Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation superimposed on spontaneous breathing: a physiological study in patients at risk for extubation failure

Purpose: Intrapulmonary percussive ventilation (IPV) is a high-frequency ventilation modality that can be superimposed on spontaneous breathing. IPV may diminish respiratory muscle loading and help to mobilize secretions. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the short-term effects of IPV in patients at high risk for extubation failure who were receiving preventive non-invasive ventilation (NIV) after extubation. Methods: Respiratory rate, work of breathing, and gas exchange were evaluated in 17 extubated patients during 20min of IPV and 20min of NIV delivered via a facial mask, separated by periods of spontaneous breathing. The pressure-support level during NIV was adjusted until tidal volume reached 6-8ml/kg and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 4-5cmH2O. For IPV, the pressurisation frequency was set at 250cycles/min and driving pressure at 1.2bar. The pressure-time product of the diaphragm (PTPdi/min) was measured using an oesophageal and gastric double-balloon catheter. Results: Transdiaphragmatic pressure and PTPdi/min improved significantly (p<0.01), from a median [25th-75th percentiles] of 264 [190-300] to 192 [152-221]cmH2Os/min with IPV and from 273 [212-397] to 176 [120-216]cmH2Os/min with NIV. Respiratory rate decreased significantly from 23 [19-27] to 22 [17-24] breaths/min for IPV and from 25 [19-28] to 20 [18-22] breaths/min for NIV (p<0.01). Mean PaCO2 decreased after NIV (from 46 [42-48] to 41 [36-42]mmHg, p<0.01) but not after IPV. There was no noticeable effect on oxygenation. Conclusions: IPV is an interesting alternative to NIV in patients at risk for post-extubation respiratory failure. Both NIV and IPV diminished the respiratory rate and work of breathing, but IPV was less effective in improving alveolar ventilatio

Sleep continuity: a new metric to quantify disrupted hypnograms in non-sedated intensive care unit patients

Introduction: Sleep in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is severely altered. In a large proportion of critically ill patients, conventional sleep electroencephalogram (EEG) patterns are replaced by atypical sleep. On the other hand, some non-sedated patients can display usual sleep EEG patterns. In the latter, sleep is highly fragmented and disrupted and conventional rules may not be optimal. We sought to determine whether sleep continuity could be a useful metric to quantify the amount of sleep with recuperative function in critically ill patients with usual sleep EEG features. Methods: We retrospectively reanalyzed polysomnographies recorded in non-sedated critically ill patients requiring non-invasive ventilation (NIV) for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Using conventional rules, we built two-state hypnograms (sleep and wake) and identified all sleep episodes. The percentage of time spent in sleep bouts (10 and 30 minutes) was used to describe sleep continuity. In a first study, we compared these measures regarding good (NIV success) or poor outcome (NIV failure). In a second study performed on a different patient group, we compared these measurements during NIV and during spontaneous breathing. Results: While fragmentation indices were similar in the two groups, the percentage of total sleep time spent in short naps was higher and the percentage of sleep time spent in sleep bouts was lower in patients with successful NIV. The percentage of total sleep time spent in long naps was higher and the percentage of sleep time spent in sleep bouts was lower during NIV than during spontaneous breathing; the level of reproducibility of sleep continuity measures between scorers was high. Conclusions: Sleep continuity measurements could constitute a clinically relevant and reproducible assessment of sleep disruption in non-sedated ICU patients with usual sleep EEG

Prognostic factors associated with mortality risk and disease progression in 639 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Europe: Initial report of the international RISC-19-ICU prospective observational cohort

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high disease burden with 10% of confirmed cases progressing towards critical illness. Nevertheless, the disease course and predictors of mortality in critically ill patients are poorly understood. Methods: Following the critical developments in ICUs in regions experiencing early inception of the pandemic, the European-based, international RIsk Stratification in COVID-19 patients in the Intensive Care Unit (RISC-19-ICU) registry was created to provide near real-time assessment of patients developing critical illness due to COVID-19. Findings: As of April 22, 2020, 639 critically ill patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included in the RISC-19-ICU registry. Of these, 398 had deceased or been discharged from the ICU. ICU-mortality was 24%, median length of stay 12 (IQR, 5–21) days. ARDS was diagnosed in 74%, with a minimum P/F-ratio of 110 (IQR, 80–148). Prone positioning, ECCO2R, or ECMO were applied in 57%. Off-label therapies were prescribed in 265 (67%) patients, and 89% of all bloodstream infections were observed in this subgroup (n = 66; RR=3·2, 95% CI [1·7–6·0]). While PCT and IL-6 levels remained similar in ICU survivors and non-survivors throughout the ICU stay (p = 0·35, 0·34), CRP, creatinine, troponin, D-dimer, lactate, neutrophil count, P/F-ratio diverged within the first seven days (p<0·01). On a multivariable Cox proportional-hazard regression model at admission, creatinine, D-dimer, lactate, potassium, P/F-ratio, alveolar-arterial gradient, and ischemic heart disease were independently associated with ICU-mortality. Interpretation: The European RISC-19-ICU cohort demonstrates a moderate mortality of 24% in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Despite high ARDS severity, mechanical ventilation incidence was low and associated with more rescue therapies. In contrast to risk factors in hospitalized patients reported in other studies, the main mortality predictors in these critically ill patients were markers of oxygenation deficit, renal and microvascular dysfunction, and coagulatory activation. Elevated risk of bloodstream infections underscores the need to exercise caution with off-label therapies

Use of a gas-operated ventilator as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in critically Ill COVID-19 patients in a middle-income country

