Time course of risk factors associated with mortality of 1260 critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to 24 Italian intensive care units

94noopenPurpose: To evaluate the daily values and trends over time of relevant clinical, ventilatory and laboratory parameters during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay and their association with outcome in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Methods: In this retrospective–prospective multicentric study, we enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted to Italian ICUs from February 22 to May 31, 2020. Clinical data were daily recorded. The time course of 18 clinical parameters was evaluated by a polynomial maximum likelihood multilevel linear regression model, while a full joint modeling was fit to study the association with ICU outcome. Results: 1260 consecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted in 24 ICUs were enrolled. 78% were male with a median age of 63 [55–69] years. At ICU admission, the median ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) was 122 [89–175] mmHg. 79% of patients underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall mortality was 34%. Both the daily values and trends of respiratory system compliance, PaO2/FiO2, driving pressure, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure, creatinine, C-reactive protein, ferritin, neutrophil, neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, and platelets were associated with survival, while for lactate, pH, bilirubin, lymphocyte, and urea only the daily values were associated with survival. The trends of PaO2/FiO2, respiratory system compliance, driving pressure, creatinine, ferritin, and C-reactive protein showed a higher association with survival compared to the daily values. Conclusion: Daily values or trends over time of parameters associated with acute organ dysfunction, acid–base derangement, coagulation impairment, or systemic inflammation were associated with patient survival.openZanella A.; Florio G.; Antonelli M.; Bellani G.; Berselli A.; Bove T.; Cabrini L.; Carlesso E.; Castelli G.P.; Cecconi M.; Citerio G.; Coloretti I.; Corti D.; Dalla Corte F.; De Robertis E.; Foti G.; Fumagalli R.; Girardis M.; Giudici R.; Guiotto L.; Langer T.; Mirabella L.; Pasero D.; Protti A.; Ranieri M.V.; Rona R.; Scudeller L.; Severgnini P.; Spadaro S.; Stocchetti N.; Vigano M.; Pesenti A.; Grasselli G.; Aspesi M.; Baccanelli F.; Bassi F.; Bet A.; Biagioni E.; Biondo A.; Bonenti C.; Bottino N.; Brazzi L.; Buquicchio I.; Busani S.; Calini A.; Calligaro P.; Cantatore L.P.; Carelli S.; Carsetti A.; Cavallini S.; Cimicchi G.; Coppadoro A.; Dall'Ara L.; Di Gravio V.; Erba M.; Evasi G.; Facchini A.; Fanelli V.; Feliciotti G.; Fusarini C.F.; Ferraro G.; Gagliardi G.; Garberi R.; Gay H.; Giacche L.; Grieco D.; Guzzardella A.; Longhini F.; Manzan A.; Maraggia D.; Milani A.; Mischi A.; Montalto C.; Mormina S.; Noseda V.; Paleari C.; Pedeferri M.; Pezzi A.; Pizzilli G.; Pozzi M.; Properzi P.; Rauseo M.; Russotto V.; Saccarelli L.; Servillo G.; Spano S.; Tagliabue P.; Tonetti T.; Tullo L.; Vetrugno L.; Vivona L.; Volta C.A.; Zambelli V.; Zanoni A.Zanella, A.; Florio, G.; Antonelli, M.; Bellani, G.; Berselli, A.; Bove, T.; Cabrini, L.; Carlesso, E.; Castelli, G. P.; Cecconi, M.; Citerio, G.; Coloretti, I.; Corti, D.; Dalla Corte, F.; De Robertis, E.; Foti, G.; Fumagalli, R.; Girardis, M.; Giudici, R.; Guiotto, L.; Langer, T.; Mirabella, L.; Pasero, D.; Protti, A.; Ranieri, M. V.; Rona, R.; Scudeller, L.; Severgnini, P.; Spadaro, S.; Stocchetti, N.; Vigano, M.; Pesenti, A.; Grasselli, G.; Aspesi, M.; Baccanelli, F.; Bassi, F.; Bet, A.; Biagioni, E.; Biondo, A.; Bonenti, C.; Bottino, N.; Brazzi, L.; Buquicchio, I.; Busani, S.; Calini, A.; Calligaro, P.; Cantatore, L. P.; Carelli, S.; Carsetti, A.; Cavallini, S.; Cimicchi, G.; Coppadoro, A.; Dall'Ara, L.; Di Gravio, V.; Erba, M.; Evasi, G.; Facchini, A.; Fanelli, V.; Feliciotti, G.; Fusarini, C. F.; Ferraro, G.; Gagliardi, G.; Garberi, R.; Gay, H.; Giacche, L.; Grieco, D.; Guzzardella, A.; Longhini, F.; Manzan, A.; Maraggia, D.; Milani, A.; Mischi, A.; Montalto, C.; Mormina, S.; Noseda, V.; Paleari, C.; Pedeferri, M.; Pezzi, A.; Pizzilli, G.; Pozzi, M.; Properzi, P.; Rauseo, M.; Russotto, V.; Saccarelli, L.; Servillo, G.; Spano, S.; Tagliabue, P.; Tonetti, T.; Tullo, L.; Vetrugno, L.; Vivona, L.; Volta, C. A.; Zambelli, V.; Zanoni, A

Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) with Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H2O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with Spo2 ≤92% for >1 minute). Results: Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P =.23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, -8.6% [95% CI, -11.1% to 6.1%]; P <.001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02148692

Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial (vol 321, pg 2292, 2019)

status: publishe

Effect of intraoperative high Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) with recruitment maneuvers vs low PEEP on postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients : a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a higher level of PEEP with alveolar recruitment maneuvers decreases postoperative pulmonary complications in obese patients undergoing surgery compared with a lower level of PEEP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized clinical trial of 2013 adults with body mass indices of 35 or greater and substantial risk for postoperative pulmonary complications who were undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery under general anesthesia. The trial was conducted at 77 sites in 23 countries from July 2014-February 2018; final follow-up: May 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to the high level of PEEP group (n = 989), consisting of a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O with alveolar recruitment maneuvers (a stepwise increase of tidal volume and eventually PEEP) or to the low level of PEEP group (n = 987), consisting of a PEEP level of 4 cm H2O. All patients received volume-controlled ventilation with a tidal volume of 7 mL/kg of predicted body weight. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomewas a composite of pulmonary complications within the first 5 postoperative days, including respiratory failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, bronchospasm, new pulmonary infiltrates, pulmonary infection, aspiration pneumonitis, pleural effusion, atelectasis, cardiopulmonary edema, and pneumothorax. Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were intraoperative complications, including hypoxemia (oxygen desaturation with SpO(2) 1 minute). RESULTS Among 2013 adults who were randomized, 1976 (98.2%) completed the trial (mean age, 48.8 years; 1381 [69.9%] women; 1778 [90.1%] underwent abdominal operations). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 211 of 989 patients (21.3%) in the high level of PEEP group compared with 233 of 987 patients (23.6%) in the low level of PEEP group (difference, -2.3%[95% CI, -5.9% to 1.4%]; risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04]; P =.23). Among the 9 prespecified secondary outcomes, 6 were not significantly different between the high and low level of PEEP groups, and 3 were significantly different, including fewer patients with hypoxemia (5.0% in the high level of PEEP group vs 13.6% in the low level of PEEP group; difference, -8.6%[95% CI, -11.1% to 6.1%]; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among obese patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, an intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategy with a higher level of PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers, compared with a strategy with a lower level of PEEP, did not reduce postoperative pulmonary complications

Effect of Intraoperative High Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With Recruitment Maneuvers vs Low PEEP on Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Obese Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE An intraoperative higher level of positive end-expiratory positive pressure (PEEP) with alveolar recruitment maneuvers improves respiratory function in obese patients undergoing surgery, but the effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain