and, at the patient bedside, through assessment of the recruited volume using pressure-volume curves and assessing lung morphology with pulmonary ultrasound and/or impedance tomography. The scientific evidence on RM in patients with ARDS remains subject to controversy. Randomized studies on ARDS have shown no benefit or have even reflected an increase in mortality. The routine use of RM is therefore not recommended. (AU)

The central nervous system during lung injury and mechanical ventilation: a narrative review.

Mechanical ventilation induces a number of systemic responses for which the brain plays an essential role. During the last decade, substantial evidence has emerged showing that the brain modifies pulmonary responses to physical and biological stimuli by various mechanisms, including the modulation of neuroinflammatory reflexes and the onset of abnormal breathing patterns. Afferent signals and circulating factors from injured peripheral tissues, including the lung, can induce neuronal reprogramming, potentially contributing to neurocognitive dysfunction and psychological alterations seen in critically ill patients. These impairments are ubiquitous in the presence of positive pressure ventilation. This narrative review summarises current evidence of lung-brain crosstalk in patients receiving mechanical ventilation and describes the clinical implications of this crosstalk. Further, it proposes directions for future research ranging from identifying mechanisms of multiorgan failure to mitigating long-term sequelae after critical illness.

Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS.

The role of non-invasive respiratory support (high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation) in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome is debated. The oxygenation improvement coupled with lung and diaphragm protection produced by non-invasive support may help to avoid endotracheal intubation, which prevents the complications of sedation and invasive mechanical ventilation. However, spontaneous breathing in patients with lung injury carries the risk that vigorous inspiratory effort, combined or not with mechanical increases in inspiratory airway pressure, produces high transpulmonary pressure swings and local lung overstretch. This ultimately results in additional lung damage (patient self-inflicted lung injury), so that patients intubated after a trial of noninvasive support are burdened by increased mortality. Reducing inspiratory effort by high-flow nasal oxygen or delivery of sustained positive end-expiratory pressure through the helmet interface may reduce these risks. In this physiology-to-bedside review, we provide an updated overview about the role of noninvasive respiratory support strategies as early treatment of hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit. Noninvasive strategies appear safe and effective in mild-to-moderate hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg), while they can yield delayed intubation with increased mortality in a significant proportion of moderate-to-severe (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 150 mmHg) cases. High-flow nasal oxygen and helmet noninvasive ventilation represent the most promising techniques for first-line treatment of severe patients. However, no conclusive evidence allows to recommend a single approach over the others in case of moderate-to-severe hypoxemia. During any treatment, strict physiological monitoring remains of paramount importance to promptly detect the need for endotracheal intubation and not delay protective ventilation.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The role for high flow nasal cannula as a respiratory support strategy in adults: a clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings. METHODS: We formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions. RESULTS: The guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians.

How to ventilate obstructive and asthmatic patients.

Exacerbations are part of the natural history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Severe exacerbations can cause acute respiratory failure, which may ultimately require mechanical ventilation. This review summarizes practical ventilator strategies for the management of patients with obstructive airway disease. Such strategies include non-invasive mechanical ventilation to prevent intubation, invasive mechanical ventilation, from the time of intubation to weaning, and strategies intended to prevent post-extubation acute respiratory failure. The role of tracheostomy, the long-term prognosis, and potential future adjunctive strategies are also discussed. Finally, the physiological background that underlies these strategies is detailed.

Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom.

In ARDS patients, the change from supine to prone position generates a more even distribution of the gas-tissue ratios along the dependent-nondependent axis and a more homogeneous distribution of lung stress and strain. The change to prone position is generally accompanied by a marked improvement in arterial blood gases, which is mainly due to a better overall ventilation/perfusion matching. Improvement in oxygenation and reduction in mortality are the main reasons to implement prone position in patients with ARDS. The main reason explaining a decreased mortality is less overdistension in non-dependent lung regions and less cyclical opening and closing in dependent lung regions. The only absolute contraindication for implementing prone position is an unstable spinal fracture. The maneuver to change from supine to prone and vice versa requires a skilled team of 4-5 caregivers. The most frequent adverse events are pressure sores and facial edema. Recently, the use of prone position has been extended to non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients affected with COVID-19 ARDS. The effects of this intervention on outcomes are still uncertain.