Associations of awake prone positioning-induced changes in physiology with intubation: An international prospective observational study in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure related to COVID-19

INTRODUCTION: Awake prone positioning has the potential to improve oxygenation and decrease respiratory rate, potentially reducing the need for intubation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We investigated awake prone positioning-induced changes in oxygenation and respiratory rate, and the prognostic capacity for intubation in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: International multicenter prospective observation study in critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 receiving supplemental oxygen. We collected data on oxygenation and respiratory rate at baseline, and at 1 h after being placed in prone positioning. The combined primary outcome was oxygenation and respiratory rate at 1 h. The secondary endpoint was treatment failure, defined as need for intubation within 24 h of start of awake prone positioning. RESULTS: Between March 27th and November 2020, 101 patients were enrolled of which 99 were fully analyzable. Awake prone positioning lasted mean of 3 [2-4] h. In 77 patients (77.7%), awake prone positioning improved oxygenation, and in 37 patients (54.4%) it decreased respiratory rate. Twenty-nine patients (29.3%) were intubated within 24 h. An increase in SpO CONCLUSIONS: Awake prone positioning improves oxygenation in the majority of patients, and decreases respiratory rate in more than half of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. One in three patients need intubation within 24 h. Awake prone position-induced changes in oxygenation and respiratory rate have prognostic capacity for intubation within 24 h

Aerosolized Surfactant in Adults with Sepsis-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have a deficiency of surfactant. Surfactant replacement improves physiologic function in such patients, and preliminary data suggest that it may improve survival. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 725 patients with sepsis-induced ARDS. Patients were stratified according to the risk of death at base line (indicated by their score on the Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE III] index) and randomly assigned to receive either continuously administered synthetic surfactant (13.5 mg of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine per milliliter, 364 patients) or placebo (o.45 percent saline; 361 patients) in aerosolized form for up to five days. RESULTS: The demographic and physiologic characteristics of the two treatment groups were similar at base line. The mean (+/- SD) age was 50 +/- 17 years in the surfactant group and 53 +/- 18 years in the placebo group, and the mean APACHE III scores at randomization were 70.4 +/- 25 and 70.5 +/- 25, respectively. Hemodynamic measures, measures of oxygenation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and length of stay in intensive care unit did not differ significantly in the two groups. Survival at 30 days was 60 percent for both groups. Survival was similar in the groups when analyzed according to APACHE III score, cause of death, time of onset and severity of ARDS, presence or absence of documented sepsis, underlying disease, whether or not there was a do-not-resuscitate order, and medical center. Increased secretions were significantly more frequent in the surfactant group; the rates of other complications were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The continuous administration of aerosolized synthetic surfactant to patients with sepsis-induced ARDS had no significant effect on 30-day survival, length of stay in the intensive care unit, duration of mechanical ventilation, or physiologic function

Updated Review and Clinical Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Retroperitoneal Sarcoma by the Spanish Sarcoma Research Group (GEIS)

The treatment of retroperitoneal sarcomas poses significant challenges due to their infrequency, clinical and histologic heterogeneity, and unique anatomical location. We provide an updated review on the management of retroperitoneal sarcoma and issue clear and concise recommendations for the treatment of the main clinical situations encountered in this disease. Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are an uncommon and biologically heterogeneous group of tumors arising from mesenchymal cells. The incidence is estimated at five cases per 100,000 people per year. Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) account for 10-15% of all STS, and their management depends on their anatomical characteristics and histotype. Due to their very low incidence, it is recommended that RPS be treated in reference centers and evaluated by an experienced multidisciplinary team (MDT). In Spain, the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcomas (GEIS) brings together experts from various specialties to promote research on sarcomas and improve treatment results. This paper summarizes the GEIS recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with RPS

Updated Review and Clinical Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Retroperitoneal Sarcoma by the Spanish Sarcoma Research Group (GEIS)

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are an uncommon and biologically heterogeneous group of tumors arising from mesenchymal cells. The incidence is estimated at five cases per 100,000 people per year. Retroperitoneal sarcomas (RPS) account for 10–15% of all STS, and their management depends on their anatomical characteristics and histotype. Due to their very low incidence, it is recommended that RPS be treated in reference centers and evaluated by an experienced multidisciplinary team (MDT). In Spain, the Spanish Group for Research in Sarcomas (GEIS) brings together experts from various specialties to promote research on sarcomas and improve treatment results. This paper summarizes the GEIS recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with RPS

Potentially modifiable respiratory variables contributing to outcome in ICU patients without ARDS: a secondary analysis of PRoVENT

The majority of critically ill patients do not suffer from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). To improve the treatment of these patients, we aimed to identify potentially modifiable factors associated with outcome of these patients.status: publishe

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

27noneBackground Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27–33), representing 0·14 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7·6 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6·7–9·1] vs 7·9 mL/kg PBW [6·8–9·1]; p=0·346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6·0 cm H2O [IQR 5·0–8·0] vs 5·0 cm H2O [5·0–7·0]; p<0·0001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0·004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p<0·0001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p<0·0001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p<0·0001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0·471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0·323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS. Funding None.Neto, Ary Serpa; Barbas, Carmen S V; Simonis, Fabienne D; Artigas-Raventós, Antonio; Canet, Jaume; Determann, Rogier M; Anstey, James; Hedenstierna, Goran; Hemmes, Sabrine N T; Hermans, Greet; Hiesmayr, Michael; Hollmann, Markus W; Jaber, Samir; Martin-Loeches, Ignacio; Mills, Gary H; Pearse, Rupert M; Putensen, Christian; Schmid, Werner; Severgnini, Paolo; Smith, Roger; Treschan, Tanja A; Tschernko, Edda M; Melo, Marcos F V; Wrigge, Hermann; de Abreu, Marcelo Gama; Pelosi, Paolo; Schultz, Marcus JNeto, Ary Serpa; Barbas, Carmen S. V; Simonis, Fabienne D; Artigas Raventós, Antonio; Canet, Jaume; Determann, Rogier M; Anstey, James; Hedenstierna, Goran; Hemmes, Sabrine N. T; Hermans, Greet; Hiesmayr, Michael; Hollmann, Markus W; Jaber, Samir; Martin Loeches, Ignacio; Mills, Gary H; Pearse, Rupert M; Putensen, Christian; Schmid, Werner; Severgnini, Paolo; Smith, Roger; Treschan, Tanja A; Tschernko, Edda M; Melo, Marcos F. V; Wrigge, Hermann; de Abreu, Marcelo Gama; Pelosi, Paolo; Schultz, Marcus J

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

Background Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27\u201333), representing 0\ub714 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7\ub76 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6\ub77\u20139\ub71] vs 7\ub79 mL/kg PBW [6\ub78\u20139\ub71]; p=0\ub7346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6\ub70 cm H2O [IQR 5\ub70\u20138\ub70] vs 5\ub70 cm H2O [5\ub70\u20137\ub70]; p&lt;0\ub70001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0\ub7004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p&lt;0\ub70001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p&lt;0\ub70001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p&lt;0\ub70001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0\ub7471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0\ub7323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS