Dataset Information

Some Patients Are More Equal Than Others: Variation in Ventilator Settings for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

ABSTRACT: As coronavirus disease 2019 is a novel disease, treatment strategies continue to be debated. This provides the intensive care community with a unique opportunity as the population of coronavirus disease 2019 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation is relatively homogeneous compared with other ICU populations. We hypothesize that the novelty of coronavirus disease 2019 and the uncertainty over its similarity with noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome resulted in substantial practice variation between hospitals during the first and second waves of coronavirus disease 2019 patients. Multicenter retrospective cohort study. Twenty-five hospitals in the Netherlands from February 2020 to July 2020, and 14 hospitals from August 2020 to December 2020. One thousand two hundred ninety-four critically ill intubated adult ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 were selected from the Dutch Data Warehouse. Patients intubated for less than 24 hours, transferred patients, and patients still admitted at the time of data extraction were excluded. We aimed to estimate between-ICU practice variation in selected ventilation parameters (positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, set respiratory rate, tidal volume, minute volume, and percentage of time spent in a prone position) on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation, adjusted for patient characteristics as well as severity of illness based on Pao2/Fio2 ratio, pH, ventilatory ratio, and dynamic respiratory system compliance during controlled ventilation. Using multilevel linear mixed-effects modeling, we found significant (p ≤ 0.001) variation between ICUs in all ventilation parameters on days 1, 2, 3, and 7 of intubation for both waves. This is the first study to clearly demonstrate significant practice variation between ICUs related to mechanical ventilation parameters that are under direct control by intensivists. Their effect on clinical outcomes for both coronavirus disease 2019 and other critically ill mechanically ventilated patients could have widespread implications for the practice of intensive care medicine and should be investigated further by causal inference models and clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Dam TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8522869 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterize the incidence and characteristics of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia in coronavirus disease 2019 versus noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome.DesignSingle-center prospective, observational cohort study.SettingMedical ICU and regional infectious containment unit.PatientsPatients with acute respiratory distress syndrome admitted from April 7, 2020, to May 15, 2020, requiring continuous propofol administration.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 50 patients enrolled, 54% had coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 35.5 (interquartile range, 30.2-41) and 8 (interquartile range, 6-9). Pao2/Fio2 ratio was 130.5 (interquartile range, 94.5-193.8). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride ≥ 500 mg/dL) than noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (9 [33.3%] vs 1 [4.3%]; p = 0.014). Those with coronavirus disease 2019, compared with those without, received more propofol prior to becoming hypertriglyceridemic (median, 5,436.0 mg [interquartile range, 3,405.5-6,845.5 mg] vs 4,229.0 mg [interquartile range, 2,083.4-4,972.1 mg]; p = 0.027). After adjustment for propofol dose with logistic regression (odds ratio, 5.97; 95% CI, 1.16-59.57; p = 0.031) and propensity score matching (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.27-149.12; p = 0.025), there remained a significant difference in the development of hypertriglyceridemia between coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. There was no difference between groups in time to hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.063). Serum lipase was not different between those who did or did not develop hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.545). No patients experienced signs or symptoms of pancreatitis.ConclusionsPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia than noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, even after accounting for differences in propofol administration.

Project description:BackgroundThere is uncertainty about how much positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).ObjectiveTo investigate whether a higher PEEP strategy is superior to a lower PEEP strategy regarding the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs).DesignMulticentre observational study conducted from 1 March to 1 June 2020.Setting and patientsTwenty-two ICUs in The Netherlands and 933 invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients.InterventionsPatients were categorised retrospectively as having received invasive ventilation with higher (n=259) or lower PEEP (n=674), based on the high and low PEEP/FiO2 tables of the ARDS Network, and using ventilator settings and parameters in the first hour of invasive ventilation, and every 8 h thereafter at fixed time points during the first four calendar days. We also used propensity score matching to control for observed confounding factors that might influence outcomes.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of VFDs. Secondary outcomes included distant organ failures including acute kidney injury (AKI) and use of renal replacement therapy (RRT), and mortality.ResultsIn the unmatched cohort, the higher PEEP strategy had no association with the median [IQR] number of VFDs (2.0 [0.0 to 15.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0 to 16.0] days). The median (95% confidence interval) difference was 0.21 (-3.34 to 3.78) days, P = 0.905. In the matched cohort, the higher PEEP group had an association with a lower median number of VFDs (0.0 [0.0 to 14.0] vs. 6.0 [0.0 to 17.0] days) a median difference of -4.65 (-8.92 to -0.39) days, P = 0.032. The higher PEEP strategy had associations with higher incidence of AKI (in the matched cohort) and more use of RRT (in the unmatched and matched cohorts). The higher PEEP strategy had no association with mortality.ConclusionIn COVID-19 ARDS, use of higher PEEP may be associated with a lower number of VFDs, and may increase the incidence of AKI and need for RRT.Trial registrationPractice of VENTilation in COVID-19 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.

