Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

BackgroundTo better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1–2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort.ResultsOf the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1–Q3, 7–21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample.ConclusionsMost patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality

Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

BACKGROUND:To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. METHODS:This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1-2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. RESULTS:Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1-Q3, 7-21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. CONCLUSIONS:Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality

Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

Background: To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1-2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. Results: Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1-Q3, 7-21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. Conclusions: Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality

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

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.other authors: Satoru Hashimoto,Daisuke Hasegawa,Junji Hatakeyama,Naoki Hara,Naoki Higashibeppu,Nana Furushima,Hirotaka Furusono,Yujiro Matsuishi,Tasuku Matsuyama,Yusuke Minematsu,Ryoichi Miyashita,Yuji Miyatake,Megumi Moriyasu,Toru Yamada,Hiroyuki Yamada,Ryo Yamamoto,Takeshi Yoshida,Yuhei Yoshida,Jumpei Yoshimura,Ryuichi Yotsumoto,Hiroshi Yonekura,Takeshi Wada,Eizo Watanabe,Makoto Aoki,Hideki Asai,Takakuni Abe,Yutaka Igarashi,Naoya Iguchi,Masami Ishikawa,Go Ishimaru,Shutaro Isokawa,Ryuta Itakura,Hisashi Imahase,Haruki Imura,Takashi Irinoda,Kenji Uehara,Noritaka Ushio,Takeshi Umegaki,Yuko Egawa,Yuki Enomoto,Kohei Ota,Yoshifumi Ohchi,Takanori Ohno,Hiroyuki Ohbe,Kazuyuki Oka,Nobunaga Okada,Yohei Okada,Hiromu Okano,Jun Okamoto,Hiroshi Okuda,Takayuki Ogura,Yu Onodera,Yuhta Oyama,Motoshi Kainuma,Eisuke Kako,Masahiro Kashiura,Hiromi Kato,Akihiro Kanaya,Tadashi Kaneko,Keita Kanehata,Ken-ichi Kano,Hiroyuki Kawano,Kazuya Kikutani,Hitoshi Kikuchi,Takahiro Kido,Sho Kimura,Hiroyuki Koami,Daisuke Kobashi,Iwao Saiki,Masahito Sakai,Ayaka Sakamoto,Tetsuya Sato,Yasuhiro Shiga,Manabu Shimoto,Shinya Shimoyama,Tomohisa Shoko,Yoh Sugawara,Atsunori Sugita,Satoshi Suzuki,Yuji Suzuki,Tomohiro Suhara,Kenji Sonota,Shuhei Takauji,Kohei Takashima,Sho Takahashi,Yoko Takahashi,Jun Takeshita,Yuuki Tanaka,Akihito Tampo,Taichiro Tsunoyama,Kenichi Tetsuhara,Kentaro Tokunaga,Yoshihiro Tomioka,Kentaro Tomita,Naoki Tominaga,Mitsunobu Toyosaki,Yukitoshi Toyoda,Hiromichi Naito,Isao Nagata,Tadashi Nagato,Yoshimi Nakamura,Yuki Nakamori,Isao Nahara,Hiromu Naraba,Chihiro Narita,Norihiro Nishioka,Tomoya Nishimura,Kei Nishiyama,Tomohisa Nomura,Taiki Haga,Yoshihiro Hagiwara,Katsuhiko Hashimoto,Takeshi Hatachi,Toshiaki Hamasaki,Takuya Hayashi,Minoru Hayashi,Atsuki Hayamizu,Go Haraguchi,Yohei Hirano,Ryo Fujii,Motoki Fujita,Naoyuki Fujimura,Hiraku Funakoshi,Masahito Horiguchi,Jun Maki,Naohisa Masunaga,Yosuke Matsumura,Takuya Mayumi,Keisuke Minami,Yuya Miyazaki,Kazuyuki Miyamoto,Teppei Murata,Machi Yanai,Takao Yano,Kohei Yamada,Naoki Yamada,Tomonori Yamamoto,Shodai Yoshihiro,Hiroshi Tanaka,Osamu NishidaGuideline

