Annals of Intensive Care最新文献

Background: Nitric oxide (NO) is a strong vasodilator, selectively directed on pulmonary circulation through inhaled administration. In adult intensive care units (ICU), it is mainly used for refractory hypoxemia in mechanically ventilated patients. Several medical delivery devices have been developed to deliver inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). The main purpose of those devices is to guarantee an accurate inspiratory NO concentration, whatever the ventilator used, with NO₂ concentrations lower than 0.3 ppm. We hypothesized that the performances of the different available iNO delivery systems could depend on their working principle and could be influenced by the ventilator settings. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of seven different iNO-devices combined with different ICU ventilators' flow-by to reach inspiratory NO concentration targets and to evaluate their potential risk of toxicity.

Methods: We tested seven iNO-devices on a test-lung connected to distinct ICU ventilators offering four different levels of flow-by. We measured the flow in the inspiratory limb of the patient circuit and the airway pressure. The nitric oxide/nitrogen (NO/N₂) flow was measured on the administration line of the iNO-devices. NO and NO₂ concentrations were measured in the test-lung using an electrochemical analyzer.

Results: We identified three iNO-device generations based on the way they deliver NO flow: "Continuous", "Sequential to inspiratory phase" (I-Sequential) and "Proportional to inspiratory and expiratory ventilator flow" (Proportional). Median accuracy of iNO concentration measured in the test lung was 2% (interquartile range, IQR -19; 36), -23% (IQR -29; -17) and 0% (IQR -2; 0) with Continuous, I-Sequential and Proportional devices, respectively. Increased ventilator flow-by resulted in decreased iNO concentration in the test-lung with Continuous and I-Sequential devices, but not with Proportional ones. NO₂ formation measured to assess potential risks of toxicity never exceeded the predefined safety target of 0.5 ppm. However, NO₂ concentrations higher than or equal to 0.3 ppm, a concentration that can cause bronchoconstriction, were observed in 19% of the different configurations.

Conclusion: We identified three different generations of iNO-devices, based on their gas administration modalities, that were associated with highly variable iNO concentrations' accuracy. Ventilator's flow by significantly impacted iNO concentration. Only the Proportional devices permitted to accurately deliver iNO whatever the conditions and the ventilators tested.

Background: This study aimed to develop prognostic models for predicting the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with COVID-19 and compare their performance with the Respiratory rate-OXygenation (ROX) index.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data collected between March 2020 and August 2021 at three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. ICU patients aged 18 years and older with a diagnosis of COVID-19 were screened. The exclusion criteria were patients who received IMV within the first 24 h of ICU admission, pregnancy, clinical decision for minimal end-of-life care and missing primary outcome data. Clinical and laboratory variables were collected. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to select predictor variables. Models were based on the lowest Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and lowest AIC with significant p values. Assessment of predictive performance was done for discrimination and calibration. Areas under the curves (AUC)s were compared using DeLong's algorithm. Models were validated externally using an international database.

Results: Of 656 patients screened, 346 patients were included; 155 required IMV (44.8%), 191 did not (55.2%), and 207 patients were male (59.8%). According to the lowest AIC, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, heart rate, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂), temperature, respiratory effort signals, and leukocytes were identified as predictors of IMV at hospital admission. According to AIC with significant p values, SOFA score, SpO₂, and respiratory effort signals were the best predictors of IMV; odds ratios (95% confidence interval): 1.46 (1.07-2.05), 0.81 (0.72-0.90), 9.13 (3.29-28.67), respectively. The ROX index at admission was lower in the IMV group than in the non-IMV group (7.3 [5.2-9.8] versus 9.6 [6.8-12.9], p < 0.001, respectively). In the external validation population, the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROX index was 0.683 (accuracy 63%), the AIC model showed an AUC of 0.703 (accuracy 69%), and the lowest AIC model with significant p values had an AUC of 0.725 (accuracy 79%).

Conclusions: In the development population of ICU patients with COVID-19, SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals predicted the need for IMV better than the ROX index. In the external validation population, although the AUCs did not differ significantly, the accuracy was higher when using SOFA score, SpO2, and respiratory effort signals compared to the ROX index. This suggests that these variables may be more useful in predicting the need for IMV in ICU patients with COVID-19.

Clinicaltrials:

Gov identifier: NCT05663528.

Background: Mortality for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for COVID-19 increased over the course of the pandemic. We investigated the association between immunomodulators and mortality for patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed the Extracorporeal Life Support Organisation registry from 1 January, 2020, through 31 December, 2021, to compare the outcomes of patients who received no immunomodulators, only corticosteroids, only other immunomodulators (selective interleukin blockers, janus-kinase inhibitors, convalescent plasma, and intravenous immunoglobulin), and a combination of corticosteroids and other immunomodulators administered either before or during ECMO. We used Cox regression models to estimate survival time until 90 days. We estimated the propensity score of receiving different immunomodulators using multinomial regression, and incorporated these scores into the regression models.

Results: We included 7181 patients in the final analysis; 6169 patients received immunomodulators either before or during ECMO. The 90-day survival was 58.1% (95%-CI 55.1-61.2%) for patients receiving no immunomodulators, 50.7% (95%-CI 49.0-52.5%) for those receiving only corticosteroids, 62.2% (95%-CI 57.4-67.0%) for those receiving other immunomodulators, and 48.5% (95%-CI 46.7-50.4%) for those receiving corticosteroids and other immunomodulators. Compared to patients without immunomodulators, patients receiving either corticosteroids alone (HR: 1.13, 95%-CI 1.01-1.28) or with other immunomodulators (HR: 1.21, 95%-CI: 1.07-1.54) had significantly shorter survival time, while patients receiving only other immunomodulators had significantly longer survival time (HR: 0.79, 95%-CI: 0.66-0.96). The receipt of immunomodulators (across all three groups) was associated with an increase in secondary infections.

Conclusions: In this cohort study, we found that immunomodulators, in particular corticosteroids, were associated with significantly higher mortality amongst patients receiving ECMO for COVID-19, after adjusting for potential confounding variables and propensity score. In addition, patients receiving corticosteroids with or without other immunomodulators had longer ECMO runs, which has potential implications for resource allocation. While residual confounding likely remains, further studies are required to evaluate the timing of immunomodulators and better understand the possible mechanisms behind this association, including secondary infections.

Background: A combination of prone positioning (PP) and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is safe, feasible, and associated with potentially improved survival for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, whether ARDS patients, especially non-COVID-19 patients, placed in PP before VV-ECMO should continue PP after a VV-ECMO connection is unknown. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that early use of PP during VV-ECMO could increase the proportion of patients successfully weaned from ECMO support in severe ARDS patients who received PP before ECMO.

Methods: In this prospective observational study, patients with severe ARDS who were treated with VV-ECMO were divided into two groups: the prone group and the supine group, based on whether early PP was combined with VV-ECMO. The proportion of patients successfully weaned from VV-ECMO and 60-day mortality were analyzed before and after propensity score matching.

Results: A total of 165 patients were enrolled, 50 in the prone and 115 in the supine group. Thirty-two (64%) and 61 (53%) patients were successfully weaned from ECMO in the prone and the supine groups, respectively. The proportion of patients successfully weaned from VV-ECMO in the prone group tended to be higher, albeit not statistically significant. During PP, there was a significant increase in partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO₂) without a change in ventilator or ECMO settings. Tidal impedance shifted significantly to the dorsal region, and lung ultrasound scores significantly decreased in the anterior and posterior regions. Forty-five propensity score-matched patients were included in each group. In this matched sample, the prone group had a higher proportion of patients successfully weaned from VV-ECMO (64.4% vs. 42.2%; P = 0.035) and lower 60-day mortality (37.8% vs. 60.0%; P = 0.035).

Conclusions: Patients with severe ARDS placed in PP before VV-ECMO should continue PP after VV-ECMO support. This approach could increase the probability of successful weaning from VV-ECMO.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04139733. Registered 23 October 2019.

Background: The underrepresentation of women in leadership remains a pervasive issue, prompting a critical examination of support mechanisms within professional settings. Previous studies have identified challenges women face, ranging from limited visibility to barriers to career advancement. This survey aims to investigate perceptions regarding the effectiveness of women's leadership programs, mentoring initiatives, and a specialized communication course. Particularly it specifically targets addressing the challenges encountered by professional women.

Methods: This multi-center, observational, international online survey was developed in partnership between ESICM NEXT and the ESICM Diversity and Inclusiveness Monitoring Group for Healthcare. Invitations to participate were distributed to both females and men through emails and social networks. Data were collected from April 1, 2023, through October 1, 2023.

Results: Out of 354 respondents, 90 were men (25.42%) and 264 were women (74.58%). Among them, 251 completed the survey, shedding light on the persistent challenges faced by women in leadership roles, with 10%-50% of respondents holding such positions. Women's assertiveness is viewed differently, with 65% recognizing barriers such as harassment. Nearly half of the respondent's experience interruptions in meetings. Only 47.4% receiving conference invitations, with just over half accepting them. A mere 12% spoke at ESICM conferences in the last three years, receiving limited support from directors and colleagues, indicating varied obstacles for female professionals. Encouraging family participation, reducing fees, providing childcare, and offering economic support can enhance conference involvement. Despite 55% applying for ESICM positions, barriers like mobbing, harassment, lack of financial support, childcare, and language barriers were reported. Only 14% had access to paid family leave, while 32% benefited from subsidized childcare. Participation in the Effective Communication Course on Career Advancement Goals and engagement in women's leadership and mentoring programs could offer valuable insights and growth opportunities. Collaborating with Human Resources and leadership allies is crucial for overcoming barriers and promoting women's career growth.

Conclusions: The urgency of addressing identified barriers to female leadership in intensive care medicine is underscored by the survey's comprehensive insights. A multifaceted and intersectional approach, considering sexism, structural barriers, and targeted strategies, is essential.

