Dataset Information

Association of early positive end-expiratory pressure settings with ventilator-free days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A secondary analysis of the Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There 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).

Objective

To investigate whether a higher PEEP strategy is superior to a lower PEEP strategy regarding the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs).

Design

Multicentre observational study conducted from 1 March to 1 June 2020.

Setting and patients

Twenty-two ICUs in The Netherlands and 933 invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients.

Interventions

Patients 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 measures

The 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusion

In 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 registration

Practice of VENTilation in COVID-19 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346342.

SUBMITTER: Valk CMA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8630930 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their effects on respiratory mechanics, gas exchanges, and hemodynamics. Methods: This is a prospective, physiologic, multicenter study conducted in China. We recruited 20 intubated subjects with ARDS and confirmed COVID-19. We first set PEEP by the ARDSnet low PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) table. After a recruitment maneuver, PEEP was set at 15, 10, and 5 cm H2O for 10 min, respectively. Among these three PEEP levels, best-compliance PEEP was the one providing the highest respiratory system compliance; best-oxygenation PEEP was the one providing the highest PaO2 (partial pressure of arterial oxygen)/FIO2. Results: At each PEEP level, we assessed respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gas, and hemodynamics. Among three PEEP levels, plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, and blood pressure improved with lower PEEP. The ARDSnet low PEEP-FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies provided higher PEEP than the best-compliance strategy (11 ± 6 cm H2O vs. 11 ± 3 cm H2O vs. 6 ± 2 cm H2O, p = 0.001), leading to higher plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. The three PEEP strategies were not significantly different in gas exchange. The subgroup analysis showed that three PEEP strategies generated different effects in subjects with moderate or severe ARDS (n = 12) but not in subjects with mild ARDS (n = 8). Conclusions: In our cohort with COVID-19-induced ARDS, the ARDSnet low PEEP/FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies led to higher PEEP and potentially higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury than the best-compliance strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04359251.

Project description:ObjectivesAs 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.DesignMulticenter retrospective cohort study.SettingTwenty-five hospitals in the Netherlands from February 2020 to July 2020, and 14 hospitals from August 2020 to December 2020.PatientsOne 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.Measurements and main resultsWe 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Project description:ObjectivesThere is limited evidence on the impact of protocolized ventilator weaning in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome, despite utilization in clinical trials and clinical care. We aimed to determine whether protocolized ventilator weaning shortens mechanical ventilation duration and PICU length of stay in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors.DesignSecondary analysis of a prospective pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome (Berlin definition) cohort from July 2011 to June 2019 analyzed using interrupted time series analysis pre- and postimplementations of a ventilator-weaning pathway. We compared duration of invasive ventilation and PICU length of stay in survivors before and after implementation of a ventilator-weaning pathway. We excluded PICU nonsurvivors and subjects with greater than 100 ventilator days.SettingLarge academic tertiary-care PICU.PatientsChildren with acute respiratory distress syndrome who survived to PICU discharge with less than or equal to 100 days of invasive mechanical ventilation.InterventionsImplementation of a ventilator-weaning pathway on May 2016.Measurements and main resultsOf 723 children with acute respiratory distress syndrome, 132 subjects died and six subjects with ventilation greater than 100 days were excluded. Of the remaining 585 subjects, 375 subjects had acute respiratory distress syndrome prior to pathway intervention and 210 after. Patients in the preintervention epoch were younger, more likely to have infectious acute respiratory distress syndrome, and had increased use of alternative ventilator modes. Pathway adoption was rapid and sustained. Controlling for temporality, pathway implementation was associated with a decrease of a median 3.6 ventilator days (95% CI, -5.4 to -1.7; p < 0.001). There was no change in the reintubation rates. Results were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsVentilator-weaning pathway implementation shortened invasive ventilation duration in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors with no change in reintubation. The effect size of this intervention was comparable with those targeted in acute respiratory distress syndrome trials.

Project description:ImportanceIt is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).ObjectiveTo determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days.Design, setting, and participantsNoninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from October 26, 2017, through December 17, 2019, in 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands among 980 patients without ARDS expected not to be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation. Final follow-up was conducted in March 2020.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-free days at day 28 of -10%. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital lengths of stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; development of ARDS, pneumonia, pneumothorax, severe atelectasis, severe hypoxemia, or need for rescue therapies for hypoxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation.ResultsAmong 980 patients who were randomized, 969 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 66 [interquartile range {IQR}, 56-74] years; 246 [36%] women). At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) (mean ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-∞; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin. Occurrence of severe hypoxemia was 20.6% vs 17.6% (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P = .99) and need for rescue strategy was 19.7% vs 14.6% (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79; adjusted P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 38.4% vs 42.0% (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Lung Open Ventilation Study (LOV Study) compared a low tidal volume strategy with an experimental strategy combining low tidal volume, lung recruitment maneuvers, and higher plateau and positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP) in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Herein, we compared sedative, opioid, and neuromuscular blocker (NMB) use among patients managed with the intervention and control strategies and clinicians' assessment of comfort in both groups. METHODS:This was an observational substudy of the LOV Study, a randomized trial conducted in 30 intensive care units in Canada, Australia, and Saudi Arabia. In 16 centers, we recorded daily doses of sedatives, opioids, and NMBs and surveyed bedside clinicians about their own comfort with the assigned ventilator strategy and their perceptions of patient comfort. We compared characteristics and outcomes of patients who did and did not receive NMBs. RESULTS:Study groups received similar sedative, opioid, and NMB dosing on days 1, 3, and 7. Patient comfort as assessed by clinicians was not different in the two groups: 93% perceived patients had no/minimal discomfort. In addition, 92% of clinicians were comfortable with the assigned ventilation strategy without significant differences between the two groups. When clinicians expressed discomfort, more expressed discomfort about PEEP levels in the intervention vs control group (2.9% vs 0.7%, P <0.0001), and more perceived patient discomfort among controls (6.0% vs 4.3%, P = 0.049). On multivariable analysis, the strongest associations with NMB use were higher plateau pressure (hazard ratio (HR) 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.23; P = 0.0002) and higher daily sedative dose (HR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.05; P <0.0001). Patients receiving NMBs had more barotrauma, longer durations of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay, and higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS:In the LOV Study, high PEEP, low tidal volume ventilation did not increase sedative, opioid, or NMB doses in adults with ARDS, compared with a lower PEEP strategy, and appeared at least as comfortable for patients. NMB use may reflect worse lung injury, as these patients had more barotrauma, longer durations of ventilation, and higher mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00182195.