Comparing Ventilation Parameters for COVID-19 Patients Using Both Long-Term ICU and Anesthetic Ventilators in Times of Shortage

In the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe, many patients were treated in hospitals using mechanical ventilation. However, due to a shortage of ICU ventilators, hospitals worldwide needed to deploy anesthesia machines for ICU ventilation (which is off-label use). A joint guidance was written to apply anesthesia machines for long-term ventilation. The goal of this research is to retrospectively evaluate the differences in measurable ventilation parameters between the ICU ventilator and the anesthesia machine as used for COVID-19 patients. In this study, we included 32 patients treated in March and April 2020, who had more than 3 days of mechanical ventilation, either in the regular ICU with ICU ventilators (Hamilton S1), or in the temporary emergency ICU with anesthetic ventilators (Aisys, GE). The data acquired during regular clinical treatment was collected from the Patient Data Management Systems. Available ventilation parameters (pressures and volumes: PEEP, Ppeak, Pinsp, Vtidal), monitored parameters EtCO2, SpO2, derived compliance C, and resistance R were processed and analyzed. A sub-analysis was performed to compare closed-loop ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV) to other ventilation modes. The results showed no major differences in the compared parameters, except for Pinsp. PEEP was reduced over time in the with Hamilton treated patients. This is most likely attributed to changing clinical protocol as more clinical experience and literature became available. A comparison of compliance between the 2 ventilators could not be made due to variances in the measurement of compliance. Closed loop ventilation could be used in 79% of the time, resulting in more stable EtCO2. From the analysis it can be concluded that the off-label usage of the anesthetic ventilator in our hospital did not result in differences in ventilation parameters compared to the ICU treatment in the first 4 days of ventilation

Validation of the urine column measurement as an estimation of the intra-abdominal pressure.

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the urine column (UC) measurement compared to the intra-vesicular pressure (IVP) measurement as an estimation of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) in patients with IAP up to 30 mmHg. METHODS: Fifteen patients undergoing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy were studied. All patients were catheterized. IVP measurements were performed using a pressure transducer connected to the culture aspiration port. UC measurements were done by holding up the tubing against a measuring rod. The symphysis pubis was used as the zero-reference. IAP was raised from 0 to 30 mmHg using increments of 5 mmHg, during which first the IVP and then UC measurement series were recorded end-expiratory. Fifty and 100 ml of saline were used as a priming volume. RESULTS: The IVP and UC measurements showed a significant correlation with IAP. Comparing IVP and UC showed a correlation of 0.91 (p < 0.001) for 50 ml and 0.87 (p < 0.001) for 100 ml of saline as a priming volume. Using 50 ml of saline, UC was 0.68 mmHg higher than IVP (95% CI -7.21 to +5.85 mmHg). For 100 ml of saline, UC was 1.23 mmHg lower than IVP (95% CI -7.41 to +9.87 mmHg). CONCLUSION: UC measurement shows significant correlation to IVP measurement as an estimation of the IAP. Further study needs to be done to conclude whether UC measurement is a reliable clinical alternative to IVP measurement

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