Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeThe number of patients ≥ 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST.MethodsPatients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (± 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (± 2 points), clinical frailty scale (± 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death.Results693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients.ConclusionVery old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear.

IntroductionFirst-line oxygenation strategy in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure consists in standard oxygen or high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. Clinical practice guidelines suggest the use of high-flow nasal oxygen rather than standard oxygen. However, findings remain contradictory with a low level of certainty. We hypothesise that compared with standard oxygen, high-flow nasal oxygen may reduce mortality in patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.Method and analysisThe Standard Oxygen versus High-flow nasal Oxygen-trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing high-flow nasal oxygen versus standard oxygen in patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) for acute respiratory failure with moderate-to-severe hypoxaemia. 1110 patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups with a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the number of patients who died 28 days after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include comfort, dyspnoea and oxygenation 1 hour after treatment initiation, the number of patients intubated at day 28, mortality in ICU, in hospital and until day 90, and complications during ICU stay.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the central Ethics Committee ‘Sud Méditerranée III’ (2020-07-05) and patients will be included after informed consent. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04468126.

Background The aim of this study is to investigate the therapeutic effects of a non-invasive ventilator combined with bronchodilator and anti-infective drugs in the treatment of 45 cases of chronic respiratory failure. Methods 45 chronic respiratory failure patients who were hospitalized to our hospital between August 2019 and January 2022 were chosen as research subjects. They were randomly allocated into two groups using the random number table approach, the control group ( n  = 21) and the observation group ( n  = 24), and they were given numbers according to the sequence of treatment. Treatment as usual was given to the control group. The observation group was further treated with a bronchodilator (tiotropium bromide) and an anti-infective drug (piperacillin). The curative effect of each group after treatment was observed and compared. Results After running a statistical analysis on demographic information from both groups, including gender, age, BMI, and disease severity, the results showed no significant difference between the groups ( P  > 0.05). There was a statistically significant ( P  < 0.05) difference between the observation group and the control group in terms of the time it took for temperatures to recover and pulmonary rales to disappear, as well as the time it took for asthma attacks to occur. Prior to therapy, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups on blood gas indices or inflammatory indices ( P  > 0.05). After therapy, patients in the experimental group had lower levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) compared to the controls. The oxygenation index and bacterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) were both considerably higher in the experimental group compared to the control group ( P  < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups' baseline values for any of the lung function indices ( P  > 0.05). Following treatment, patients in the treated group had significantly higher forced vital capacity (first second forced vital capacity, first second forced vital capacity, contents of FEV1), forced expiratory volume at first second to forced vital capacity (FEVl/FVC), and forced expiratory volume at first second to predicted value (FEV1% predicted value) compared to those in the control group. This difference was statistically significant ( P  < 0.05). There was a statistically significant ( P  < 0.05) improvement in clinical efficacy between the observation group and the control group. In neither group did any patients stop taking the medication due to unwanted side effects. Conclusion A noninvasive ventilator combined with tiotropium bromide and piperacillin has accurate efficacy in the treatment of patients with chronic respiratory failure, which can improve the indexes of arterial blood gas and lung function, reduce inflammatory response, promote disease recovery and have high safety.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) poses a significant global health burden. Finding effective interventions for COPD is crucial to alleviating this health burden and enhancing patient outcomes and quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of the combination of non-invasive ventilation and naloxone in the management of acute respiratory failure among patients with COPD. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 102 COPD patients experiencing acute respiratory failure who were treated at our hospital between October 2020 and October 2022. Patients were categorized into an observation group (receiving non-invasive ventilation combined with naloxone) and a control group (receiving non-invasive ventilation alone). Parameters such as lung function, blood gas levels, endocrine hormone concentrations, treatment efficacy, and patient prognosis were carefully recorded and compared. The observation group demonstrated enhanced lung function, optimized endocrine hormone levels, and improved blood gas parameters compared to the control group. Following treatment, the observation group exhibited significant reductions in plasma renin activity (PRA), angiotensin II (AngII), aldosterone (ALD), and norepinephrine (NE) levels. The total effective rate was notably higher in the observation group. This group also presented higher scores for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test (CAT). The combination of non-invasive ventilation with naloxone emerged as a significantly effective strategy in managing acute respiratory failure in COPD patients. This approach led to improvements in lung function, endocrine hormone levels, and blood gas parameters and highlights its potential as an impactful treatment strategy for COPD patients experiencing acute respiratory failure.

IntroductionSedation in mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit (ICU) is commonly achieved with intravenous infusions of propofol, dexmedetomidine or benzodiazepines. Significant limitations associated with each can impact their usage. Inhaled isoflurane has potential benefit for ICU sedation due to its safety record, sedation profile, lack of metabolism and accumulation, and fast wake-up time. Administration in the ICU has historically been restricted by the lack of a safe and effective delivery system for the ICU. The Sedaconda Anaesthetic Conserving Device-S (Sedaconda ACD-S) has enabled the delivery of inhaled volatile anaesthetics for sedation with standard ICU ventilators, but it has not yet been rigorously evaluated in the USA. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled isoflurane delivered via the Sedaconda ACD-S compared with intravenous propofol for sedation of mechanically ventilated ICU adults in USA hospitals.Methods and analysisINhaled Sedation versus Propofol in REspiratory failure in the ICU (INSPiRE-ICU1) is a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, assessor-blinded trial that aims to enrol 235 critically ill adults in 14 hospitals across the USA. Eligible patients are randomised in a 1.5:1 ratio for a treatment duration of up to 48 (±6) hours or extubation, whichever occurs first, with primary follow-up period of 30 days and additional follow-up to 6 months. Primary outcome is percentage of time at target sedation range. Key secondary outcomes include use of opioids during treatment, spontaneous breathing efforts during treatment, wake-up time at end of treatment and cognitive recovery after treatment.Ethics and disseminationTrial protocol has been approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and central (Advarra SSU00208265) or local institutional review boards ((IRB), Cleveland Clinic IRB FWA 00005367, Tufts HS IRB 20221969, Houston Methodist IRB PRO00035247, Mayo Clinic IRB Mod22-001084-08, University of Chicago IRB21-1917-AM011 and Intermountain IRB 033175). Results will be presented at scientific conferences, submitted for publication, and provided to the FDA.Trial registration numberNCT05312385.

Multiple major health organisations recommend the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, initial reports of ECMO use in patients with COVID-19 described very high mortality and there have been no large, international cohort studies of ECMO for COVID-19 reported to date. We used data from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) Registry to characterise the epidemiology, hospital course, and outcomes of patients aged 16 years or older with confirmed COVID-19 who had ECMO support initiated between Jan 16 and May 1, 2020, at 213 hospitals in 36 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital death in a time-to-event analysis assessed at 90 days after ECMO initiation. We applied a multivariable Cox model to examine whether patient and hospital factors were associated with in-hospital mortality. Data for 1035 patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO support were included in this study. Of these, 67 (6%) remained hospitalised, 311 (30%) were discharged home or to an acute rehabilitation centre, 101 (10%) were discharged to a long-term acute care centre or unspecified location, 176 (17%) were discharged to another hospital, and 380 (37%) died. The estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 37·4% (95% CI 34·4–40·4). Mortality was 39% (380 of 968) in patients with a final disposition of death or hospital discharge. The use of ECMO for circulatory support was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1·89, 95% CI 1·20–2·97). In the subset of patients with COVID-19 receiving respiratory (venovenous) ECMO and characterised as having acute respiratory distress syndrome, the estimated cumulative incidence of in-hospital mortality 90 days after the initiation of ECMO was 38·0% (95% CI 34·6–41·5). In patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO, both estimated mortality 90 days after ECMO and mortality in those with a final disposition of death or discharge were less than 40%. These data from 213 hospitals worldwide provide a generalisable estimate of ECMO mortality in the setting of COVID-19. None.

