Defining the Time-limited Trial for Patients with Critical Illness: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

A New Global Definition of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: Since publication of the 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), several developments have supported the need for an expansion of the definition, including the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, the expansion of the use of pulse oximetry in place of arterial blood gases, the use of ultrasound for chest imaging, and the need for applicability in resource-limited settings. Methods: A consensus conference of 32 critical care ARDS experts was convened, had six virtual meetings (June 2021 to March 2022), and subsequently obtained input from members of several critical care societies. The goal was to develop a definition that would 1) identify patients with the currently accepted conceptual framework for ARDS, 2) facilitate rapid ARDS diagnosis for clinical care and research, 3) be applicable in resource-limited settings, 4) be useful for testing specific therapies, and 5) be practical for communication to patients and caregivers. Results: The committee made four main recommendations: 1) include high-flow nasal oxygen with a minimum flow rate of ⩾30 L/min; 2) use PaO2:FiO2 ⩽ 300 mm Hg or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry SpO2:FiO2 ⩽ 315 (if oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry is ⩽97%) to identify hypoxemia; 3) retain bilateral opacities for imaging criteria but add ultrasound as an imaging modality, especially in resource-limited areas; and 4) in resource-limited settings, do not require positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygen flow rate, or specific respiratory support devices. Conclusions: We propose a new global definition of ARDS that builds on the Berlin definition. The recommendations also identify areas for future research, including the need for prospective assessments of the feasibility, reliability, and prognostic validity of the proposed global definition.

An Update on Management of Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: This document updates previously published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), incorporating new evidence addressing the use of corticosteroids, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, neuromuscular blocking agents, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Methods: We summarized evidence addressing four "PICO questions" (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in ARDS used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to develop clinical recommendations. Results: We suggest the use of: 1) corticosteroids for patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence), 2) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in selected patients with severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), 3) neuromuscular blockers in patients with early severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and 4) higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuvers as opposed to lower PEEP in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low to moderate certainty), and 5) we recommend against using prolonged lung recruitment maneuvers in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Conclusions: We provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the management of ARDS. Individual patient and illness characteristics should be factored into clinical decision making and implementation of these recommendations while additional evidence is generated from much-needed clinical trials.

Opportunities for improved clinical trial designs in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a common critical illness syndrome with high morbidity and mortality. There are no proven pharmacological therapies for ARDS. The current definition of ARDS is based on shared clinical characteristics but does not capture the heterogeneity in clinical risk factors, imaging characteristics, physiology, timing of onset and trajectory, and biology of the syndrome. There is increasing interest within the ARDS clinical trialist community to design clinical trials that reduce heterogeneity in the trial population. This effort must be balanced with ongoing work to craft an inclusive, global definition of ARDS, with important implications for trial design. Ultimately, the two aims-to design trials that are applicable to the diverse global ARDS population while also advancing opportunities to identify targetable traits-should coexist. In this Personal View, we recommend two primary strategies to improve future ARDS trials: the development of new methods to target treatable traits in clinical trial populations, and improvements in the representativeness of ARDS trials, with the inclusion of global populations. We emphasise that these two strategies are complementary. We also discuss how a proposed expansion of the definition of ARDS could affect the future of clinical trials.

Oxygen-Free Days as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials of Therapies for COVID-19 and Other Causes of New-Onset Hypoxemia.

Mortality historically has been the primary outcome of choice for acute and critical care clinical trials. However, undue reliance on mortality can limit the scope of trials that can be performed. Large sample sizes are usually needed for trials powered for a mortality outcome, and focusing solely on mortality fails to recognize the importance that reducing morbidity can have on patients' lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid, efficient trials to rigorously evaluate new therapies for hospitalized patients with acute lung injury. Oxygen-free days (OFDs) is a novel outcome for clinical trials that is a composite of mortality and duration of new supplemental oxygen use. It is designed to characterize recovery from acute lung injury in populations with a high prevalence of new hypoxemia and supplemental oxygen use. In these populations, OFDs captures two patient-centered consequences of acute lung injury: mortality and hypoxemic lung dysfunction. Power to detect differences in OFDs typically is greater than that for other clinical trial outcomes, such as mortality and ventilator-free days. OFDs is the primary outcome for the Fourth Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-4) Host Tissue platform, which evaluates novel therapies targeting the host response to COVID-19 among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 and new hypoxemia. This article outlines the rationale for use of OFDs as an outcome for clinical trials, proposes a standardized method for defining and analyzing OFDs, and provides a framework for sample size calculations using the OFD outcome.

