Lung Recruitment Assessed by Electrical Impedance Tomography (RECRUIT):A Multicenter Study of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Rationale: Defining lung recruitability is needed for safe positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection in mechanically ventilated patients. However, there is no simple bedside method including both assessment of recruitability and risks of overdistension as well as personalized PEEP titration. Objectives: To describe the range of recruitability using electrical impedance tomography (EIT), effects of PEEP on recruitability, respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, and a method to select optimal EIT-based PEEP. Methods: This is the analysis of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from an ongoing multicenter prospective physiological study including patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome of different causes. EIT, ventilator data, hemodynamics, and arterial blood gases were obtained during PEEP titration maneuvers. EIT-based optimal PEEP was defined as the crossing point of the overdistension and collapse curves during a decremental PEEP trial. Recruitability was defined as the amount of modifiable collapse when increasing PEEP from 6 to 24 cm H2O (DCollapse24–6). Patients were classified as low, medium, or high recruiters on the basis of tertiles of DCollapse24–6. Measurements and Main Results: In 108 patients with COVID-19, recruitability varied from 0.3% to 66.9% and was unrelated to acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. Median EIT-based PEEP differed between groups: 10 versus 13.5 versus 15.5 cm H2O for low versus medium versus high recruitability (P, 0.05). This approach assigned a different PEEP level from the highest compliance approach in 81% of patients. The protocol was well tolerated; in four patients, the PEEP level did not reach 24 cm H2O because of hemodynamic instability. Conclusions: Recruitability varies widely among patients with COVID-19. EIT allows personalizing PEEP setting as a compromise between recruitability and overdistension.</p

Lung- and diaphragm-protective strategies in acute respiratory failure: an in silico trial.

BACKGROUND: Lung- and diaphragm-protective (LDP) ventilation may prevent diaphragm atrophy and patient self-inflicted lung injury in acute respiratory failure, but feasibility is uncertain. The objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of patients achieving LDP targets in different modes of ventilation, and to identify predictors of need for extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to achieve LDP targets. METHODS: An in silico clinical trial was conducted using a previously published mathematical model of patient-ventilator interaction in a simulated patient population (n = 5000) with clinically relevant physiological characteristics. Ventilation and sedation were titrated according to a pre-defined algorithm in pressure support ventilation (PSV) and proportional assist ventilation (PAV+) modes, with or without adjunctive ECCO2R, and using ECCO2R alone (without ventilation or sedation). Random forest modelling was employed to identify patient-level factors associated with achieving targets. RESULTS: After titration, the proportion of patients achieving targets was lower in PAV+ vs. PSV (37% vs. 43%, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.85). Adjunctive ECCO2R substantially increased the probability of achieving targets in both PSV and PAV+ (85% vs. 84%). ECCO2R alone without ventilation or sedation achieved LDP targets in 9%. The main determinants of success without ECCO2R were lung compliance, ventilatory ratio, and strong ion difference. In silico trial results corresponded closely with the results obtained in a clinical trial of the LDP titration algorithm (n = 30). CONCLUSIONS: In this in silico trial, many patients required ECCO2R in combination with mechanical ventilation and sedation to achieve LDP targets. ECCO2R increased the probability of achieving LDP targets in patients with intermediate degrees of derangement in elastance and ventilatory ratio

Lung- and diaphragm-protective strategies in acute respiratory failure: an in silico trial

Abstract Background Lung- and diaphragm-protective (LDP) ventilation may prevent diaphragm atrophy and patient self-inflicted lung injury in acute respiratory failure, but feasibility is uncertain. The objectives of this study were to estimate the proportion of patients achieving LDP targets in different modes of ventilation, and to identify predictors of need for extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to achieve LDP targets. Methods An in silico clinical trial was conducted using a previously published mathematical model of patient–ventilator interaction in a simulated patient population (n = 5000) with clinically relevant physiological characteristics. Ventilation and sedation were titrated according to a pre-defined algorithm in pressure support ventilation (PSV) and proportional assist ventilation (PAV+) modes, with or without adjunctive ECCO2R, and using ECCO2R alone (without ventilation or sedation). Random forest modelling was employed to identify patient-level factors associated with achieving targets. Results After titration, the proportion of patients achieving targets was lower in PAV+ vs. PSV (37% vs. 43%, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.73–0.85). Adjunctive ECCO2R substantially increased the probability of achieving targets in both PSV and PAV+ (85% vs. 84%). ECCO2R alone without ventilation or sedation achieved LDP targets in 9%. The main determinants of success without ECCO2R were lung compliance, ventilatory ratio, and strong ion difference. In silico trial results corresponded closely with the results obtained in a clinical trial of the LDP titration algorithm (n = 30). Conclusions In this in silico trial, many patients required ECCO2R in combination with mechanical ventilation and sedation to achieve LDP targets. ECCO2R increased the probability of achieving LDP targets in patients with intermediate degrees of derangement in elastance and ventilatory ratio

Clinical strategies for implementing lung and diaphragm-protective ventilation: avoiding insufficient and excessive effort