Even though supplemental oxygen is used for the treatment of patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, the most effective oxygenation targets are not known. In this randomized trial, a lower oxygenation target did not result in lower mortality than a higher target.

BackgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the safety and efficacy of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. We identified randomized controlled trials that compared HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy. We pooled data and report summary estimates of effect using relative risk for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference or standardized mean difference for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane tool and certainty in pooled effect estimates using GRADE methods.ResultsWe included 9 RCTs (n = 2093 patients). We found no difference in mortality in patients treated with HFNC (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–1.31, moderate certainty) compared to conventional oxygen therapy. We found a decreased risk of requiring intubation (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.99) or escalation of oxygen therapy (defined as crossover to HFNC in the control group, or initiation of non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation in either group) favouring HFNC-treated patients (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51–0.98), although certainty in both outcomes was low due to imprecision and issues related to risk of bias. HFNC had no effect on intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference [MD] 1.38 days more, 95% CI 0.90 days fewer to 3.66 days more, low certainty), hospital length of stay (MD 0.85 days fewer, 95% CI 2.07 days fewer to 0.37 days more, moderate certainty), patient reported comfort (SMD 0.12 lower, 95% CI 0.61 lower to 0.37 higher, very low certainty) or patient reported dyspnea (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.16 lower, 95% CI 1.10 lower to 1.42 higher, low certainty). Complications of treatment were variably reported amongst included studies, but little harm was associated with HFNC use.ConclusionIn patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, HFNC may decrease the need for tracheal intubation without impacting mortality.

NAVA may improve veno-venous ECMO weaning in children. This is a retrospective small series, describing for the first time proof-of-principle for the use of NAVA in children on VV ECMO. Six patients (age 1–48 months) needed veno-venous ECMO. Controlled conventional ventilation was replaced with assisted ventilation as soon as lung compliance improved, and could trigger initiation and termination of ventilation. NAVA was then initiated when diaphragmatic electrical activity (EAdi) allowed for triggering. NAVA was possible in all patients. Proportionate to EAdi (1.8–26 μV), initial peak inspiratory pressures ranged from 21 to 34 cm H2O, and the tidal volume (Vt) from 3 to 7 ml/kg. During weaning, peak pressures increased proportionally to EAdi increase (5.2–41 μV), with tidal volumes ranging from 6.6 to 8.6 ml/kg. ECMO was weaned after a median time of 1.75 days on NAVA. Following ECMO weaning, the median duration of mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit stay were 4.5 days, and 13.5 days, respectively. Survival to hospital discharge was 100%. In conclusion, combining NAVA to ECMO in paediatric respiratory failure is safe and feasible, and may help in a smoother ECMO weaning, since NAVA allows the patient to drive the ventilator and regulate Vt according to needs.

Purpose Esophageal pressure (Pes) is a minimally invasive advanced respiratory monitoring method with the potential to guide management of ventilation support and enhance specific diagnoses in acute respiratory failure patients. To date, the use of Pes in the clinical setting is limited, and it is often seen as a research tool only. Methods This is a review of the relevant technical, physiological and clinical details that support the clinical utility of Pes. Results After appropriately positioning of the esophageal balloon, Pes monitoring allows titration of controlled and assisted mechanical ventilation to achieve personalized protective settings and the desired level of patient effort from the acute phase through to weaning. Moreover, Pes monitoring permits accurate measurement of transmural vascular pressure and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure and facilitates detection of patient–ventilator asynchrony, thereby supporting specific diagnoses and interventions. Finally, some Pes-derived measures may also be obtained by monitoring electrical activity of the diaphragm. Conclusions Pes monitoring provides unique bedside measures for a better understanding of the pathophysiology of acute respiratory failure patients. Including Pes monitoring in the intensivist’s clinical armamentarium may enhance treatment to improve clinical outcomes.