Dataset Information

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak.

Methods

PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342).

Findings

Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7-7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H₂O (IQR 11·0-15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H₂O (11·2-16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H₂O (26·0-39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0-15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation.

Interpretation

In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19.

Funding

Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center.

SUBMITTER: Botta M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7584441 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study.

Botta Michela M Tsonas Anissa M AM Pillay Janesh J Boers Leonoor S LS Algera Anna Geke AG Bos Lieuwe D J LDJ Dongelmans Dave A DA Hollmann Marcus W MW Horn Janneke J Vlaar Alexander P J APJ Schultz Marcus J MJ Neto Ary Serpa AS Paulus Frederique F

The Lancet. Respiratory medicine 20201023 2

<h4>Background</h4>Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak.<h4>Methods</h4>PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were ...[more]

PMID: 33169671

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGeoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies.MethodsIn this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality.FindingsOf the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p<0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p<0·0001).InterpretationDespite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status.FundingNo funding.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough COVID-19 has greatly affected many low-income and middle-income countries, detailed information about patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) is still scarce. Our aim was to examine ventilation characteristics and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in Argentina, an upper middle-income country.MethodsIn this prospective, multicentre cohort study (SATICOVID), we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 who were on invasive mechanical ventilation and admitted to one of 63 ICUs in Argentina. Patient demographics and clinical, laboratory, and general management variables were collected on day 1 (ICU admission); physiological respiratory and ventilation variables were collected on days 1, 3, and 7. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. All patients were followed until death in hospital or hospital discharge, whichever occurred first. Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, identification of independent predictors of mortality, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, and patterns of change in physiological respiratory and mechanical ventilation variables. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04611269, and is complete.FindingsBetween March 20, 2020, and Oct 31, 2020, we enrolled 1909 invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19, with a median age of 62 years [IQR 52-70]. 1294 (67·8%) were men, hypertension and obesity were the main comorbidities, and 939 (49·2%) patients required vasopressors. Lung-protective ventilation was widely used and median duration of ventilation was 13 days (IQR 7-22). Median tidal volume was 6·1 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 6·0-7·0) on day 1, and the value increased significantly up to day 7; positive end-expiratory pressure was 10 cm H2O (8-12) on day 1, with a slight but significant decrease to day 7. Ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) to fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) was 160 (IQR 111-218), respiratory system compliance 36 mL/cm H2O (29-44), driving pressure 12 cm H2O (10-14), and FiO2 0·60 (0·45-0·80) on day 1. Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed in 1672 (87·6%) of patients; 1176 (61·6%) received prone positioning. In-hospital mortality was 57·7% (1101/1909 patients) and ICU mortality was 57·0% (1088/1909 patients); 462 (43·8%) patients died of refractory hypoxaemia, frequently overlapping with septic shock (n=174). Cox regression identified age (hazard ratio 1·02 [95% CI 1·01-1·03]), Charlson score (1·16 [1·11-1·23]), endotracheal intubation outside of the ICU (ie, before ICU admission; 1·37 [1·10-1·71]), vasopressor use on day 1 (1·29 [1·07-1·55]), D-dimer concentration (1·02 [1·01-1·03]), PaO2/FiO2 on day 1 (0·998 [0·997-0·999]), arterial pH on day 1 (1·01 [1·00-1·01]), driving pressure on day 1 (1·05 [1·03-1·08]), acute kidney injury (1·66 [1·36-2·03]), and month of admission (1·10 [1·03-1·18]) as independent predictors of mortality.InterpretationIn patients with COVID-19 who required invasive mechanical ventilation, lung-protective ventilation was widely used but mortality was high. Predictors of mortality in our study broadly agreed with those identified in studies of invasively ventilated patients in high-income countries. The sustained burden of COVID-19 on scarce health-care personnel might have contributed to high mortality over the course of our study in Argentina. These data might help to identify points for improvement in the management of patients in middle-income countries and elsewhere.FundingNone.TranslationFor the Spanish translation of the Summary see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is rapidly expanding across the world, with more than 100,000 new cases each day as of end-June 2020. Healthcare workers are struggling to provide the best care for COVID-19 patients. Approaches for invasive ventilation vary widely between and within countries and new insights are acquired rapidly. We aim to investigate invasive ventilation practices and outcome in COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands.MethodsPRoVENT-COVID ('study of PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19') is an investigator-initiated national, multicenter observational study to be undertaken in intensive care units (ICUs) in The Netherlands. Consecutive COVID-19 patients aged 18 years or older, who are receiving invasive ventilation in the participating ICUs, are to be enrolled during a 10-week period, with a daily follow-up of 7 days. The primary outcome is ventilatory management (including tidal volume expressed as mL/kg predicted body weight and positive end-expiratory pressure expressed as cmH2O) during the first 3 days of ventilation. Secondary outcomes include other ventilatory variables, use of rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia such as prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, use of sedatives, vasopressors and inotropes; daily cumulative fluid balances; acute kidney injury; ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), duration of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital and 90-day mortality.DiscussionPRoVENT-COVID will be the largest observational study to date, with high density ventilatory data and major outcomes. There is urgent need for a better understanding of ventilation practices, and the effects of ventilator settings on outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The results of PRoVENT-COVID will be rapidly disseminated through electronic presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in international peer-reviewed journals. Access to source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets on request, and after agreement of the PRoVENT-COVID steering committee.Trial registrationPRoVENT-COVID is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT04346342).

Dataset Information

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets