Dataset Information

Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes.

Method

Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH₂O, peak pressure <30 cmH₂O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min.

Results

Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO₂/ FiO₂ ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH₂O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.

SUBMITTER: Wendel Garcia PD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442133 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundINTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a fully automated closed-loop mode of ventilation for use in critically ill patients. Evidence for benefit of INTELLiVENT-ASV in comparison to ventilation that is not fully automated with regard to duration of ventilation and quality of breathing is largely lacking. We test the hypothesis that INTELLiVENT-ASV shortens time spent on a ventilator and improves the quality of breathing.MethodsThe "Effects of Automated Closed-loop VenTilation versus Conventional Ventilation on Duration and Quality of Ventilation" (ACTiVE) study is an international, multicenter, two-group randomized clinical superiority trial. In total, 1200 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with an anticipated duration of ventilation of > 24 h will be randomly assigned to one of the two ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged 18 years or older at start of invasive ventilation in the ICU. Patients either receive automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT-ASV, or ventilation that is not automated by means of a conventional ventilation mode. The primary endpoint is the number of days free from ventilation and alive at day 28; secondary endpoints are quality of breathing using granular breath-by-breath analysis of ventilation parameters and variables in a time frame of 24 h early after the start of invasive ventilation, duration of ventilation in survivors, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality rates in the ICU and hospital, and at 28 and 90 days.DiscussionACTiVE is one of the first randomized clinical trials that is adequately powered to compare the effects of automated closed-loop ventilation versus conventional ventilation on duration of ventilation and quality of breathing in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. The results of ACTiVE will support intensivist in their choices regarding the use of automated ventilation.Trial registrationACTiVE is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier: NCT04593810 ) on 20 October 2020.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is essential for the management of COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to assess the impact of compliance with a respiratory decision support system on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV.MethodsIn this retrospective, single-center, case series study, patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 8th, 2020, to March 24th, 2020, with the final follow-up date of April 20th, 2020, were included. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging, and management information were collected and analyzed. Compliance with the respiratory support decision system was documented, and its relationship with 28-day mortality was evaluated.ResultsThe study included 46 COVID-19-associated ARDS patients who required IMV. The median age of the 46 patients was 68.5 years, and 31 were men. The partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio at intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 104 mmHg. The median total length of IMV was 12.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.0-27.3) days, and the median respiratory support decision score was 11.0 (IQR: 7.8-16.0). To 28 days after ICU admission, 18 (39.1%) patients died. Survivors had a significantly higher respiratory support decision score than non-survivors (15.0 [10.3-17.0] vs. 8.5 (6.0-10.3), P = 0.001). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to assess the discrimination of respiratory support decision score to 28-day mortality, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.796 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.657-0.934, P = 0.001) and the cut-off was 11.5 (sensitivity = 0.679, specificity = 0.889). Patients with a higher score (>11.5) were more likely to survive at 28 days after ICU admission (log-rank test, P < 0.001).ConclusionsFor severe COVID-19-associated ARDS with IMV, following the respiratory support decision and assessing completion would improve the progress of ventilation. With a decision score of >11.5, the mortality at 28 days after ICU admission showed an obvious decrease.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify potential predictors for invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzes data of 516 patients with confirmed COVID-19, who were categorized into three groups based on which mechanical ventilation method was used during the hospitalization period.ResultsAmong 516 confirmed cases with COVID-19, 446 patients did not receive mechanical ventilation, 38 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and 32 received non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV). The median age of the included patients was 61 years old (interquartile range, 52-69). A total of 432 patients had one or more coexisting illnesses. The main clinical symptoms included fever (79.46%), dry cough (66.47%) and shortness of breath (46.90%). IMV and NIMV patients included more men, more coexisting illnesses and received more medication. Patients in the IMV group and NIMV had higher leukocyte and neutrophil count, lower lymphocyte count, higher aspartate aminotransferase (AST), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT) and D-dimer levels and lower albumin (ALB) level. The univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and LDH had a predictive role as indicators for IMV, and the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and PCT had a predictive role as indicators for NIMV. The area under the curve (AUC) of use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and LDH was 0.885 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.838-0.933, p < 0.0001), which provided the specificity and sensitivity 77.7% and 90.9%, respectively. AUC of the use of glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil count and PCT for NIMV was 0.888 (95% CI 0.825-0.952, p < 0.0001), which provided the specificity and sensitivity 70.3% and 96.4%, respectively.ConclusionGlucocorticoid, increased neutrophil and LDH were predictive indicators for IMV, whereas glucocorticoid, increased neutrophil and PCT were predictive indicators for NIMV. In addition, the above-mentioned mediators had the most predictive meaning for mechanical ventilation when combined.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.