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 impact of eszopiclone on sleep and cognition in patients with schizophrenia and insomnia: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundInsomnia is frequent in schizophrenia and may contribute to cognitive impairment as well as overuse of weight inducing sedative antipsychotics. We investigated the effects of eszopiclone on sleep and cognition for patients with schizophrenia-related insomnia in a double-blind placebo controlled study, followed by a two-week, single-blind placebo phase.MethodsThirty-nine clinically stable outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and insomnia were randomized to either 3mg eszopiclone (n=20) or placebo (n=19). Primary outcome measure was change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) over 8 weeks. Secondary outcome measure was change in MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MATRICS). Sleep diaries, psychiatric symptoms, and quality of life were also monitored.ResultsISI significantly improved more in eszopiclone (mean=-10.7, 95% CI=-13.2; -8.2) than in placebo (mean=-6.9, 95% CI=-9.5; -4.3) with a between-group difference of -3.8 (95% CI=-7.5; -0.2). MATRICS score change did not differ between groups. On further analysis there was a significant improvement in the working memory test, letter-number span component of MATRICS (mean=9.8±9.2, z=-2.00, p=0.045) only for subjects with schizophrenia on eszopiclone. There were improvements in sleep diary items in both groups with no between-group differences. Psychiatric symptoms remained stable. Discontinuation rates were similar. Sleep remained improved during single-blind placebo phase after eszopiclone was stopped, but the working memory improvement in patients with schizophrenia was not durable.ConclusionsEszopiclone stands as a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of insomnia in patients with schizophrenia. Its effects on cognition require further study

The impact of eszopiclone on sleep and cognition in patients with schizophrenia and insomnia: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundInsomnia is frequent in schizophrenia and may contribute to cognitive impairment as well as overuse of weight inducing sedative antipsychotics. We investigated the effects of eszopiclone on sleep and cognition for patients with schizophrenia-related insomnia in a double-blind placebo controlled study, followed by a two-week, single-blind placebo phase.MethodsThirty-nine clinically stable outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and insomnia were randomized to either 3mg eszopiclone (n=20) or placebo (n=19). Primary outcome measure was change in Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) over 8 weeks. Secondary outcome measure was change in MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MATRICS). Sleep diaries, psychiatric symptoms, and quality of life were also monitored.ResultsISI significantly improved more in eszopiclone (mean=-10.7, 95% CI=-13.2; -8.2) than in placebo (mean=-6.9, 95% CI=-9.5; -4.3) with a between-group difference of -3.8 (95% CI=-7.5; -0.2). MATRICS score change did not differ between groups. On further analysis there was a significant improvement in the working memory test, letter-number span component of MATRICS (mean=9.8±9.2, z=-2.00, p=0.045) only for subjects with schizophrenia on eszopiclone. There were improvements in sleep diary items in both groups with no between-group differences. Psychiatric symptoms remained stable. Discontinuation rates were similar. Sleep remained improved during single-blind placebo phase after eszopiclone was stopped, but the working memory improvement in patients with schizophrenia was not durable.ConclusionsEszopiclone stands as a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of insomnia in patients with schizophrenia. Its effects on cognition require further study

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

Background: 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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

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