Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Introduction: Prolonged mechanical ventilation (PMV) and weaning failure are factors associated with prolonged hospital length of stay and increased morbidity and mortality. In addition to the burden these places on patients and their families, it also imposes high costs on the public health system. The aim of this systematic review was to identify risk factors for PMV and weaning failure. Methods: The study was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. After a comprehensive search of the COCHRANE Library, CINHAL, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and the LILACS Database a PubMed request was made on June 8, 2020. Studies that examined risk factors for PMV, defined as mechanical ventilation ≥96 h, weaning failure, and prolonged weaning in German and English were considered eligible; reviews, meta-analyses, and studies in very specific patient populations whose results are not necessarily applicable to the majority of ICU patients as well as pediatric studies were excluded from the analysis. This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO register under the number CRD42021271038. Results: Of 532 articles identified, 23 studies with a total of 23,418 patients met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies investigated risk factors of PMV including prolonged weaning, 9 studies analyzed risk factors of weaning failure. The concrete definitions of these outcomes varied considerably between studies. For PMV, a variety of risk factors were identified, including comorbidities, site of intubation, various laboratory or blood gas parameters, ventilator settings, functional parameters, and critical care scoring systems. The risk of weaning failure was mainly related to age, previous home mechanical ventilation (HMV), cause of ventilation, and preexisting underlying diseases. Elevated PaCO 2 values during spontaneous breathing trials were indicative of prolonged weaning and weaning failure. Conclusion: A direct comparison of risk factors was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the studies. The large number of different definitions and relevant parameters reflects the heterogeneity of patients undergoing PMV and those discharged to HMV after unsuccessful weaning. Multidimensional scores are more likely to reflect the full spectrum of patients ventilated in different ICUs than single risk factors.

Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD − 1.8 h, 95% CI  – 2.89 to  – 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD  – 0.32 days, 95% CI  – 0.42 to  – 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.

Mechanical ventilation may have adverse effects on both the lung and the diaphragm. Injury to the lung is mediated by excessive mechanical stress and strain, whereas the diaphragm develops atrophy as a consequence of low respiratory effort and injury in case of excessive effort. The lung and diaphragm-protective mechanical ventilation approach aims to protect both organs simultaneously whenever possible. This review summarizes practical strategies for achieving lung and diaphragm-protective targets at the bedside, focusing on inspiratory and expiratory ventilator settings, monitoring of inspiratory effort or respiratory drive, management of dyssynchrony, and sedation considerations. A number of potential future adjunctive strategies including extracorporeal CO2 removal, partial neuromuscular blockade, and neuromuscular stimulation are also discussed. While clinical trials to confirm the benefit of these approaches are awaited, clinicians should become familiar with assessing and managing patients’ respiratory effort, based on existing physiological principles. To protect the lung and the diaphragm, ventilation and sedation might be applied to avoid excessively weak or very strong respiratory efforts and patient-ventilator dysynchrony.

Sex differences in intensive care medicine, particularly regarding risk factors for (MV), are underexplored. This study aimed to investigate sex-related risk factors for long-term MV. We analyzed claims data from patients aged ≥ 30, with at least one comorbidity, who received MV (≥ 96 h) between 2015 and 2018. Data covered 365 days prior to hospitalization and 30 days post-discharge. Sex differences in 29 predefined risk factors were assessed. Over 12,000 hospitalizations were analyzed, with 37.8% of patients being female. Women were older (71.3 ± 11.6 vs. 69.9 ± 11.2 years, p < 0.001) and more often transferred from nursing homes (4.5% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001). Men required invasive long-term ventilation more often (33.8% vs. 31.2%, p = 0.004) and had more ventilation hours (400.0 ± 377.9 vs. 373.0 ± 341.8, p < 0.001). Among pre-existing conditions, women had more thyroiditis and rheumatic mitral valve disease, while men had more COPD, cardiac arrhythmia, eating disorders, and acute pancreatitis. Men were more likely to undergo bronchoscopy, autologous blood transfusion, or Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) within 96 h of MV. Multivariate analyses revealed stronger associations between certain risk factors and long-term MV by sex. For men, thyroiditis (OR 2.7 vs. 1.4 in women), cerebral infarction (OR 2.3 vs. 1.4), and acute pancreatitis (OR 3.2 vs. 1.0) were more strongly linked to weaning failure. For women, cerebrospinal fluid surgery (OR 5.7 vs. 2.0 in men) and acute pancreatitis (OR 4.7 vs. 3.0 in men) had stronger associations with long-term MV. ECLS and eating disorders were only linked to long-term MV in men. This study highlights sex differences in risk factors and outcomes for long-term MV, suggesting the need for sex-specific management strategies. Trial registration: The PRiVENT study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05260853). Registered at March 2, 2022.

