Explore the vast range of titles available.

One important concern during high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is to not delay intubation. To validate the diagnostic accuracy of an index (termed ROX and defined as the ratio of oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi to respiratory rate) for determining HFNC outcome (need or not for intubation). This was a 2-year multicenter prospective observational cohort study including patients with pneumonia treated with HFNC. Identification was through Cox proportional hazards modeling of ROX association with HFNC outcome. The most specific cutoff of the ROX index to predict HFNC failure and success was assessed. Among the 191 patients treated with HFNC in the validation cohort, 68 (35.6%) required intubation. The prediction accuracy of the ROX index increased over time (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 2 h, 0.679; 6 h, 0.703; 12 h, 0.759). ROX greater than or equal to 4.88 measured at 2 (hazard ratio, 0.434; 95% confidence interval, 0.264-0.715;  = 0.001), 6 (hazard ratio, 0.304; 95% confidence interval, 0.182-0.509;  < 0.001), or 12 hours (hazard ratio, 0.291; 95% confidence interval, 0.161-0.524;  < 0.001) after HFNC initiation was consistently associated with a lower risk for intubation. A ROX less than 2.85, less than 3.47, and less than 3.85 at 2, 6, and 12 hours of HFNC initiation, respectively, were predictors of HFNC failure. Patients who failed presented a lower increase in the values of the ROX index over the 12 hours. Among components of the index, oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi had a greater weight than respiratory rate. In patients with pneumonia with acute respiratory failure treated with HFNC, ROX is an index that can help identify those patients with low and those with high risk for intubation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02845128).

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 (PaO 2 /FiO 2  > 150 mmHg), while they can yield delayed intubation with increased mortality in a significant proportion of moderate-to-severe (PaO 2 /FiO 2  ≤ 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.

Patients who were comatose after resuscitation from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm were randomly assigned to moderate therapeutic hypothermia (33°C) or targeted normothermia (37°C). Therapeutic hypothermia improved survival with a favorable neurologic outcome at 90 days.

Oxygen therapy can be delivered using low-flow, intermediate-flow (air entrainment mask), or high-flow devices. Low/intermediate-flow oxygen devices have several drawbacks that cause critically ill patients discomfort and translate into suboptimal clinical results. These include limitation of the FiO 2 (due to the high inspiratory flow often observed in patients with respiratory failure), and insufficient humidification and warming of the inspired gas. High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation (HFNCO) delivers oxygen flow rates of up to 60 L/min and over the last decade its effect on clinical outcomes has widely been evaluated, such as in the improvement of respiratory distress, the need for intubation, and mortality. Mechanisms of action of HFNCO are complex and not limited to the increased oxygen flow rate. The main aim of this review is to guide clinicians towards evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. It summarizes current knowledge about HFNCO use in ICU patients and the potential areas of uncertainties. For instance, it has been recently suggested that HFNCO could improve the outcome of patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. In other settings, research is ongoing and additional evidence is needed. For instance, if intubation is required, studies suggest that HFNCO may help to improve preoxygenation and can be used after extubation. Likewise, HFNCO might be used in obese patients, or to prevent respiratory deterioration in hypoxemic patients requiring bronchoscopy, or for the delivery of aerosol therapy. However, areas for which conclusive data exist are limited and interventions using standardized HFNCO protocols, comparators, and relevant clinical outcomes are warranted.

Background Whereas ICU-acquired weakness may delay extubation in mechanically ventilated patients, its influence on extubation failure is poorly known. This study aimed at assessing the role of ICU-acquired weakness on extubation failure and the relation between limb weakness and cough strength. Methods A secondary analysis of two previous prospective studies including patients at high risk of reintubation after a planned extubation, i.e., age greater than 65 years, with underlying cardiac or respiratory disease, or intubated for more than 7 days prior to extubation. Patients intubated less than 24 h and those with a do-not-reintubate order were not included. Limb and cough strength were assessed by a physiotherapist just before extubation. ICU-acquired weakness was clinically diagnosed as limb weakness defined as Medical Research Council (MRC) score < 48 points and severe weakness as MRC sum-score < 36. Cough strength was assessed using a semi-quantitative 5-Likert scale. Extubation failure was defined as reintubation or death within the first 7 days following extubation. Results Among 344 patients at high risk of reintubation, 16% experienced extubation failure (56/344). They had greater severity and lower MRC sum-score (41 ± 16 vs. 49 ± 13, p  < 0.001) and were more likely to have ineffective cough than the others. The prevalence of ICU-acquired weakness at the time of extubation was 38% (130/244). The extubation failure rate was 12% (25/214) in patients with no limb weakness vs. 18% (12/65) and 29% (19/65) in those with moderate and severe limb weakness, respectively ( p  < 0.01). MRC sum-score and cough strength were weakly but significantly correlated (rho = 0.28, p  < .001). After multivariate logistic regression analyses, the lower the MRC sum-score the greater the risk of reintubation; severe limb weakness was independently associated with extubation failure, even after adjustment on cough strength and severity at admission. Conclusion ICU-acquired weakness was diagnosed in 38% in this population of patients at high risk at the time of extubation and was independently associated with extubation failure in the ICU.

Obesity is an important risk factor for major complications, morbidity and mortality related to intubation procedures and ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). The fall in functional residual capacity promotes airway closure and atelectasis formation. This narrative review presents the impact of obesity on the respiratory system and the key points to optimize airway management, noninvasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in ICU patients with obesity. Non-invasive strategies should first optimize body position with reverse Trendelenburg position or sitting position. Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is considered as the first-line therapy in patients with obesity having a postoperative acute respiratory failure. Positive pressure pre-oxygenation before the intubation procedure is the method of reference. The use of videolaryngoscopy has to be considered by adequately trained intensivists, especially in patients with several risk factors. Regarding mechanical ventilation in patients with and without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), low tidal volume (6 ml/kg of predicted body weight) and moderate to high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), with careful recruitment maneuver in selected patients, are advised. Prone positioning is a therapeutic choice in severe ARDS patients with obesity. Prophylactic NIV should be considered after extubation to prevent re-intubation. If obesity increases mortality and risk of ICU admission in the overall population, the impact of obesity on ICU mortality is less clear and several confounding factors have to be taken into account regarding the “obesity ICU paradox”.

IntroductionProne positioning (PP) is an effective first-line intervention to treat patients with moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, as it improves gas exchanges and reduces mortality. The use of PP in awake spontaneous breathing patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 was reported to improve oxygenation in few retrospective trials with small sample size. High-level evidence of awake PP for hypoxaemic patients with COVID-19 patients is still lacking.Methods and analysisThe protocol of this meta-trial is a prospective collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled open label superiority trials. This design is particularly adapted to a rapid scientific response in the pandemic setting. It will take place in multiple sites, among others in USA, Canada, Ireland, France and Spain. Patients will be followed up for 28 days. Patients will be randomised to receive whether awake PP and nasal high flow therapy or standard medical treatment and nasal high flow therapy. Primary outcome is defined as the occurrence rate of tracheal intubation or death up to day 28. An interim analysis plan has been set up on aggregated data from the participating research groups.Ethics and disseminationEthics approvals were obtained in all participating countries. Results of the meta-trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Each randomised controlled trial was registered individually, as follows: NCT04325906, NCT04347941, NCT04358939, NCT04395144 and NCT04391140.

Severity of hypoxaemia can be assessed using the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (FiO2). However, in patients breathing through non-rebreather reservoir bag oxygen mask, accuracy of bedside FiO2 estimation methods remains to be tested. In a post-hoc analysis of a multicentre clinical trial, three FiO2 estimation methods were compared with FiO2 measured with a portable oxygen analyser introduced in the oxygen mask. Among 262 patients analysed, mean (SD) measured FiO2 was 65% (13). The 3%-formula (21% + oxygen flow rate in L/min × 3) was the most accurate method to estimate FiO2. Other methods overestimated FiO2 and hypoxaemia severity, so they should be avoided.

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.

Unfortunately, none of these factors has an excellent performance to predict dyspnea in non-communicative patients who cannot self-report dyspnea, reason why observational scales such as the mechanical ventilation—respiratory distress observation scale (MV-RDOS) have been developed to detect dyspnea in this population [10]. [...]that moderate to severe dyspnea is associated with a higher rate of intubation is a fact [6]. Air hunger far exceeds dyspnea sense of effort during mechanical ventilation and a weaning trial.