Advancing precision medicine for acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Understanding of the complex pathways involved in lung injury pathogenesis, resolution, and repair has grown considerably in recent decades. Nevertheless, to date, only therapies targeting ventilation-induced lung injury have consistently proven beneficial, and despite these gains, ARDS morbidity and mortality remain high. Many candidate therapies with promise in preclinical studies have been ineffective in human trials, probably at least in part due to clinical and biological heterogeneity that modifies treatment responsiveness in human ARDS. A precision medicine approach to ARDS seeks to better account for this heterogeneity by matching therapies to subgroups of patients that are anticipated to be most likely to benefit, which initially might be identified in part by assessing for heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. In October 2019, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop of multidisciplinary experts to explore research opportunities and challenges for accelerating precision medicine in ARDS. Topics of discussion included the rationale and challenges for a precision medicine approach in ARDS, the roles of preclinical ARDS models in precision medicine, essential features of cohort studies to advance precision medicine, and novel approaches to clinical trials to support development and validation of a precision medicine strategy. In this Position Paper, we summarise workshop discussions, recommendations, and unresolved questions for advancing precision medicine in ARDS. Although the workshop took place before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for precision therapies for ARDS as the global scientific community grapples with many of the key concepts, innovations, and challenges discussed at this workshop.

Humanizing the ICU Patient: A Qualitative Exploration of Behaviors Experienced by Patients, Caregivers, and ICU Staff.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how patients and family members experience dehumanizing or humanizing treatment when in the ICU. DESIGN: Qualitative study included web-based focus groups and open-ended surveys posted to ICU patient/family social media boards. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Social media responses were collected and organized by stakeholder group. Data underwent qualitative analysis. SETTING: Remote focus groups and online surveys. PATIENTS: ICU patient survivors, family members, and ICU teams. INTERVENTIONS: Not available. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Semi-structured questions and open-ended survey responses. We enrolled 40 patients/family members and 31 ICU team members. Focus groups and surveys revealed three primary themes orienting humanizing/dehumanizing ICU experiences: 1) communication, 2) outcomes, and 3) causes of dehumanization. Dehumanization occurred during "communication" exchanges when ICU team members talked "over" patients, made distressing remarks when patients were present, or failed to inform patients about ICU-related care. "Outcomes" of dehumanization were associated with patient loss of trust in the medical team, loss of motivation to participate in ICU recovery, feeling of distress, guilt, depression, and anxiety. Humanizing behaviors were associated with improved recovery, well-being, and trust. "Perceived causes" of dehumanizing behaviors were linked to patient, ICU team, and healthcare system factors. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviors of ICU clinicians may cause patients and families to feel dehumanized when in the ICU. Negative behaviors are noticed by patients and families, possibly contributing to poor outcomes including mental health, recovery, and lack of trust in ICU teams. Supporting ICU clinicians may enable a more empathic environment and in turn more humanizing clinician-patient encounters.

Contemporary strategies to improve clinical trial design for critical care research: insights from the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Conducting research in critically-ill patient populations is challenging, and most randomized trials of critically-ill patients have not achieved pre-specified statistical thresholds to conclude that the intervention being investigated was beneficial. METHODS: In 2019, a diverse group of patient representatives, regulators from the USA and European Union, federal grant managers, industry representatives, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, and clinicians convened the First Critical Care Clinical Trialists (3CT) Workshop to discuss challenges and opportunities in conducting and assessing critical care trials. Herein, we present the advantages and disadvantages of available methodologies for clinical trial design, conduct, and analysis, and a series of recommendations to potentially improve future trials in critical care. CONCLUSION: The 3CT Workshop participants identified opportunities to improve critical care trials using strategies to optimize sample size calculations, account for patient and disease heterogeneity, increase the efficiency of trial conduct, maximize the use of trial data, and to refine and standardize the collection of patient-centered and patient-informed outcome measures beyond mortality.

Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) represents a paradigm shift in research methods aimed to create the body of evidence that supports clinical practice and informs health care decisions. PCOR integrates patients and other key stakeholders including family members, policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates and advocacy groups as research partners throughout all stages of the research process. The importance of PCOR has received increased recognition, yet there is little evidence available to help guide researchers interested in the design and conduct of PCOR. In May 2014, we convened a workshop to identify key issues related to designing, conducting, and disseminating findings from PCOR studies. Workshop participants included a diverse group of patients, patient advocates, clinicians (physicians, nurses, psychologists, and advanced practice providers), researchers, administrators, and funders within and beyond the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine communities. Participants identified important issues and considerations to address when undertaking PCOR. In this report, we summarize the results of this workshop to inform members of the pulmonary, sleep, and critical care community interested in participating in PCOR. Key findings include the following: 1) requirements for research to be considered PCOR; 2) the potential significant impact of PCOR on patients, clinicians, and researchers; 3) guiding principles and practical strategies to form successful patient-centered research partnerships, conduct PCOR, and disseminate study results to a broad audience of stakeholders; 4) benefits and challenges of PCOR for researchers; and 5) resources available within the American Thoracic Society to help with the conduct of PCOR.