International audienceMechanical ventilation may have adverse effects on both the lung and the diaphragm. Injury to the lung is mediated by excessive mechanical stress and strain, whereas the diaphragm develops atrophy as a consequence of low respiratory effort and injury in case of excessive effort. The lung and diaphragm-protective mechanical ventilation approach aims to protect both organs simultaneously whenever possible. This review summarizes practical strategies for achieving lung and diaphragm-protective targets at the bedside, focusing on inspiratory and expiratory ventilator settings, monitoring of inspiratory effort or respiratory drive, management of dyssynchrony, and sedation considerations. A number of potential future adjunctive strategies including extracorporeal CO2 removal, partial neuromuscular blockade, and neuromuscular stimulation are also discussed. While clinical trials to confirm the benefit of these approaches are awaited, clinicians should become familiar with assessing and managing patients' respiratory effort, based on existing physiological principles. To protect the lung and the diaphragm, ventilation and sedation might be applied to avoid excessively weak or very strong respiratory efforts and patient-ventilator dysynchrony

Clinical strategies for implementing lung and diaphragm-protective ventilation: avoiding insufficient and excessive effort

International audienc

Association of different positive end-expiratory pressure selection strategies with all-cause mortality in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Abstract Background The acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has high morbidity and mortality. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is commonly used in patients with ARDS but the best method to select the optimal PEEP level and reduce all-cause mortality is unclear. The primary objective of this network meta-analysis is to summarize the available evidence and to compare the effect of different PEEP selection strategies on all-cause mortality in adult patients with ARDS. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception onwards for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of PEEP selection strategies in adult patients with moderate to severe ARDS. We will exclude studies that did not use a lung-protective ventilation approach as part of the comparator or intervention strategy. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality (at the longest available follow-up and up to 90 days). Secondary outcomes will include barotrauma, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and changes in oxygenation. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract study-data. We will assess the risk of bias for each of the outcomes using version 2 of the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials. If feasible, Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to obtain pooled estimates of all potential head-to-head comparisons. We will report pairwise and network meta-analysis treatment effect estimates as risk ratios and risk differences, together with the associated 95% credible intervals. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using GRADE methodology. Discussion The present study will inform clinical decision-making for adult patients with ARDS and will improve our understanding of the limitations of the available literature assessing PEEP selection strategies. Finally, this information may also inform the design of future randomized trials, including the selection of interventions, comparators, and predictive enrichment strategies. Trial registration PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020193302

Personalized Ventilation to Multiple Patients Using a Single Ventilator : Description and Proof of Concept

Objectives: To design and test a ventilator circuit that can be used for ventilation of two or more patients with a single ventilator, while allowing individualization of tidal volume, fractional concentration of oxygen, and positive end-expiratory pressure to each patient, irrespective of the other patient’s respiratory system mechanics. Design: Description and proof of concept studies. Settings: Respiratory therapy laboratory. Subjects: Ventilation of mechanical test lungs. Interventions: Following a previously advocated design, we used components readily available in our hospital to assemble two “bag-ina- box” breathing circuits. Each patient circuit consisted of a flexible bag in a rigid container connected via one-way valve to a test lung, along with an inline positive end-expiratory pressure valve, connected to the ventilator’s expiratory limb. Compressed gas fills the bags during “patient” exhalation. During inspiration, gas from the ventilator, in pressure control mode, enters the containers and displaces gas from the bags to the test lungs. We varied tidal volume, “respiratory system” compliance, and positive end-expiratory pressure in one lung and observed the effect on the tidal volume of the other. Measurements and Main Results: We were able to obtain different tidal volume, dynamic driving pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure in the two lungs under widely different compliances in both lungs. Complete obstruction, or disconnection at the circuit connection to one test lung, had minimal effect (< 5% on average) on the ventilation to the co-ventilated lung. Conclusions: A secondary circuit “bag-in-the-box” system enables individualized ventilation of two lungs overcoming many of the concerns of ventilating more than one patient with a single ventilator.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCAnesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearcherPostdoctora

Strategies for lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a physiological trial.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient or excessive respiratory effort during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) increases the risk of lung and diaphragm injury. We sought to establish whether respiratory effort can be optimized to achieve lung- and diaphragm-protective (LDP) targets (esophageal pressure swing - 3 to - 8&nbsp;cm H2O; dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure ≤ 15&nbsp;cm H2O) during AHRF. METHODS: In patients with early AHRF, spontaneous breathing was initiated as soon as passive ventilation was not deemed mandatory. Inspiratory pressure, sedation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and sweep gas flow (in patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO)) were systematically titrated to achieve LDP targets. Additionally, partial neuromuscular blockade (pNMBA) was administered in patients with&nbsp;refractory excessive respiratory effort. RESULTS: Of 30 patients enrolled, most had severe AHRF; 16 required VV-ECMO. Respiratory effort was absent in all at enrolment. After initiating spontaneous breathing, most exhibited high respiratory effort and only 6/30 met LDP targets. After titrating ventilation, sedation, and sweep gas flow, LDP targets were achieved in 20/30. LDP targets were more likely to be achieved in patients on VV-ECMO (median OR 10, 95% CrI 2, 81) and at the PEEP level associated with improved dynamic compliance (median OR 33, 95% CrI 5, 898). Administration of pNMBA to patients with refractory excessive effort was well-tolerated and effectively achieved LDP targets. CONCLUSION: Respiratory effort is frequently absent &nbsp;under deep sedation but becomes excessive when spontaneous breathing is permitted in patients with moderate or severe AHRF. Systematically titrating ventilation and sedation can optimize respiratory effort for lung and diaphragm protection in most patients.&nbsp;VV-ECMO can greatly&nbsp;facilitate the delivery of a LDP strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov in August 2018 (NCT03612583)