Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use in early acute respiratory distress syndrome : Insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s). Copyright: Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.Background: Concerns exist regarding the prevalence and impact of unnecessary oxygen use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We examined this issue in patients with ARDS enrolled in the Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE (LUNG SAFE) study. Methods: In this secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE study, we wished to determine the prevalence and the outcomes associated with hyperoxemia on day 1, sustained hyperoxemia, and excessive oxygen use in patients with early ARDS. Patients who fulfilled criteria of ARDS on day 1 and day 2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure were categorized based on the presence of hyperoxemia (PaO2 > 100 mmHg) on day 1, sustained (i.e., present on day 1 and day 2) hyperoxemia, or excessive oxygen use (FIO2 ≥ 0.60 during hyperoxemia). Results: Of 2005 patients that met the inclusion criteria, 131 (6.5%) were hypoxemic (PaO2 < 55 mmHg), 607 (30%) had hyperoxemia on day 1, and 250 (12%) had sustained hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use occurred in 400 (66%) out of 607 patients with hyperoxemia. Excess FIO2 use decreased from day 1 to day 2 of ARDS, with most hyperoxemic patients on day 2 receiving relatively low FIO2. Multivariate analyses found no independent relationship between day 1 hyperoxemia, sustained hyperoxemia, or excess FIO2 use and adverse clinical outcomes. Mortality was 42% in patients with excess FIO2 use, compared to 39% in a propensity-matched sample of normoxemic (PaO2 55-100 mmHg) patients (P = 0.47). Conclusions: Hyperoxemia and excess oxygen use are both prevalent in early ARDS but are most often non-sustained. No relationship was found between hyperoxemia or excessive oxygen use and patient outcome in this cohort. Trial registration: LUNG-SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073publishersversionPeer reviewe

Global disparities in surgeons’ workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity &gt; 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: Secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Background: The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Results: Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p &lt; 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p &lt; 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Conclusions: Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013

Outcome of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: insights from the LUNG SAFE Study

Background: Current incidence and outcome of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) are unknown, especially for patients not meeting criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: An international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of patients presenting with hypoxaemia early in the course of mechanical ventilation, conducted during four consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in 459 ICUs from 50 countries (LUNG SAFE). Patients were enrolled with arterial oxygen tension/inspiratory oxygen fraction ratio ≤300 mmHg, new pulmonary infiltrates and need for mechanical ventilation with a positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥5 cmH2O. ICU prevalence, causes of hypoxaemia, hospital survival and factors associated with hospital mortality were measured. Patients with unilateral versus bilateral opacities were compared. Findings: 12 906 critically ill patients received mechanical ventilation and 34.9% with hypoxaemia and new infiltrates were enrolled, separated into ARDS (69.0%), unilateral infiltrate (22.7%) and congestive heart failure (CHF; 8.2%). The global hospital mortality was 38.6%. CHF patients had a mortality comparable to ARDS (44.1% versus 40.4%). Patients with unilateral-infiltrate had lower unadjusted mortality, but similar adjusted mortality compared to those with ARDS. The number of quadrants on chest imaging was associated with an increased risk of death. There was no difference in mortality comparing patients with unilateral-infiltrate and ARDS with only two quadrants involved. Interpretation: More than one-third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation have hypoxaemia and new infiltrates with a hospital mortality of 38.6%. Survival is dependent on the degree of pulmonary involvement whether or not ARDS criteria are reached

Validation and utility of ARDS subphenotypes identified by machine-learning models using clinical data: an observational, multicohort, retrospective analysis

