Comparison of Mechanical Power During Adaptive Support Ventilation Versus Nonautomated Pressure-Controlled Ventilation-A Pilot Study

Objectives: The aim of this pilot study was to compare the amount of "mechanical power of ventilation" under adaptive support ventilation with nonautomated pressure-controlled ventilation. Design: Single-center, observational prospective pilot study adjoining unitwide implementation of adaptive support ventilation in our department. Setting: The ICU of a nonacademic teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Patients: Twenty-four passive invasively ventilated critically ill patients expected to need of invasive ventilation beyond the following calendar day. Measurements and Main Results: In patients under adaptive support ventilation, only positive end-expiratory pressure and Fio2 were set by the caregivers-all other ventilator settings were under control of the ventilator; in patients under pressure-controlled ventilation, maximum airway pressure (Pmax), positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, and respiratory rate were set by the caregivers. Mechanical power of ventilation was calculated three times per day. Compared with pressure-controlled ventilation, mechanical power of ventilation with adaptive support ventilation was lower (15.1 [10.5-25.7] vs 22.9 [18.7-28.8] J/min; p = 0.04). Tidal volume was not different, but Pmax (p = 0.012) and respiratory rate (p = 0.012) were lower with adaptive support ventilation. Conclusions: This study suggests adaptive support ventilation may have benefits compared with pressure-controlled ventilation with respect to the mechanical power of ventilation transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system in passive invasively ventilated critically ill patients. The difference in mechanical power of ventilation is not a result of a difference in tidal volume, but the reduction in applied pressures and respiratory rate. The findings of this observational pilot study need to be confirmed in a larger, preferably randomized clinical trial

Effect of intellivent‐asv versus conventional ventilation on ventilation intensity in patients with covid‐19 ards— an observational study

Driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) are associated with outcomes in critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). INTELLiVENT‐ASV, a fully automated ventilatory mode, controls the settings that affect ΔP and MP. This study compared the intensity of ventilation (ΔP and MP) with INTELLiVENT‐ASV versus conventional ventilation in a cohort of COVID‐19 ARDS patients in two intensive care units in the Netherlands. The coprimary endpoints were ΔP and MP before and after converting from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT‐ASV. Compared to conventional ventilation, INTELLiVENT‐ASV delivered ventilation with a lower ΔP and less MP. With conventional ventilation, ΔP was 13 cmH2O, and MP was 21.5 and 24.8 J/min, whereas with INTELLiVENT‐ASV, ΔP was 11 and 10 cmH2O (mean difference –2 cm H2O (95 %CI –2.5 to –1.2 cm H2O), p < 0.001) and MP was 18.8 and 17.5 J/min (mean difference –7.3 J/Min (95% CI –8.8 to –5.8 J/min), p < 0.001). Conversion from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT‐ASV resulted in a lower intensity of ventilation. These findings may favor the use of INTELLiVENT‐ASV in COVID‐19 ARDS patients, but future studies remain needed to see if the reduction in the intensity of ventilation translates into clinical benefits

Effectiveness, safety and efficacy of INTELLiVENT–adaptive support ventilation, a closed–loop ventilation mode for use in ICU patients–a systematic review

Introduction: INTELLiVENT–Adaptive Support Ventilation (INTELLiVENT–ASV), an advanced closed–loop ventilation mode for use in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, is equipped with algorithms that automatically adjust settings on the basis of physiologic signals and patient’s activity. Here we describe its effectiveness, safety, and efficacy in various types of ICU patients. Areas covered: A systematic search conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and in Google Scholar identified 10 randomized clinical trials. Expert opinion: Studies suggest INTELLiVENT–ASV to be an effective automated mode with regard to the titrations of tidal volume, airway pressure, and oxygen. INTELLiVENT–ASV is as safe as conventional modes. However, thus far studies have not shown INTELLiVENT–ASV to be superior to conventional modes with regard to duration of ventilation and other patient–centered outcomes. Future studies are needed to test its efficacy

Effect of Automated Closed-loop ventilation versus convenTional VEntilation on duration and quality of ventilation in critically ill patients (ACTiVE) – study protocol of a randomized clinical trial

Background INTELLiVENT–Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a fully automated closed-loop mode of ventilation for use in critically ill patients. Evidence for benefit of INTELLiVENT–ASV in comparison to ventilation that is not fully automated with regard to duration of ventilation and quality of breathing is largely lacking. We test the hypothesis that INTELLiVENT–ASV shortens time spent on a ventilator and improves the quality of breathing. Methods The “Effects of Automated Closed–loop VenTilation versus Conventional Ventilation on Duration and Quality of Ventilation” (ACTiVE) study is an international, multicenter, two-group randomized clinical superiority trial. In total, 1200 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with an anticipated duration of ventilation of > 24 h will be randomly assigned to one of the two ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged 18 years or older at start of invasive ventilation in the ICU. Patients either receive automated ventilation by means of INTELLiVENT–ASV, or ventilation that is not automated by means of a conventional ventilation mode. The primary endpoint is the number of days free from ventilation and alive at day 28; secondary endpoints are quality of breathing using granular breath-by-breath analysis of ventilation parameters and variables in a time frame of 24 h early after the start of invasive ventilation, duration of ventilation in survivors, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mortality rates in the ICU and hospital, and at 28 and 90 days. Discussion ACTiVE is one of the first randomized clinical trials that is adequately powered to compare the effects of automated closed-loop ventilation versus conventional ventilation on duration of ventilation and quality of breathing in invasively ventilated critically ill patients. The results of ACTiVE will support intensivist in their choices regarding the use of automated ventilation. Trial registration ACTiVE is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier: NCT04593810) on 20 October 2020

Awake proning as an adjunctive therapy for refractory hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: Guidance from an international group of healthcare workers

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6–12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs

Awake Proning as an Adjunctive Therapy for Refractory Hypoxemia in Non-Intubated Patients with COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: Guidance from an International Group of Healthcare Workers

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6–12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs

Awake Proning as an Adjunctive Therapy for Refractory Hypoxemia in Non-Intubated Patients with COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: Guidance from an International Group of Healthcare Workers

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. Agrowing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6-12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs

Awake proning as an adjunctive therapy for refractory hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: Guidance from an international group of healthcare workers

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. Agrowing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6-12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs

Prognostication using SpO(2)/FiO(2) in invasively ventilated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19-Insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study

Background: The SpO(2)/FiO(2) is a useful oxygenation parameter with prognostic capacity in patients with ARDS. We investigated the prognostic capacity of SpO(2)/FiO(2) for mortality in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19.Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of a national multicenter cohort study in invasively ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality.Results: In 869 invasively ventilated patients, 28-day mortality was 30.1%. The SpO(2)/FiO(2) on day 1 had no prognostic value. The SpO(2)/FiO(2) on day 2 and day 3 had prognostic capacity for death, with the best cut-offs being 179 and 199, respectively. Both SpO(2)/FiO(2) on day 2 (OR, 0.66 [95%-CI 0.46-0.96]) and on day 3 (OR, 0.70 [95%-CI 0.51-0.96]) were associated with 28-day mortality in a model corrected for age, pH, lactate levels and kidney dysfunction (AUROC 0.78 [0.76-0.79]). The measured PaO2/FiO(2) and the PaO2/FiO(2) calculated from SpO(2)/FiO(2) were strongly correlated (Spearman's r = 0.79).Conclusions: In this cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, the SpO(2)/FiO(2) on day 2 and day 3 are independently associated with and have prognostic capacity for 28-day mortality. The SpO(2)/FiO(2) is a useful metric for risk stratification in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc