Dataset Information

Open-label randomized controlled trial of ultra-low tidal ventilation without extracorporeal circulation in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and moderate to severe ARDS: study protocol for the VT4COVID trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe complication of COVID-19 pneumonia, with a mortality rate amounting to 34-50% in moderate and severe ARDS, and is associated with prolonged duration of invasive mechanical ventilation. Such as in non-COVID ARDS, harmful mechanical ventilation settings might be associated with worse outcomes. Reducing the tidal volume down to 4 mL kg^-1 of predicted body weight (PBW) to provide ultra-low tidal volume ventilation (ULTV) is an appealing technique to minimize ventilator-inducted lung injury. Furthermore, in the context of a worldwide pandemic, it does not require any additional material and consumables and may be applied in low- to middle-income countries. We hypothesized that ULTV without extracorporeal circulation is a credible option to reduce COVID-19-related ARDS mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation.

Methods

The VT4COVID study is a randomized, multi-centric prospective open-labeled, controlled superiority trial. Adult patients admitted in the intensive care unit with COVID-19-related mild to severe ARDS defined by a PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio ≤ 150 mmHg under invasive mechanical ventilation for less than 48 h, and consent to participate to the study will be eligible. Patients will be randomized into two balanced parallels groups, at a 1:1 ratio. The control group will be ventilated with protective ventilation settings (tidal volume 6 mL kg^-1 PBW), and the intervention group will be ventilated with ULTV (tidal volume 4 mL kg^-1 PBW). The primary outcome is a composite score based on 90-day all-cause mortality as a prioritized criterion and the number of ventilator-free days at day 60 after inclusion. The randomization list will be stratified by site of recruitment and generated using random blocks of sizes 4 and 6. Data will be analyzed using intention-to-treat principles.

Discussion

The purpose of this manuscript is to provide primary publication of study protocol to prevent selective reporting of outcomes, data-driven analysis, and to increase transparency. Enrollment of patients in the study is ongoing.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04349618 . Registered on April 16, 2020.

SUBMITTER: Richard JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8503716 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUltra-lung-protective ventilation may be useful during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury and to facilitate lung recovery. The objective was to compare pulmonary and systemic biotrauma evaluated by numerous biomarkers of inflammation, epithelial, endothelial injuries, and lung repair according to two ventilator strategies on vv-ECMO.MethodsThis is a prospective randomized controlled study. Patients were randomized to receive during 48 h either ultra-lung-protective ventilation combining very low tidal volume (1-2 mL/kg of predicted body weight), low respiratory rate (5-10 cycles per minute), positive expiratory transpulmonary pressure, and 16 h of prone position or lung-protective-ventilation which followed the ECMO arm of the EOLIA trial (control group).ResultsThe primary outcome was the alveolar concentrations of interleukin-1-beta, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, surfactant protein D, and blood concentrations of serum advanced glycation end products and angiopoietin-2 48 h after randomization. Enrollment was stopped for futility after the inclusion of 39 patients. Tidal volume, respiratory rate, minute ventilation, plateau pressure, and mechanical power were significantly lower in the ultra-lung-protective group. None of the concentrations of the pre-specified biomarkers differed between the two groups 48 h after randomization. However, a trend to higher 60-day mortality was observed in the ultra-lung-protective group compared to the control group (45 vs 17%, p = 0.06).ConclusionsDespite a significant reduction in the mechanical power, ultra-lung-protective ventilation during 48 h did not reduce biotrauma in patients with vv-ECMO-supported ARDS. The impact of this ventilation strategy on clinical outcomes warrants further investigation. Trial registration Clinical trial registered with www.Clinicaltrialsgov ( NCT03918603 ). Registered 17 April 2019.