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a notable undersupply of respiratory support devices, especially in low- and middle-income countries. As a result, many hospitals turned to alternative respiratory therapies, including the use of gas-operated ventilators (GOV). The aim of this study was to describe the use of GOV as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients and to compare clinical outcomes achieved with this device to conventional respiratory therapies. Retrospective cohort analysis of critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first local wave of the pandemic. The final analysis included 204 patients grouped according to the type of respiratory therapy received in the first 24 h, as follows: conventional oxygen therapy (COT), n = 28 (14%); GOV, n = 72 (35%); noninvasive ventilation (NIV), n = 49 (24%); invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), n = 55 (27%). In 72, GOV served as noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in 42 (58%) of these patients. In the other 30 patients (42%), 20 (28%) presented clinical improvement and were discharged; 10 (14%) died. In the COT and GOV groups, 68% and 39%, respectively, progressed to intubation (P ≤ 0.001). Clinical outcomes in the GOV and NIV groups were similar (no statistically significant differences). GOV was successfully used as a noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in more than half of patients. Clinical outcomes in the GOV group were comparable to those of the NIV group. These findings support the use of GOV as an emergency, noninvasive bridging respiratory therapy in medical crises when alternative approaches to the standard of care may be justifiable

Dynamics of disease characteristics and clinical management of critically ill COVID-19 patients over the time course of the pandemic: an analysis of the prospective, international, multicentre RISC-19-ICU registry.

BACKGROUND It remains elusive how the characteristics, the course of disease, the clinical management and the outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) worldwide have changed over the course of the pandemic. METHODS Prospective, observational registry constituted by 90 ICUs across 22 countries worldwide including patients with a laboratory-confirmed, critical presentation of COVID-19 requiring advanced organ support. Hierarchical, generalized linear mixed-effect models accounting for hospital and country variability were employed to analyse the continuous evolution of the studied variables over the pandemic. RESULTS Four thousand forty-one patients were included from March 2020 to September 2021. Over this period, the age of the admitted patients (62 [95% CI 60-63] years vs 64 [62-66] years, p < 0.001) and the severity of organ dysfunction at ICU admission decreased (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment 8.2 [7.6-9.0] vs 5.8 [5.3-6.4], p < 0.001) and increased, while more female patients (26 [23-29]% vs 41 [35-48]%, p < 0.001) were admitted. The time span between symptom onset and hospitalization as well as ICU admission became longer later in the pandemic (6.7 [6.2-7.2| days vs 9.7 [8.9-10.5] days, p < 0.001). The PaO2/FiO2 at admission was lower (132 [123-141] mmHg vs 101 [91-113] mmHg, p < 0.001) but showed faster improvements over the initial 5 days of ICU stay in late 2021 compared to early 2020 (34 [20-48] mmHg vs 70 [41-100] mmHg, p = 0.05). The number of patients treated with steroids and tocilizumab increased, while the use of therapeutic anticoagulation presented an inverse U-shaped behaviour over the course of the pandemic. The proportion of patients treated with high-flow oxygen (5 [4-7]% vs 20 [14-29], p < 0.001) and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (14 [11-18]% vs 24 [17-33]%, p < 0.001) throughout the pandemic increased concomitant to a decrease in invasive mechanical ventilation (82 [76-86]% vs 74 [64-82]%, p < 0.001). The ICU mortality (23 [19-26]% vs 17 [12-25]%, p < 0.001) and length of stay (14 [13-16] days vs 11 [10-13] days, p < 0.001) decreased over 19 months of the pandemic. CONCLUSION Characteristics and disease course of critically ill COVID-19 patients have continuously evolved, concomitant to the clinical management, throughout the pandemic leading to a younger, less severely ill ICU population with distinctly different clinical, pulmonary and inflammatory presentations than at the onset of the pandemic

Pain distress : the negative emotion associated with procedures in ICU patients

The intensity of procedural pain in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is well documented. However, little is known about procedural pain distress, the psychological response to pain. Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, multinational study of procedural pain. Pain distress was measured before and during procedures (0-10 numeric rating scale). Factors that influenced procedural pain distress were identified by multivariable analyses using a hierarchical model with ICU and country as random effects. A total of 4812 procedures were recorded (3851 patients, 192 ICUs, 28 countries). Pain distress scores were highest for endotracheal suctioning (ETS) and tracheal suctioning, chest tube removal (CTR), and wound drain removal (median [IQRs] = 4 [1.6, 1.7]). Significant relative risks (RR) for a higher degree of pain distress included certain procedures: turning (RR = 1.18), ETS (RR = 1.45), tracheal suctioning (RR = 1.38), CTR (RR = 1.39), wound drain removal (RR = 1.56), and arterial line insertion (RR = 1.41); certain pain behaviors (RR = 1.19-1.28); pre-procedural pain intensity (RR = 1.15); and use of opioids (RR = 1.15-1.22). Patient-related variables that significantly increased the odds of patients having higher procedural pain distress than pain intensity were pre-procedural pain intensity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05); pre-hospital anxiety (OR = 1.76); receiving pethidine/meperidine (OR = 4.11); or receiving haloperidol (OR = 1.77) prior to the procedure. Procedural pain has both sensory and emotional dimensions. We found that, although procedural pain intensity (the sensory dimension) and distress (the emotional dimension) may closely covary, there are certain factors than can preferentially influence each of the dimensions. Clinicians are encouraged to appreciate the multidimensionality of pain when they perform procedures and use this knowledge to minimize the patient's pain experience.Peer reviewe