Sigh in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome: the PROTECTION pilot randomized clinical trial

Background: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment manoeuvre: previous physiological studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity and increase release of surfactant. Research question: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? Study design and methods: We conducted a multi-center non-inferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the No Sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the Sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase of airway pressure to 30 cmH2Ofor 3 seconds once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary endpoint of the study was feasibility, assessed as non-inferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiological parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality and ventilator-free days. Results: Two-hundred fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the Sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs. 30% in the No Sigh group (absolute difference -7%, 95%CI -18% to 4%; p=0.015 for non-inferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs. 13% in Sigh vs. No Sigh (p=0.852). Oxygenation was improved while tidal volume, respiratory rate and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in Sigh vs. No Sigh. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs. 21%, p=0.342) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs. 22 [3-25] days, p=0.300) for Sigh vs. No Sigh. Interpretation: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk

Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow oxygen therapy for severe community-acquired pneumonia

Purpose of review: We review the evidence on the use of noninvasive respiratory supports (noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy) in patients with acute respiratory failure because of severe community-acquired pneumonia. Recent findings: Noninvasive ventilation is strongly advised for the treatment of hypercapnic respiratory failure and recent evidence justifies its use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure when delivered by helmet. Indeed, such interface allows alveolar recruitment by providing high level of positive end-expiratory pressure, which improves hypoxemia. On the other hand, high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy is effective in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and some articles support its use in patients with hypercapnia. However, early identification of noninvasive respiratory supports treatment failure is crucial to prevent delayed orotracheal intubation and protective invasive mechanical ventilation. Summary: Noninvasive ventilation is the first-line therapy in patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure because of pneumonia. Although an increasing amount of evidence investigated the application of noninvasive respiratory support to hypoxemic respiratory failure, the optimal ventilatory strategy in this setting is uncertain. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation delivered by helmet and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy appear as promising tools but their role needs to be confirmed by future research

Non-invasive ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, including COVID-19

Optimal initial non-invasive management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), of both coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and non-COVID-19 etiologies, has been the subject of significant discussion. Avoidance of endotracheal intubation reduces related complications, but maintenance of spontaneous breathing with intense respiratory effort may increase risks of patients’ self-inflicted lung injury, leading to delayed intubation and worse clinical outcomes. High-flow nasal oxygen is currently recommended as the optimal strategy for AHRF management for its simplicity and beneficial physiological effects. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV), delivered as either pressure support or continuous positive airway pressure via interfaces like face masks and helmets, can improve oxygenation and may be associated with reduced endotracheal intubation rates. However, treatment failure is common and associated with poor outcomes. Expertise and knowledge of the specific features of each interface are necessary to fully exploit their potential benefits and minimize risks. Strict clinical and physiological monitoring is necessary during any treatment to avoid delays in endotracheal intubation and protective ventilation. In this narrative review, we analyze the physiological benefits and risks of spontaneous breathing in AHRF, and the characteristics of tools for delivering NIV. The goal herein is to provide a contemporary, evidence-based overview of this highly relevant topic

Physiological effects of awake prone position in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure

Abstract Background The effects of awake prone position on the breathing pattern of hypoxemic patients need to be better understood. We conducted a crossover trial to assess the physiological effects of awake prone position in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods Fifteen patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and PaO2/FiO2  0.99) and ΔP L (9 [7–11] cmH2O vs. 8 [5–9], p = 0.17). Airway resistance and time constant were higher in prone vs. supine position (9 cmH2O s arbitrary units−3 [4–11] vs. 6 [4–9], p = 0.05; 0.53 s [0.32–61] vs. 0.40 [0.37–0.44], p = 0.03). Prone position increased EELI (3887 arbitrary units [3414–8547] vs. 1456 [959–2420], p = 0.002) and promoted V T distribution towards dorsal lung regions without affecting V T size and lung compliance: this generated lower dynamic strain (0.21 [0.16–0.24] vs. 0.38 [0.30–0.49], p = 0.004). The magnitude of pendelluft phenomenon was not different between study phases (55% [7–57] of V T in prone vs. 31% [14–55] in supine position, p > 0.99). Conclusions Prone position improves oxygenation, increases EELI and promotes V T distribution towards dependent lung regions without affecting V T size, ΔP L, lung compliance and pendelluft magnitude. Prone position reduces respiratory rate and increases ΔP ES because of positional increases in airway resistance and prolonged expiratory time. Because high ΔP ES is the main mechanistic determinant of self-inflicted lung injury, caution may be needed in using awake prone position in patients exhibiting intense ΔP ES. Clinical trail registeration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03095300) on March 29, 2017

Respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure compared to ARDS of other etiologies

Abstract Background Whether respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure is different from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is unclear. We conducted a single-center study to describe respiratory mechanics and response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in COVID-19 ARDS and to compare COVID-19 patients to matched-control subjects with ARDS from other causes. Methods Thirty consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Rome, Italy, and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were enrolled within 24 h from endotracheal intubation. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and ventilatory ratio were measured at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O. A single-breath derecruitment maneuver was performed to assess recruitability. After 1:1 matching based on PaO2/FiO2, FiO2, PEEP, and tidal volume, COVID-19 patients were compared to subjects affected by ARDS of other etiologies who underwent the same procedures in a previous study. Results Thirty COVID-19 patients were successfully matched with 30 ARDS from other etiologies. At low PEEP, median [25th–75th percentiles] PaO2/FiO2 in the two groups was 119 mmHg [101–142] and 116 mmHg [87–154]. Average compliance (41 ml/cmH2O [32–52] vs. 36 ml/cmH2O [27–42], p = 0.045) and ventilatory ratio (2.1 [1.7–2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.4–2.1], p = 0.032) were slightly higher in COVID-19 patients. Inter-individual variability (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of compliance was 36% in COVID-19 patients and 31% in other ARDS. In COVID-19 patients, PaO2/FiO2 was linearly correlated with respiratory system compliance (r = 0.52 p = 0.003). High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 in both cohorts, but more remarkably in COVID-19 patients (p = 0.005). Recruitability was not different between cohorts (p = 0.39) and was highly inter-individually variable (72% in COVID-19 patients and 64% in ARDS from other causes). In COVID-19 patients, recruitability was independent from oxygenation and respiratory mechanics changes due to PEEP. Conclusions Early after establishment of mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 patients follow ARDS physiology, with compliance reduction related to the degree of hypoxemia, and inter-individually variable respiratory mechanics and recruitability. Physiological differences between ARDS from COVID-19 and other causes appear small

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen for Severe Hypoxemia: Oxygenation Response and Outcome in Patients with COVID-19

Rationale: The "Berlin definition" of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles have proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. Objectives: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods: From previously published studies, we analyzed patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who had PaO2/FiO2 of ⩽300 while treated with ⩾40 L/min HFNO, or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with positive end-expiratory pressure of ⩾5 cm H2O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV versus patients transitioned to IMV. Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. A total of 112 HFNO and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. Of those, 104 (92.9%) patients on HFNO and 66 (95.7%) on NIV continued to have PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 under IMV. Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72), whereas in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV, it was 28.6% (32/112) (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), whereas in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV, it was 44.9% (31/69) (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (P = 0.2479). Conclusions: Broadening the ARDS definition to include patients on HFNO with PaO2/FiO2 ⩽300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality

Individualized positive end-expiratory pressure guided by end-expiratory lung volume in early acute respiratory distress syndrome: study protocol for the multicenter, randomized IPERPEEP trial