Background: Fluid administration is the first line treatment in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis and septic shock. While fluid boluses administration can be titrated by predicting preload dependency, the amount of other forms of fluids may be more complex to be evaluated. We conducted a retrospective analysis in a tertiary hospital, to assess the ratio between fluids given as boluses and total administered fluid intake during early phases of ICU stay, and to evaluate the impact of fluid strategy on ICU mortality. Data related to fluid administration during the first four days of ICU stay were exported from an electronic health records system (ICCA®, Philips Healthcare). Demographic data, severity score, norepinephrine dose at ICU admission, overall fluid balance and the percentage of different fluid components of the overall volume administered were included in a multivariable logistic regression model, evaluating the association with ICU survival.

Results: We analyzed 220 patients admitted with septic shock and sepsis-induced hypotension from 1st July 2021 to 31st December 2023. Fluid boluses and maintenance represented 49.3% ± 22.8 of the overall fluid intake, being balanced solution the most represented (40.4% ± 22.0). The fluid volume for drug infusion represented 34.0% ± 2.9 of the total fluid intake, while oral or via nasogastric tube fluid intake represented 18.0% ± 15.7 of the total fluid intake. Fluid volume given as boluses represented 8.6% of the total fluid intake over the four days, with a reduction from 25.1% ± 24.0 on Day 1 to 4.8% ± 8.7 on Day 4. A positive fluid balance [OR 1.167 (1.029-1.341); p = 0.021] was the most important factor associated with ICU mortality. Non-survivors (n = 66; 30%) received a higher amount of overall inputs than survivors only on Day 1 [2493 mL vs. 1855 mL; p = 0.022].

Conclusions: This retrospective analysis of fluids given over the early phases of septic shock and sepsis-induced hypotension showed that the overall volume given by boluses ranges from about 25% on Day 1 to about 5% on Day 4 from ICU admission. Our data confirms that a positive fluid balance over the first 4 days of ICU is associated with mortality.

Heart-lungs interactions are related to the interplay between the cardiovascular and the respiratory system. They result from the respiratory-induced changes in intrathoracic pressure, which are transmitted to the cardiac cavities and to the changes in alveolar pressure, which may impact the lung microvessels. In spontaneously breathing patients, consequences of heart-lungs interactions are during inspiration an increase in right ventricular preload and afterload, a decrease in left ventricular preload and an increase in left ventricular afterload. In mechanically ventilated patients, consequences of heart-lungs interactions are during mechanical insufflation a decrease in right ventricular preload, an increase in right ventricular afterload, an increase in left ventricular preload and a decrease in left ventricular afterload. Physiologically and during normal breathing, heart-lungs interactions do not lead to significant hemodynamic consequences. Nevertheless, in some clinical settings such as acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute left heart failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome, heart-lungs interactions may lead to significant hemodynamic consequences. These are linked to complex pathophysiological mechanisms, including a marked inspiratory negativity of intrathoracic pressure, a marked inspiratory increase in transpulmonary pressure and an increase in intra-abdominal pressure. The most recent application of heart-lungs interactions is the prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients. The first test to be developed using heart-lungs interactions was the respiratory variation of pulse pressure. Subsequently, many other dynamic fluid responsiveness tests using heart-lungs interactions have been developed, such as the respiratory variations of pulse contour-based stroke volume or the respiratory variations of the inferior or superior vena cava diameters. All these tests share the same limitations, the most frequent being low tidal volume ventilation, persistent spontaneous breathing activity and cardiac arrhythmia. Nevertheless, when their main limitations are properly addressed, all these tests can help intensivists in the decision-making process regarding fluid administration and fluid removal in critically ill patients.

Background: Inflammation is the hallmark of critical illness and triggers the neuro-endocrine stress response and an oxidative stress. Acute inflammation is initially essential for patient's survival. However, ongoing or exaggerated inflammation, due to persistent organ dysfunction, immune dysfunction or poor inflammation resolution, is associated to subsequent hypermetabolism and hypercatabolism that severely impact short and long-term functional status, autonomy, as well as health-related costs. Modulation of inflammation is thus tempting, with the goal to improve the short- and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients.

Findings: Inflammation can be modulated by nutritional strategies (including the timing of enteral nutrition initiation, the provision of some specific macronutrients or micronutrients, the use of probiotics) and metabolic treatments. The most interesting strategies seem to be n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, vitamin D, antioxidant micronutrients and propranolol, given their safety, their accessibility for clinical use, and their benefits in clinical studies in the specific context of critical care. However, the optimal doses, timing and route of administration are still unknown for most of them. Furthermore, their use in the recovery phase is not well studied and defined.

Conclusion: The rationale to use strategies of inflammation modulation is obvious, based on critical illness pathophysiology and based on the increasingly described effects of some nutritional and pharmacological strategies. Regretfully, there isn't always substantial proof from clinical research regarding the positive impacts directly brought about by inflammation modulation. Some arguments come from studies performed in severe burn patients, but such results should be transposed to non-burn patients with caution. Further studies are needed to explore how the modulation of inflammation can improve the long-term outcomes after a critical illness.