Mortality associated with early changes in ARDS severity in COVID–19 patients – Insights from the PRoVENT–COVID study

Purpose: We investigated changes in ARDS severity and associations with outcome in COVID–19 ARDS patients. Methods: We compared outcomes in patients with ARDS classified as ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ at calendar day 1, and after reclassification at calendar day 2. The primary endpoint was 28–day mortality. We also identified which ventilatory parameters had an association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. We repeated the analysis for reclassification at calendar day 4. Results: Of 895 patients, 8.5%, 60.1% and 31.4% had mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1. These proportions were 13.5%, 72.6% and 13.9% at day 2. 28–day mortality was 25.3%, 31.3% and 32.0% in patients with mild, moderate and severe ARDS at day 1 (p = 0.537), compared to 28.6%, 29.2% and 44.3% in patients reclassified at day 2 (p = 0.005). No ventilatory parameter had an independent association with presence of severe ARDS at day 2. Findings were not different reclassifying at day 4. Conclusions: In this cohort of COVID–19 patients, ARDS severity and mortality between severity classes changed substantially over the first 4 days of ventilation. These findings are important, as reclassification could help identify target patients that may benefit from alternative approaches

ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction-a guide for fertility staff

STUDY QUESTION: Based on the best available evidence in the literature, what is the optimal management of routine psychosocial care at infertility and medically assisted reproduction (MAR) clinics? SUMMARY ANSWER: Using the structured methodology of the Manual for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Guideline Development, 120 recommendations were formulated that answered the 12 key questions on optimal management of routine psychosocial care by all fertility staff. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: The 2002 ESHRE Guidelines for counselling in infertility has been a reference point for best psychosocial care in infertility for years, but this guideline needed updating and did not focus on routine psychosocial care that can be delivered by all fertility staff. STUDY, DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This guideline was produced by a group of experts in the field according to the 12-step process described in the ESHRE Manual for Guideline Development. After scoping the guideline and listing a set of 12 key questions in PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) format, thorough systematic searches of the literature were conducted; evidence from papers published until April 2014 was collected, evaluated for quality and analysed. A summary of evidence was written in a reply to each of the key questions and used as the basis for recommendations, which were defined by consensus within the guideline development group (GDG). Patient and additional clinical input was collected during the scoping and the review phase of the guideline development. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The guideline group, comprising psychologists, two medical doctors, a midwife, a patient representative and a methodological expert, met three times to discuss evidence and reach consensus on the recommendations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE THE GUIDELINE PROVIDES: 120 recommendations that aim at guiding fertility clinic staff in providing optimal evidence-based routine psychosocial care to patients dealing with infertility and MAR. The guideline is written in two sections. The first section describes patients' preferences regarding the psychosocial care they would like to receive at clinics and how this care is associated with their well-being. The second section of the guideline provides information about the psychosocial needs patients experience across their treatment pathway (before, during and after treatment) and how fertility clinic staff can detect and address these. Needs refer to conditions assumed necessary for patients to have a healthy experience of the fertility treatment. Needs can be behavioural (lifestyle, exercise, nutrition and compliance), relational (relationship with partner if there is one, family friends and larger network, and work), emotional (well-being, e.g. anxiety, depression and quality of life) and cognitive (treatment concerns and knowledge). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We identified many areas in care for which robust evidence was lacking. Gaps in evidence were addressed by formulating good practice points, based on the expert opinion of the GDG, but it is critical for such recommendations to be empirically validated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The evidence presented in this guideline shows that providing routine psychosocial care is associated with or has potential to reduce stress and concerns about medical procedures and improve lifestyle outcomes, fertility-related knowledge, patient well-being and compliance with treatment. As only 45 (36.0%) of the 125 recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the guideline group formulated recommendations to guide future research with the aim of increasing the body of evidence.status: publishe

Dead space estimates may not be independently associated with 28-day mortality in COVID-19 ARDS

BACKGROUND: Estimates for dead space ventilation have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19-related ARDS. METHODS: Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicenter, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of wasted ventilation in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. RESULTS: A total of 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in this study. Estimations of wasted ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris-Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p < 0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris-Benedict and by direct estimation, and with an increase in the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the dead space estimates measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19-related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk model. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04346342. Registered 15 April 2020. Retrospectively registered

Dead space estimates may not be independently associated with 28-day mortality in COVID-19 ARDS

Background: Estimates for dead space ventilation have been shown to be independently associated with an increased risk of mortality in the acute respiratory distress syndrome and small case series of COVID-19-related ARDS. Methods: Secondary analysis from the PRoVENT-COVID study. The PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicenter, retrospective observational study done at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The aim was to quantify the dynamics and determine the prognostic value of surrogate markers of wasted ventilation in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Results: A total of 927 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-related ARDS were included in this study. Estimations of wasted ventilation such as the estimated dead space fraction (by Harris–Benedict and direct method) and ventilatory ratio were significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors at baseline and during the following days of mechanical ventilation (p < 0.001). The end-tidal-to-arterial PCO 2 ratio was lower in non-survivors than in survivors (p < 0.001). As ARDS severity increased, mortality increased with successive tertiles of dead space fraction by Harris–Benedict and by direct estimation, and with an increase in the VR. The same trend was observed with decreased levels in the tertiles for the end-tidal-to-arterial PCO 2 ratio. After adjustment for a base risk model that included chronic comorbidities and ventilation- and oxygenation-parameters, none of the dead space estimates measured at the start of ventilation or the following days were significantly associated with 28-day mortality. Conclusions: There is significant impairment of ventilation in the early course of COVID-19-related ARDS but quantification of this impairment does not add prognostic information when added to a baseline risk model. Trial registration: ISRCTN04346342. Registered 15 April 2020. Retrospectively registered

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study

Background: Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak. Methods: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). Findings: Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7–7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0–15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2–16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0–39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0–15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. Funding: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center