Project description:Mechanical ventilation with a tidal volume (VT) of 6 mL/kg/predicted body weight (PBW), to maintain plateau pressure (Pplat) lower than 30 cmH2O, does not completely avoid the risk of ventilator induced lung injury (VILI). The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of a ventilation strategy consisting of very low VT combined with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R).In fifteen patients with moderate ARDS, VT was reduced from baseline to 4 mL/kg PBW while PEEP was increased to target a plateau pressure--(Pplat) between 23 and 25 cmH2O. Low-flow ECCO2R was initiated when respiratory acidosis developed (pH < 7.25, PaCO2 > 60 mmHg). Ventilation parameters (VT, respiratory rate, PEEP), respiratory compliance (CRS), driving pressure (DeltaP = VT/CRS), arterial blood gases, and ECCO2R system operational characteristics were collected during the period of ultra-protective ventilation. Patients were weaned from ECCO2R when PaO2/FiO2 was higher than 200 and could tolerate conventional ventilation settings. Complications, mortality at day 28, need for prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and data on weaning from both MV and ECCO2R were also collected.During the 2 h run in phase, VT reduction from baseline (6.2 mL/kg PBW) to approximately 4 mL/kg PBW caused respiratory acidosis (pH < 7.25) in all fifteen patients. At steady state, ECCO2R with an average blood flow of 435 mL/min and sweep gas flow of 10 L/min was effective at correcting pH and PaCO2 to within 10 % of baseline values. PEEP values tended to increase at VT of 4 mL/kg from 12.2 to 14.5 cmH2O, but this change was not statistically significant. Driving pressure was significantly reduced during the first two days compared to baseline (from 13.9 to 11.6 cmH2O; p < 0.05) and there were no significant differences in the values of respiratory system compliance. Rescue therapies for life threatening hypoxemia such as prone position and ECMO were necessary in four and two patients, respectively. Only two study-related adverse events were observed (intravascular hemolysis and femoral catheter kinking).The low-flow ECCO2R system safely facilitates a low volume, low pressure ultra-protective mechanical ventilation strategy in patients with moderate ARDS.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Extracorporeal carbon-dioxide removal (ECCO2R) might allow ultraprotective mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volume (VT) (<?6 ml/kg predicted body weight), plateau pressure (Pplat) (<?30 cmH2O), and driving pressure to limit ventilator-induced lung injury. This study was undertaken to assess the feasibility and safety of ECCO2R managed with a renal replacement therapy (RRT) platform to enable very low tidal volume ventilation of patients with mild-to-moderate acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS:Twenty patients with mild (n?=?8) or moderate (n?=?12) ARDS were included. VT was gradually lowered from 6 to 5, 4.5, and 4 ml/kg, and PEEP adjusted to reach 23???Pplat???25 cmH2O. Standalone ECCO2R (no hemofilter associated with the RRT platform) was initiated when arterial PaCO2 increased by >?20% from its initial value. Ventilation parameters (VT, respiratory rate, PEEP), respiratory system compliance, Pplat and driving pressure, arterial blood gases, and ECCO2R-system operational characteristics were collected during at least 24 h of very low tidal volume ventilation. Complications, day-28 mortality, need for adjuvant therapies, and data on weaning off ECCO2R and mechanical ventilation were also recorded. RESULTS:While VT was reduced from 6 to 4 ml/kg and Pplat kept <?25 cmH2O, PEEP was significantly increased from 13.4?±?3.6 cmH2O at baseline to 15.0?±?3.4 cmH2O, and the driving pressure was significantly reduced from 13.0?±?4.8 to 7.9?±?3.2 cmH2O (both p?<?0.05). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio and respiratory-system compliance were not modified after VT reduction. Mild respiratory acidosis occurred, with mean PaCO2 increasing from 43?±?8 to 53?±?9 mmHg and mean pH decreasing from 7.39?±?0.1 to 7.32?±?0.10 from baseline to 4 ml/kg VT, while the respiratory rate was not altered. Mean extracorporeal blood flow, sweep-gas flow, and CO2 removal were 421?±?40 ml/min, 10?±?0.3 L/min, and 51?±?26 ml/min, respectively. Mean treatment duration was 31?±?22 h. Day-28 mortality was 15%. CONCLUSIONS:A low-flow ECCO2R device managed with an RRT platform easily and safely enabled very low tidal volume ventilation with moderate increase in PaCO2 in patients with mild-to-moderate ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02606240. Registered on 17 November 2015.

Project description:ObjectivesMinimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) is suggested to have favourable impact on blood loss compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation. We aimed to compare the impact of both systems on coagulation.MethodsRandomized trial comparing endogenous thrombin-generating potential early after elective coronary surgery employing either MiECC group (n = 30) or conventional extracorporeal circulation group (n = 30). Secondary outcomes were in vivo thrombin generation, bleeding end points and haemodilution, as well as morbidity and mortality up to 30-day follow-up.ResultsCompared to the conventional extracorporeal circulation group, the MiECC group showed (i) a trend towards a higher early postoperative endogenous thrombin-generating potential (P = 0.06), (ii) lower intraoperative levels of thrombin-antithrombin complex and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (P < 0.001), (iii) less haemodilution early postoperatively as measured by haematocrit and weight gain, but without correlation to coagulation factors or bleeding end points. Moreover, half as many patients required postoperative blood transfusion in the MiECC group (17% vs 37%, P = 0.14), although postoperative blood loss did not differ between groups (P = 0.84). Thrombin-antithrombin complex levels (rs = 0.36, P = 0.005) and prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (rs = 0.45, P < 0.001), but not early postoperative endogenous thrombin-generating potential (rs = 0.05, P = 0.72), showed significant correlation to increased transfusion requirements. The MiECC group demonstrated significantly lower levels of creatine kinase-MB, lactate dehydrogenase and free haemoglobin indicating superior myocardial protection, less tissue damage and less haemolysis, respectively. Perioperative morbidity and 30-day mortality did not differ between groups.ConclusionsConventional but not MiECC is associated with significant intraoperative thrombin generation despite full heparinization. No correlation between coagulation factors or bleeding end points with the degree of haemodilution could be ascertained.Clinicaltrials.gov identifierNCT03216720.