Background Long-term invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a major burden for those affected and causes high costs for the health care system. Early risk assessment is a prerequisite for the best possible support of high-risk patients during the weaning process. We aimed to identify risk factors for long-term IMV within 96 h (h) after the onset of IMV. Methods The analysis was based on data from one of Germany's largest statutory health insurance funds; patients who received IMV ≥ 96 h and were admitted in January 2015 at the earliest and discharged in December 2017 at the latest were analysed. OPS and ICD codes of IMV patients were considered, including the 365 days before intubation and 30 days after discharge. Long-term IMV was defined as evidence of invasive home mechanical ventilation (HMV), IMV ≥ 500 h, or readmission with (re)prolonged ventilation. Results In the analysis of 7758 hospitalisations, criteria for long-term IMV were met in 38.3% of cases, of which 13.9% had evidence of HMV, 73.1% received IMV ≥ 500 h and/or 40.3% were re-hospitalised with IMV. Several independent risk factors were identified (p < 0.005 each), including pre-diagnoses such as pneumothorax (OR 2.10), acute pancreatitis (OR 2.64), eating disorders (OR 1.99) or rheumatic mitral valve disease (OR 1.89). Among ICU admissions, previous dependence on an aspirator or respirator (OR 5.13), and previous tracheostomy (OR 2.17) were particularly important, while neurosurgery (OR 2.61), early tracheostomy (OR 3.97) and treatment for severe respiratory failure such as positioning treatment (OR 2.31) and extracorporeal lung support (OR 1.80) were relevant procedures in the first 96 h after intubation. Conclusion This comprehensive analysis of health claims has identified several risk factors for the risk of long-term ventilation. In addition to the known clinical risks, the information obtained may help to identify patients at risk at an early stage. Trial registration  The PRiVENT study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05260853). Registered at March 2, 2022.

Background Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates. Methods Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups. Results Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p  = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p  = 0.016). Conclusion In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk.

PurposeA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question ‘In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?’MethodsWe included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29–0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13–0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25–1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) − 1.34, 95% HDI − 1.92 to − 0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD − 0.70, 95% HDI − 0.94 to − 0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life.ConclusionsThe use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.

Aim To explore and gain knowledge of the experiences and needs among patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) of their decision‐making processes whether to choose invasive home mechanical ventilation or not. Design A qualitative study. Methods A phenomenological‐hermeneutic approach influenced by Ricoeur's interpretation theory was used. Seven patients with ALS were interviewed. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research checklist was used for reporting. Results Three themes were evident in patients' accounts of the decision‐making process: (1) being taken care of directly after receiving the diagnosis, (2) living in uncertainty about what the future would bring and (3) doubt causing patients with ALS to change their minds. Patients with ALS were burdened with everyday life challenging decision‐making processes about future treatment and doubt caused patients to change their minds about their future treatment. It is necessary to support patients in their decision‐making processes using shared decision‐making. Patient or Public Contribution No Patient or Public Contribution.

Elevated concentrations of interleukin-6 have been demonstrated to be an important key factor in COVID-19 host immune impairment. It represents an important prognostic factor of harm associated with COVID-19 infection by stimulating a vigorous proinflammatory response, leading to the so-called “cytokine storm”. Therefore, immunomodulatory interventions targeting interleukin-6 receptor antagonism have been investigated as potential treatments to counterbalance the host immune dysregulation and to support the advantageous effects of corticosteroids. Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that has gained much interest during the COVID-19 pandemic as an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist. Various early observational studies have reported beneficial effects of tocilizumab. Moreover, consequent randomized controlled trials have subsequently shown significant positive results about tocilizumab efficacy and safety, focusing on outcomes like mortality, risk of intensive care unit admission, and the need for mechanical ventilation, while others presented conflicting findings. In this review, we first described the pathophysiology of COVID-19 infection while highlighting the role of interleukin-6. Furthermore, we also discussed the non-conclusive evidence about tocilizumab to be used as the standard of care therapy for all patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, as well as its beneficial effects in selected patients.