Guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome.

The Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and Intensive Care Society Guideline Development Group have used GRADE methodology to make the following recommendations for the management of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The British Thoracic Society supports the recommendations in this guideline. Where mechanical ventilation is required, the use of low tidal volumes (<6 ml/kg ideal body weight) and airway pressures (plateau pressure <30 cmH2O) was recommended. For patients with moderate/severe ARDS (PF ratio<20 kPa), prone positioning was recommended for at least 12 hours per day. By contrast, high frequency oscillation was not recommended and it was suggested that inhaled nitric oxide is not used. The use of a conservative fluid management strategy was suggested for all patients, whereas mechanical ventilation with high positive end-expiratory pressure and the use of the neuromuscular blocking agent cisatracurium for 48 hours was suggested for patients with ARDS with ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PF) ratios less than or equal to 27 and 20 kPa, respectively. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was suggested as an adjunct to protective mechanical ventilation for patients with very severe ARDS. In the absence of adequate evidence, research recommendations were made for the use of corticosteroids and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

Background Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27\u201333), representing 0\ub714 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7\ub76 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6\ub77\u20139\ub71] vs 7\ub79 mL/kg PBW [6\ub78\u20139\ub71]; p=0\ub7346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6\ub70 cm H2O [IQR 5\ub70\u20138\ub70] vs 5\ub70 cm H2O [5\ub70\u20137\ub70]; p&lt;0\ub70001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0\ub7004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p&lt;0\ub70001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p&lt;0\ub70001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p&lt;0\ub70001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0\ub7471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0\ub7323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS

Epidemiological characteristics, practice of ventilation, and clinical outcome in patients at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units from 16 countries (PRoVENT): an international, multicentre, prospective study

Background Scant information exists about the epidemiological characteristics and outcome of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and how ventilation is managed in these individuals. We aimed to establish the epidemiological characteristics of patients at risk of ARDS, describe ventilation management in this population, and assess outcomes compared with people at no risk of ARDS. Methods PRoVENT (PRactice of VENTilation in critically ill patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation) is an international, multicentre, prospective study undertaken at 119 ICUs in 16 countries worldwide. All patients aged 18 years or older who were receiving mechanical ventilation in participating ICUs during a 1-week period between January, 2014, and January, 2015, were enrolled into the study. The Lung Injury Prediction Score (LIPS) was used to stratify risk of ARDS, with a score of 4 or higher defining those at risk of ARDS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients at risk of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included ventilatory management (including tidal volume [VT] expressed as mL/kg predicted bodyweight [PBW], and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] expressed as cm H2O), development of pulmonary complications, and clinical outcomes. The PRoVENT study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01868321. The study has been completed. Findings Of 3023 patients screened for the study, 935 individuals fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these critically ill patients, 282 were at risk of ARDS (30%, 95% CI 27–33), representing 0·14 cases per ICU bed over a 1-week period. VT was similar for patients at risk and not at risk of ARDS (median 7·6 mL/kg PBW [IQR 6·7–9·1] vs 7·9 mL/kg PBW [6·8–9·1]; p=0·346). PEEP was higher in patients at risk of ARDS compared with those not at risk (median 6·0 cm H2O [IQR 5·0–8·0] vs 5·0 cm H2O [5·0–7·0]; p&lt;0·0001). The prevalence of ARDS in patients at risk of ARDS was higher than in individuals not at risk of ARDS (19/260 [7%] vs 17/556 [3%]; p=0·004). Compared with individuals not at risk of ARDS, patients at risk of ARDS had higher in-hospital mortality (86/543 [16%] vs 74/232 [32%]; p&lt;0·0001), ICU mortality (62/533 [12%] vs 66/227 [29%]; p&lt;0·0001), and 90-day mortality (109/653 [17%] vs 88/282 [31%]; p&lt;0·0001). VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0·471 for those at risk of ARDS; p=0·323 for those not at risk). Interpretation Around a third of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ICU were at risk of ARDS. Pulmonary complications occur frequently in patients at risk of ARDS and their clinical outcome is worse compared with those not at risk of ARDS. There is potential for improvement in the management of patients without ARDS. Further refinements are needed for prediction of ARDS

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference -1·69 [-9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H2O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52-23·52]; p&lt;0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86]; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status