International audienceTwo acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) subphenotypes (hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory) with distinct clinical and biological features and differential treatment responses have been identified using latent class analysis (LCA) in seven individual cohorts. To facilitate bedside identification of subphenotypes, clinical classifier models using readily available clinical variables have been described in four randomised controlled trials. We aimed to assess the performance of these models in observational cohorts of ARDS. Methods: In this observational, multicohort, retrospective study, we validated two machine-learning clinical classifier models for assigning ARDS subphenotypes in two observational cohorts of patients with ARDS: Early Assessment of Renal and Lung Injury (EARLI; n=335) and Validating Acute Lung Injury Markers for Diagnosis (VALID; n=452), with LCA-derived subphenotypes as the gold standard. The primary model comprised only vital signs and laboratory variables, and the secondary model comprised all predictors in the primary model, with the addition of ventilatory variables and demographics. Model performance was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots, and assigning subphenotypes using a probability cutoff value of 0·5 to determine sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assignments. We also assessed the performance of the primary model in EARLI using data automatically extracted from an electronic health record (EHR; EHR-derived EARLI cohort). In Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE; n=2813), a multinational, observational ARDS cohort, we applied a custom classifier model (with fewer variables than the primary model) to determine the prognostic value of the subphenotypes and tested their interaction with the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategy, with 90-day mortality as the dependent variable. Findings: The primary clinical classifier model had an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0·92 (95% CI 0·90–0·95) in EARLI and 0·88 (0·84–0·91) in VALID. Performance of the primary model was similar when using exclusively EHR-derived predictors compared with manually curated predictors (AUC=0·88 [95% CI 0·81–0·94] vs 0·92 [0·88–0·97]). In LUNG SAFE, 90-day mortality was higher in patients assigned the hyperinflammatory subphenotype than in those with the hypoinflammatory phenotype (414 [57%] of 725 vs 694 [33%] of 2088; p<0·0001). There was a significant treatment interaction with PEEP strategy and ARDS subphenotype (p=0·041), with lower 90-day mortality in the high PEEP group of patients with the hyperinflammatory subphenotype (hyperinflammatory subphenotype: 169 [54%] of 313 patients in the high PEEP group vs 127 [62%] of 205 patients in the low PEEP group; hypoinflammatory subphenotype: 231 [34%] of 675 patients in the high PEEP group vs 233 [32%] of 734 patients in the low PEEP group). Interpretation: Classifier models using clinical variables alone can accurately assign ARDS subphenotypes in observational cohorts. Application of these models can provide valuable prognostic information and could inform management strategies for personalised treatment, including application of PEEP, once prospectively validated. Funding: US National Institutes of Health and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Death in hospital following ICU discharge: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

ackground: To determine the frequency of, and factors associated with, death in hospital following ICU discharge to the ward. Methods: The Large observational study to UNderstand the Global impact of Severe Acute respiratory FailurE study was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients with severe respiratory failure, conducted across 459 ICUs from 50 countries globally. This study aimed to understand the frequency and factors associated with death in hospital in patients who survived their ICU stay. We examined outcomes in the subpopulation discharged with no limitations of life sustaining treatments ('treatment limitations'), and the subpopulations with treatment limitations. Results: 2186 (94%) patients with no treatment limitations discharged from ICU survived, while 142 (6%) died in hospital. 118 (61%) of patients with treatment limitations survived while 77 (39%) patients died in hospital. Patients without treatment limitations that died in hospital after ICU discharge were older, more likely to have COPD, immunocompromise or chronic renal failure, less likely to have trauma as a risk factor for ARDS. Patients that died post ICU discharge were less likely to receive neuromuscular blockade, or to receive any adjunctive measure, and had a higher pre- ICU discharge non-pulmonary SOFA score. A similar pattern was seen in patients with treatment limitations that died in hospital following ICU discharge. Conclusions: A significant proportion of patients die in hospital following discharge from ICU, with higher mortality in patients with limitations of life-sustaining treatments in place. Non-survivors had higher systemic illness severity scores at ICU discharge than survivors

Correction to: Potentially modifiable factors contributing to outcome from acute respiratory distress syndrome: the LUNG SAFE study (Intensive Care Medicine, (2016), 42, 12, (1865-1876), 10.1007/s00134-016-4571-5)

The members of the LUNG SAFE Investigators and the ESICM Trials Group were provided in such a way that they could not be indexed as collaborators on PubMed. The publisher apologizes for this error

Resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24 h: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

Purpose: To evaluate patients with resolved versus confirmed ARDS, identify subgroups with substantial mortality risk, and to determine the utility of day 2 ARDS reclassification. Methods: Our primary objective, in this secondary LUNG SAFE analysis, was to compare outcome in patients with resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24 h. Secondary objectives included identifying factors associated with ARDS persistence and mortality, and the utility of day 2 ARDS reclassification. Results: Of 2377 patients fulfilling the ARDS definition on the first day of ARDS (day 1) and receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, 503 (24%) no longer fulfilled the ARDS definition the next day, 52% of whom initially had moderate or severe ARDS. Higher tidal volume on day 1 of ARDS was associated with confirmed ARDS [OR 1.07 (CI 1.01–1.13), P = 0.035]. Hospital mortality was 38% overall, ranging from 31% in resolved ARDS to 41% in confirmed ARDS, and 57% in confirmed severe ARDS at day 2. In both resolved and confirmed ARDS, age, non-respiratory SOFA score, lower PEEP and P/F ratio, higher peak pressure and respiratory rate were each associated with mortality. In confirmed ARDS, pH and the presence of immunosuppression or neoplasm were also associated with mortality. The increase in area under the receiver operating curve for ARDS reclassification on day 2 was marginal. Conclusions: ARDS, whether resolved or confirmed at day 2, has a high mortality rate. ARDS reclassification at day 2 has limited predictive value for mortality. The substantial mortality risk in severe confirmed ARDS suggests that complex interventions might best be tested in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073