Explore the vast range of titles available.

This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the use of mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). 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. 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 H O) (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. 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.

Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional. The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test. The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Given the rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, clinicians and policy makers require urgent review and summary of the literature, and synthesis of evidence-based guidelines to inform practice. The WHO advocates for rapid reviews in these circumstances. The purpose of this rapid guideline is to provide recommendations on the organizational management of intensive care units caring for patients with COVID-19 including: planning a crisis surge response; crisis surge response strategies; triage, supporting families, and staff.

Mechanical ventilation is the most used short-term life support technique worldwide and is applied daily for a diverse spectrum of indications, from scheduled surgical procedures to acute organ failure. This state-of-the-art review provides an update on the basic physiology of respiratory mechanics, the working principles, and the main ventilatory settings, as well as the potential complications of mechanical ventilation. Specific ventilatory approaches in particular situations such as acute respiratory distress syndrome and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are detailed along with protective ventilation in patients with normal lungs. We also highlight recent data on patient-ventilator dyssynchrony, humidified high-flow oxygen through nasal cannula, extracorporeal life support, and the weaning phase. Finally, we discuss the future of mechanical ventilation, addressing avenues for improvement.

Background Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. Methods Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position. Results Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p  < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders . Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs . 38%, p  = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders . These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs . 37%, p  = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders , respectively). Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching. Trial registration : clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670

PurposeTo evaluate whether a perioperative open-lung ventilation strategy prevents postoperative pulmonary complications after elective on-pump cardiac surgery.MethodsIn a pragmatic, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial, we assigned patients planned for on-pump cardiac surgery to either a conventional ventilation strategy with no ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and lower perioperative positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels (2 cm H2O) or an open-lung ventilation strategy that included maintaining ventilation during CPB along with perioperative recruitment maneuvers and higher PEEP levels (8 cm H2O). All study patients were ventilated with low-tidal volumes before and after CPB (6 to 8 ml/kg of predicted body weight). The primary end point was a composite of pulmonary complications occurring within the first 7 postoperative days.ResultsAmong 493 randomized patients, 488 completed the study (mean age, 65.7 years; 360 (73.7%) men; 230 (47.1%) underwent isolated valve surgery). Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 133 of 243 patients (54.7%) assigned to open-lung ventilation and in 145 of 245 patients (59.2%) assigned to conventional ventilation (p = 0.32). Open-lung ventilation did not significantly reduce the use of high-flow nasal oxygenotherapy (8.6% vs 9.4%; p = 0.77), non-invasive ventilation (13.2% vs 15.5%; p = 0.46) or new invasive mechanical ventilation (0.8% vs 2.4%, p = 0.28). Mean alive ICU-free days at postoperative day 7 was 4.4 ± 1.3 days in the open-lung group vs 4.3 ± 1.3 days in the conventional group (mean difference, 0.1 ± 0.1 day, p = 0.51). Extra-pulmonary complications and adverse events did not significantly differ between groups.ConclusionsA perioperative open-lung ventilation including ventilation during CPB does not reduce the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications as compared with usual care. This finding does not support the use of such a strategy in patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 02866578. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02866578

Background In ARDS patients, mechanical ventilation should minimize ventilator-induced lung injury. The mechanical power which is the energy per unit time released to the respiratory system according to the applied tidal volume, PEEP, respiratory rate, and flow should reflect the ventilator-induced lung injury. However, similar levels of mechanical power applied in different lung sizes could be associated to different effects. The aim of this study was to assess the role both of the mechanical power and of the transpulmonary mechanical power, normalized to predicted body weight, respiratory system compliance, lung volume, and amount of aerated tissue on intensive care mortality. Methods Retrospective analysis of ARDS patients previously enrolled in seven published studies. All patients were sedated, paralyzed, and mechanically ventilated. After 20 min from a recruitment maneuver, partitioned respiratory mechanics measurements and blood gas analyses were performed with a PEEP of 5 cmH 2 O while the remaining setting was maintained unchanged from the baseline. A whole lung CT scan at 5 cmH 2 O of PEEP was performed to estimate the lung gas volume and the amount of well-inflated tissue. Univariate and multivariable Poisson regression models with robust standard error were used to calculate risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals of ICU mortality. Results Two hundred twenty-two ARDS patients were included; 88 (40%) died in ICU. Mechanical power was not different between survivors and non-survivors 14.97 [11.51–18.44] vs. 15.46 [12.33–21.45] J/min and did not affect intensive care mortality. The multivariable robust regression models showed that the mechanical power normalized to well-inflated tissue (RR 2.69 [95% CI 1.10–6.56], p  = 0.029) and the mechanical power normalized to respiratory system compliance (RR 1.79 [95% CI 1.16–2.76], p  = 0.008) were independently associated with intensive care mortality after adjusting for age, SAPS II, and ARDS severity. Also, transpulmonary mechanical power normalized to respiratory system compliance and to well-inflated tissue significantly increased intensive care mortality (RR 1.74 [1.11–2.70], p  = 0.015; RR 3.01 [1.15–7.91], p  = 0.025). Conclusions In our ARDS population, there is not a causal relationship between the mechanical power itself and mortality, while mechanical power normalized to the compliance or to the amount of well-aerated tissue is independently associated to the intensive care mortality. Further studies are needed to confirm this data.

This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

Background Biomarkers can be used to detect the presence of endothelial and/or alveolar epithelial injuries in case of ARDS. Angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion protein-1 (VCAM-1), P-selectin and E-selectin are biomarkers of endothelial injury, whereas the receptor for advanced glycation end-products (RAGE) reflects alveolar epithelial injury. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether the plasma concentration of the above-mentioned biomarkers was different 1) in survivors and non-survivors of COVID-19-related ARDS and 2) in COVID-19-related and classical ARDS. Methods This prospective study was performed in two COVID-19-dedicated Intensive Care Units (ICU) and one non-COVID-19 ICU at Ferrara University Hospital. A cohort of 31 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS and a cohort of 11 patients with classical ARDS were enrolled. Ang-2, ICAM-1, VCAM-1, P-selectin, E-selectin and RAGE were determined with a bead-based multiplex immunoassay at three time points: inclusion in the study (T1), after 7 ± 2 days (T2) and 14 ± 2 days (T3). The primary outcome was to evaluate the plasma trend of the biomarker levels in survivors and non-survivors. The secondary outcome was to evaluate the differences in respiratory mechanics variables and gas exchanges between survivors and non-survivors. Furthermore, we compared the plasma levels of the biomarkers at T1 in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS and classical ARDS. Results In COVID-19-related ARDS, the plasma levels of Ang-2 and ICAM-1 at T1 were statistically higher in non-survivors than survivors, (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively), whereas those of P-selectin, E-selectin and RAGE did not differ. Ang-2 and ICAM-1 at T1 were predictors of mortality (AUROC 0.650 and 0.717, respectively). At T1, RAGE and P-selectin levels were higher in classical ARDS than in COVID-19-related ARDS. Ang-2, ICAM-1 and E-selectin were lower in classical ARDS than in COVID-19-related ARDS (all p < 0.001). Conclusions COVID-19 ARDS is characterized by an early pulmonary endothelial injury, as detected by Ang-2 and ICAM-1. COVID-19 ARDS and classical ARDS exhibited a different expression of biomarkers, suggesting different pathological pathways. Trial registration NCT04343053 , Date of registration: April 13, 2020