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

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 < 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 < 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

Lower limb mechanical properties : determining factors and implications for performance

Limb stiffness or musculotendinous stiffness (MTS) has previously been examined in relation to performance and characterized using a number of different methods. However, the fact that MTS shows only low to moderate correlations to performances may indicate a lack of understanding of this parameter. In addition to this, variation is seen between studies examining the same factors. To date, our understanding of MTS and its components are not complete and thus it is unclear which characteristic value represents the ideal index of stiffness as it relates to performance. Moreover, it is uncertain how MTS stiffness as a functional measure relates to performance, and also if there is an optimal amount of MTS stiffness for specific functions or tasks. The knowledge of the interplay of MTU stiffness as it relates to performance and injury risk is also poorly understood in that there is likely a disparity between levels of stiffness required to optimize performance and those required to minimize injury risk. The aim of this article is to review the literature as it describes the components of MTS and to discuss these in terms of their relationship to functional performance; consider adaptations of the MTU with training along with associated performance changes; highlight and discuss how stiffness may affect loading of the soft and bony tissues in terms of the MTU components and gender, with respect to risk of injury; discuss the apparent differences in the literature regarding associations of the various forms of stiffness index to function; suggest recommendations for training in light of adaptation of the muscle and tendon and injury risk in context of gender; and, finally, to highlight potential limitations of current methodologies and suggest further work to gain insight into the mechanisms of stiffness. It is hoped that by suggesting future work, a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of MTS will be gained, thus enabling appropriate interventions to optimally modify this parameter for specific requirements

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

Altres ajuts: Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR)-Department of Excellence project PREMIA (PREcision MedIcine Approach: bringing biomarker research to clinic); Science Foundation Ireland Future Research Leaders Award; European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), Brussels; St Michael's Hospital, Toronto; University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.Background: 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. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02010073

Resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24&#160;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\ua0h. 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\u20131.13), 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\ua0resolved and confirmed\ua0ARDS, age, non-respiratory SOFA score, lower PEEP and P/F ratio, higher peak pressure and respiratory rate were each\ua0associated with mortality. In confirmed ARDS, pH and the presence of immunosuppression or neoplasm were also associated\ua0with 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. \ua9 2018, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature and ESICM

Mechanical ventilation in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema : a sub-analysis of the LUNG SAFE study

Patients with acute respiratory failure caused by cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) may require mechanical ventilation that can cause further lung damage. Our aim was to determine the impact of ventilatory settings on CPE mortality. Patients from the LUNG SAFE cohort, a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, were studied. Relationships between ventilatory parameters and outcomes (ICU discharge/hospital mortality) were assessed using latent mixture analysis and a marginal structural model. From 4499 patients, 391 meeting CPE criteria (median age 70 [interquartile range 59-78], 40% female) were included. ICU and hospital mortality were 34% and 40%, respectively. ICU survivors were younger (67 [57-77] vs 74 [64-80] years, p < 0.001) and had lower driving (12 [8-16] vs 15 [11-17] cmHO, p < 0.001), plateau (20 [15-23] vs 22 [19-26] cmHO, p < 0.001) and peak (21 [17-27] vs 26 [20-32] cmHO, p < 0.001) pressures. Latent mixture analysis of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation on ICU day 1 revealed a subgroup ventilated with high pressures with lower probability of being discharged alive from the ICU (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.60-1.05], p = 0.103) and increased hospital mortality (HR 1.65 [1.16-2.36], p = 0.005). In a marginal structural model, driving pressures in the first week (HR 1.12 [1.06-1.18], p < 0.001) and tidal volume after day 7 (HR 0.69 [0.52-0.93], p = 0.015) were related to survival. Higher airway pressures in invasively ventilated patients with CPE are related to mortality. These patients may be exposed to an increased risk of ventilator-induced lung injury. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02010073