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.other authors: Yasuhiro Norisue, Satoru Hashimoto, Daisuke Hasegawa, Junji Hatakeyama, Naoki Hara, Naoki Higashibeppu, Nana Furushima, Hirotaka Furusono, Yujiro Matsuishi, Tasuku Matsuyama, Yusuke Minematsu, Ryoichi Miyashita, Yuji Miyatake, Megumi Moriyasu, Toru Yamada, Hiroyuki Yamada, Ryo Yamamoto, Takeshi Yoshida, Yuhei Yoshida, Jumpei Yoshimura, Ryuichi Yotsumoto, Hiroshi Yonekura, Takeshi Wada, Eizo Watanabe, Makoto Aoki, Hideki Asai, Takakuni Abe, Yutaka Igarashi, Naoya Iguchi, Masami Ishikawa, Go Ishimaru, Shutaro Isokawa, Ryuta Itakura, Hisashi Imahase, Haruki Imura, Takashi Irinoda, Kenji Uehara, Noritaka Ushio, Takeshi Umegaki, Yuko Egawa, Yuki Enomoto, Kohei Ota, Yoshifumi Ohchi, Takanori Ohno, Hiroyuki Ohbe, Kazuyuki Oka, Nobunaga Okada, Yohei Okada, Hiromu Okano, Jun Okamoto, Hiroshi Okuda, Takayuki Ogura, Yu Onodera, Yuhta Oyama, Motoshi Kainuma, Eisuke Kako, Masahiro Kashiura, Hiromi Kato, Akihiro Kanaya, Tadashi Kaneko, Keita Kanehata, Ken-ichi Kano, Hiroyuki Kawano, Kazuya Kikutani, Hitoshi Kikuchi, Takahiro Kido, Sho Kimura, Hiroyuki Koami, Daisuke Kobashi, Iwao Saiki, Masahito Sakai, Ayaka Sakamoto, Tetsuya Sato, Yasuhiro Shiga, Manabu Shimoto, Shinya Shimoyama, Tomohisa Shoko, Yoh Sugawara, Atsunori Sugita, Satoshi Suzuki, Yuji Suzuki, Tomohiro Suhara, Kenji Sonota, Shuhei Takauji, Kohei Takashima, Sho Takahashi, Yoko Takahashi, Jun Takeshita, Yuuki Tanaka, Akihito Tampo, Taichiro Tsunoyama, Kenichi Tetsuhara, Kentaro Tokunaga, Yoshihiro Tomioka, Kentaro Tomita, Naoki Tominaga, Mitsunobu Toyosaki, Yukitoshi Toyoda, Hiromichi Naito, Isao Nagata, Tadashi Nagato, Yoshimi Nakamura, Yuki Nakamori, Isao Nahara, Hiromu Naraba, Chihiro Narita, Norihiro Nishioka, Tomoya Nishimura, Kei Nishiyama, Tomohisa Nomura, Taiki Haga, Yoshihiro Hagiwara, Katsuhiko Hashimoto, Takeshi Hatachi, Toshiaki Hamasaki, Takuya Hayashi, Minoru Hayashi, Atsuki Hayamizu, Go Haraguchi, Yohei Hirano, Ryo Fujii, Motoki Fujita, Naoyuki Fujimura, Hiraku Funakoshi, Masahito Horiguchi, Jun Maki, Naohisa Masunaga, Yosuke Matsumura, Takuya Mayumi, Keisuke Minami, Yuya Miyazaki, Kazuyuki Miyamoto, Teppei Murata, Machi Yanai, Takao Yano, Kohei Yamada, Naoki Yamada, Tomonori Yamamoto, Shodai Yoshihiro, Hiroshi Tanaka & Osamu Nishid

Epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in ICUs across 50 countries

Background: To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1-2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. Results: Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1-Q3, 7-21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. Conclusions: Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073. Registered on 12 December 2013