An Official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline: Mechanical Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the use of mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel conducted systematic reviews and metaanalyses of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations. RESULTS: For all patients with ARDS, the recommendation is strong for mechanical ventilation using lower tidal volumes (4-8 ml/kg predicted body weight) and lower inspiratory pressures (plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O) (moderate confidence in effect estimates). For patients with severe ARDS, the recommendation is strong for prone positioning for more than 12 h/d (moderate confidence in effect estimates). For patients with moderate or severe ARDS, the recommendation is strong against routine use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (high confidence in effect estimates) and conditional for higher positive end-expiratory pressure (moderate confidence in effect estimates) and recruitment maneuvers (low confidence in effect estimates). Additional evidence is necessary to make a definitive recommendation for or against the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected ventilatory interventions for adult patients with ARDS. Clinicians managing patients with ARDS should personalize decisions for their patients, particularly regarding the conditional recommendations in this guideline.

A Clinician's Guide to Privacy and Communication in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To review the legal issues concerning family members' access to information when patients are in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: U.S. Code, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and state legislative codes. DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant legal statutes and regulations were identified and reviewed by the two attorney authors (L. F., M. A. V.). STUDY SELECTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Review by all coauthors. CONCLUSIONS: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and related laws should not be viewed as barriers to clinicians sharing information with ICU patients and their loved ones. Generally, under Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, personal representatives have the same authority to receive information that patients would otherwise have. Persons involved in the patient's care also may be given information relevant to the episode of care unless the patient objects. ICUs should develop policies for handling the issues we identify about such information sharing, including policies for responding to telephone inquiries and methods for giving patients the opportunity to object to sharing information with individuals involved in their care. ICU clinicians also should be knowledgeable of their state's laws about how to identify patients' personal representatives and the authority of those representatives. Finally, ICU clinicians should be aware of any special restrictions their state places on medical information. In aggregate, these strategies should help ICU managers and clinicians facilitate robust communication with patients and their loved ones.

Balancing digital information-sharing and patient privacy when engaging families in the intensive care unit.

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) may lack decisional capacity and may depend on proxy decision makers (PDMs) to make medical decisions on their behalf. High-quality information-sharing with PDMs, including through such means as health information technology, could improve communication and decision making and could potentially minimize the psychological consequences of an ICU stay for both patients and their family members. However, alongside these anticipated benefits of information-sharing are risks of unwanted disclosure of sensitive information. Approaches to identifying the optimal balance between access to digital health information to facilitate engagement and protecting patient privacy are urgently needed. We identified eight themes that should be considered in balancing health information access and patient privacy: 1) potential benefits to patients from PDM data access; 2) potential harms to patients from such access; 3) the moral status of families within the patient-clinician relationship; 4) the scope of relevant information provided to PDMs; 5) issues around defining PDMs' authority; 6) methods for eliciting and documenting patient preferences about their family's information access; 7) the relevance of methods for ascertaining the identity of PDMs; and 8) the obligations of hospitals to prevent privacy breaches by PDMs. We conclude that PDMs should typically have access to health information from the current episode of care when the patient is decisionally impaired, unless the patient has previously expressed a clear preference that PDMs not have such access.

Exploring the scope of post-intensive care syndrome therapy and care: engagement of non-critical care providers and survivors in a second stakeholders meeting.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of survivors of critical illness are at risk for physical, cognitive, and/or mental health impairments that may persist for months or years after hospital discharge. The post-intensive care syndrome framework encompassing these multidimensional morbidities was developed at the 2010 Society of Critical Care Medicine conference on improving long-term outcomes after critical illness for survivors and their families. OBJECTIVES: To report on engagement with non-critical care providers and survivors during the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine post-intensive care syndrome stakeholder conference. Task groups developed strategies and resources required for raising awareness and education, understanding and addressing barriers to clinical practice, and identifying research gaps and resources, aimed at improving patient and family outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from 21 professional associations or health systems involved in the provision of both critical care and rehabilitation of ICU survivors in the United States and ICU survivors and family members. DESIGN: Stakeholder consensus meeting. Researchers presented summaries on morbidities for survivors and their families, whereas survivors presented their own experiences. MEETING OUTCOMES: Future steps were planned regarding 1) recognizing, preventing, and treating post-intensive care syndrome, 2) building strategies for institutional capacity to support and partner with survivors and families, and 3) understanding and addressing barriers to practice. There was recognition of the need for systematic and frequent assessment for post-intensive care syndrome across the continuum of care, including explicit "functional reconciliation" (assessing gaps between a patient's pre-ICU and current functional ability at all intra- and interinstitutional transitions of care). Future post-intensive care syndrome research topic areas were identified across the continuum of recovery: characterization of at-risk patients (including recognizing risk factors, mechanisms of injury, and optimal screening instruments), prevention and treatment interventions, and outcomes research for patients and families. CONCLUSIONS: Raising awareness of post-intensive care syndrome for the public and both critical care and non-critical care clinicians will inform a more coordinated approach to treatment and support during recovery after critical illness. Continued conceptual development and engagement with additional stakeholders is required.