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

Subphenotypes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with high-flow oxygen

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) subphenotypes differ in outcomes and treatment responses. Subphenotypes in high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO)-treated ARDS patients have not been investigated. Objectives: To identify biological subphenotypes in HFNO-treated ARDS patients. Methods: Secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter observational study including ARDS patients supported with HFNO. Plasma inflammation markers (interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, and IL-33 and soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 [sST2]) and lung epithelial (receptor for advanced glycation end products [RAGE] and surfactant protein D [SP-D]) and endothelial (angiopoietin-2 [Ang-2]) injury were measured. These biomarkers and bicarbonate were used in K-means cluster analysis to identify subphenotypes. Logistic regression was performed on biomarker combinations to predict clustering. We chose the model with the best AUROC and the lowest number of variables. This model was used to describe the HAIS (High-flow ARDS Inflammatory Subphenotype) score. Results: Among 41 HFNO patients, two subphenotypes were identified. Hyperinflammatory subphenotype (n = 17) showed higher biomarker levels than hypoinflammatory (n = 24). Despite similar baseline characteristics, the hyperinflammatory subphenotype had higher 60-day mortality (47 vs 8.3% p = 0.014) and longer ICU length of stay (22.0 days [18.0-30.0] vs 39.5 [25.5-60.0], p = 0.034). The HAIS score, based on IL-8 and sST2, accurately distinguished subphenotypes (AUROC 0.96 [95%CI: 0.90-1.00]). A HAIS score ≥ 7.45 was predictor of hyperinflammatory subphenotype. Conclusion: ARDS patients treated with HFNO exhibit two biological subphenotypes that have similar clinical characteristics, but hyperinflammatory patients have worse outcomes. The HAIS score may identify patients with hyperinflammatory subphenotype and might be used for enrichment strategies in future clinical trials