Dataset Information

A pilot study on intravenous N-Acetylcysteine treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We designed this single-centre clinical trial to assess the potential benefits of N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) in patients with COVID19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

Ninety-two patients with mild-to-moderate COVID19-associated ARDS were allocated to the placebo (45-cases) or NAC groups (47-cases). Besides standard-of-care treatment, the patients received either intravenous NAC at a dose of 40 mg/kg/day or the placebo for three consecutive days. The efficacy outcomes were overall mortality over 28-day, clinical status on day 28, based on the WHO Master Protocol, the proportion of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, changes in ARDS-severity (based on the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores 48 and 96 h after intervention, RESULTS: No differences were found in the 28-day mortality rate between the two groups (25.5% vs. 31.1% in the NAC and placebo groups, respectively). Although the distribution of the clinical status at day 28 shifted towards better outcomes in the NAC-treated group, it did not reach a statistical significance level (p value = 0.83). Similar results were achieved in terms of the proportion of patients who required invasive ventilator support (38.3% vs. 44.4%), the number of ventilator-free days (17.4 vs. 16.6), and median time of ICU and hospital stay. Results regarding the change in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio and SOFA scores also showed no significant differences between the groups.

Conclusions

Our pilot study did not support the potential benefits of intravenous NAC in treating patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. More studies are needed to determine which COVID-19 patients benefit from the NAC administration.

Trial registration

The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier code: IRCT20120215009014N355). Registration date: 2020-05-18.

SUBMITTER: Taher A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8191712 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Prior studies suggest hypothermia may be beneficial in acute respiratory distress syndrome, but cooling causes shivering and increases metabolism. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of performing a randomized clinical trial of hypothermia in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving treatment with neuromuscular blockade because they cannot shiver. DESIGN:Retrospective study and pilot, prospective, open-label, feasibility study. SETTING:Medical ICU. PATIENTS:Retrospective review of 58 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome based on Berlin criteria and PaO2/FIO2 less than 150 who received neuromuscular blockade. Prospective hypothermia treatment in eight acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with PaO2/FIO2 less than 150 receiving neuromuscular blockade. INTERVENTION:Cooling to 34-36°C for 48 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Core temperature, hemodynamics, serum glucose and electrolytes, and P/F were sequentially measured, and medians (interquartile ranges) presented, 28-day ventilator-free days, and hospital mortality were calculated in historical controls and eight cooled patients. Average patient core temperature was 36.7°C (36-37.3°C), and fever occurred during neuromuscular blockade in 30 of 58 retrospective patients. In the prospectively cooled patients, core temperature reached target range less than or equal to 4 hours of initiating cooling, remained less than 36°C for 92% of the 48 hours cooling period without adverse events, and was lower than the controls (34.35°C [34-34.8°C]; p < 0.0001). Compared with historical controls, the cooled patients tended to have lower hospital mortality (75% vs 53.4%; p = 0.26), more ventilator-free days (9 [0-21.5] vs 0 [0-12]; p = 0.16), and higher day 3 P/F (255 [160-270] vs 171 [120-214]; p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS:Neuromuscular blockade alone does not cause hypothermia but allowed acute respiratory distress syndrome patients to be effectively cooled. Results support conducting a randomized clinical trial of hypothermia in acute respiratory distress syndrome and the feasibility of studying acute respiratory distress syndrome patients receiving neuromuscular blockade.

Project description:Background: Variable pressure support ventilation (vPSV) is an assisted ventilation mode that varies the level of pressure support on a breath-by-breath basis to restore the physiological variability of breathing activity. We aimed to compare the effects of vPSV at different levels of variability and pressure support (ΔP S) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: This study was a crossover randomized clinical trial. We included patients with mild to moderate ARDS already ventilated in conventional pressure support ventilation (PSV). The study consisted of two blocks of interventions, and variability during vPSV was set as the coefficient of variation of the ΔP S level. In the first block, the effects of three levels of variability were tested at constant ΔP S: 0% (PSV0%, conventional PSV), 15% (vPSV15%), and 30% (vPSV30%). In the second block, two levels of variability (0% and variability set to achieve ±5 cmH2O variability) were tested at two ΔPS levels (baseline ΔP S and ΔP S reduced by 5 cmH2O from baseline). The following four ventilation strategies were tested in the second block: PSV with baseline ΔP S and 0% variability (PSVBL) or ±5 cmH2O variability (vPSVBL), PSV with ΔPS reduced by 5 cmH2O and 0% variability (PSV-5) or ±5 cmH2O variability (vPSV-5). Outcomes included gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and patient-ventilator asynchronies. Results: The study enrolled 20 patients. In the first block of interventions, oxygenation and respiratory mechanics parameters did not differ between vPSV15% and vPSV30% compared with PSV0%. The variability of tidal volume (V T) was higher with vPSV15% and vPSV30% compared with PSV0%. The incidence of asynchronies and the variability of transpulmonary pressure (P L) were higher with vPSV30% compared with PSV0%. In the second block of interventions, different levels of pressure support with and without variability did not change oxygenation. The variability of V T and P L was higher with vPSV-5 compared with PSV-5, but not with vPSVBL compared with PSVBL. Conclusion: In patients with mild-moderate ARDS, the addition of variability did not improve oxygenation at different pressure support levels. Moreover, high variability levels were associated with worse patient-ventilator synchrony. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01683669.