Background: In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is variable according to different degrees of lung recruitability. The search for a tool to individualize PEEP based on patients' individual response is warranted. End-expiratory lung volume (EELV) assessment by nitrogen washing-washout aids bedside estimation of PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment and may therefore help titrate PEEP on patient's individual recruitability. We designed a randomized trial to test whether an individualized PEEP setting protocol driven by EELV measurement may improve a composite clinical outcome in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS (IPERPEEP trial). Methods: IPERPEEP is an open-label, multicenter, randomized trial that will be conducted in 10 intensive care units in Italy and will enroll 132 ARDS patients showing PaO2/FiO2 ratio ≤ 150 mmHg within 24 h from endotracheal intubation while on mechanical ventilation with PEEP 5 cmH2O. To standardize lung volumes at study initiation, all patients will undergo mechanical ventilation with tidal volume of 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight and PEEP set to obtain a plateau pressure within 28 and 30 cmH2O for 30 min (EXPRESS PEEP). Afterwards, a 5-step decremental PEEP trial will be conducted (EXPRESS PEEP to PEEP 5 cmH2O), and EELV will be measured at each step. Recruitment-to-inflation ratio will be calculated for each PEEP range from EELV difference. Patients will be then randomized to receive mechanical ventilation with PEEP set according to the optimal recruitment observed in the PEEP trial (IPERPEEP arm) trial or to achieve a plateau pressure of 28-30 cmH2O (control arm, EXPRESS strategy). In both groups, tidal volume size, use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blocking agents, and weaning from PEEP and from mechanical ventilation will be standardized. The primary endpoint of the study is a composite clinical outcome incorporating in-ICU mortality, 60-day ventilator-free days, and serum interleukin-6 concentration over the course of the initial 72 h of treatment. Discussion: The IPERPEEP study is a randomized trial powered to elucidate whether an individualized PEEP setting protocol based on bedside assessment of lung recruitability can improve a composite clinical outcome during moderate-to-severe ARDS. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04012073 . Registered 9 July 2019

Long-term outcome of COVID-19 patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation vs. high-flow nasal oxygen: a randomized trial

Abstract Background Long-term outcomes of patients treated with helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are unknown: safety concerns regarding the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury and delayed intubation exist when NIV is applied in hypoxemic patients. We assessed the 6-month outcome of patients who received helmet NIV or high-flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure. Methods In this prespecified analysis of a randomized trial of helmet NIV versus high-flow nasal oxygen (HENIVOT), clinical status, physical performance (6-min-walking-test and 30-s chair stand test), respiratory function and quality of life (EuroQoL five dimensions five levels questionnaire, EuroQoL VAS, SF36 and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for the DSM) were evaluated 6 months after the enrollment. Results Among 80 patients who were alive, 71 (89%) completed the follow-up: 35 had received helmet NIV, 36 high-flow oxygen. There was no inter-group difference in any item concerning vital signs (N = 4), physical performance (N = 18), respiratory function (N = 27), quality of life (N = 21) and laboratory tests (N = 15). Arthralgia was significantly lower in the helmet group (16% vs. 55%, p = 0.002). Fifty-two percent of patients in helmet group vs. 63% of patients in high-flow group had diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide < 80% of predicted (p = 0.44); 13% vs. 22% had forced vital capacity < 80% of predicted (p = 0.51). Both groups reported similar degree of pain (p = 0.81) and anxiety (p = 0.81) at the EQ-5D-5L test; the EQ-VAS score was similar in the two groups (p = 0.27). Compared to patients who successfully avoided invasive mechanical ventilation (54/71, 76%), intubated patients (17/71, 24%) had significantly worse pulmonary function (median diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide 66% [Interquartile range: 47–77] of predicted vs. 80% [71–88], p = 0.005) and decreased quality of life (EQ-VAS: 70 [53–70] vs. 80 [70–83], p = 0.01). Conclusions In patients with COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure, treatment with helmet NIV or high-flow oxygen yielded similar quality of life and functional outcome at 6 months. The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with worse outcomes. These data indicate that helmet NIV, as applied in the HENIVOT trial, can be safely used in hypoxemic patients. Trial registration Registered on clinicaltrials.gov NCT04502576 on August 6, 202