Project description:ObjectivesWe hypothesize that elevated soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 concentrations, a marker of pulmonary epithelial injury, reflect ongoing lung injury in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 and associate with continued ventilator dependence.DesignWe associated serial plasma soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 levels and markers of systemic inflammation including d-dimer, C-reactive protein, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate with 30-day mortality and ventilator dependence.SettingAdult medical ICUs and general medicine wards at an academic teaching hospital in Boston, MA.PatientsAdult patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted to the ICU (n = 72) and non-ICU patients managed with supplemental oxygen (n = 77).InterventionsObservational study from April 25 to June 25, 2020.Measurements and main resultsICU patients had a higher baseline body mass index and median soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2, d-dimer, and C-reactive protein concentrations compared with non-ICU patients. Among ICU patients, elevated baseline modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and log (soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2) were associated with 30-day mortality, whereas initial Pao2/Fio2 and markers of systemic inflammation were similar between groups. Only log (soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2) associated with ventilator dependence over time, with the last measured log (soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2) concentration obtained on ICU day 11.5 (interquartile range [7-17]) higher in patients who required reintubation or tracheostomy placement compared with patients who were successfully extubated (2.10 [1.89-2.26] vs 1.87 ng/mL [1.72-2.13 ng/mL]; p = 0.03). Last measured systemic inflammatory markers, modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and Pao2/Fio2 were not different between patients who were successfully extubated compared with those with continued ventilator dependence.ConclusionsPlasma soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 is a biomarker readily measured in blood that can provide dynamic information about the degree of a patient's lung injury and real-time assessment of the likelihood of extubation success. Measures of systemic inflammation, illness severity, and oxygenation did not associate with ventilator outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, there may be too few ventilators to meet medical demands. It is unknown how many US states have ventilator allocation guidelines and how these state guidelines compare with one another.ObjectiveTo evaluate the number of publicly available US state guidelines for ventilator allocation and the variation in state recommendations for how ventilator allocation decisions should occur and to assess whether unique criteria exist for pediatric patients.Evidence reviewThis systematic review evaluated publicly available guidelines about ventilator allocation for all states in the US and in the District of Columbia using department of health websites for each state and internet searches. Documents with any discussion of a process to triage mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency were screened for inclusion. Articles were excluded if they did not include specific ventilator allocation recommendations, were in draft status, did not include their state department of health, or were not the most up-to-date guideline. All documents were individually assessed and reassessed by 2 independent reviewers from March 30 to April 2 and May 8 to 10, 2020.FindingsAs of May 10, 2020, 26 states had publicly available ventilator guidelines, and 14 states had pediatric guidelines. Use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score in the initial rank of adult patients was recommended in 15 state guidelines (58%), and assessment of limited life expectancy from underlying conditions or comorbidities was included in 6 state guidelines (23%). Priority was recommended for specific groups in the initial evaluation of patients in 6 states (23%) (ie, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Utah). Many states recommended exclusion criteria in adult (11 of 26 states [42%]) and pediatric (10 of 14 states [71%]) ventilator allocation. Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation from a patient to give to another if a shortage occurs was discussed in 22 of 26 adult guidelines (85%) and 9 of 14 pediatric guidelines (64%).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that although allocation guidelines for mechanical ventilatory support are essential in a public health emergency, only 26 US states provided public guidance on how this allocation should occur. Guidelines among states, including adjacent states, varied significantly and could cause inequity in the allocation of mechanical ventilatory support during a public health emergency, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Dataset Information

Some Patients Are More Equal Than Others: Variation in Ventilator Settings for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets