Eddy Fan

IMPORTANCE: Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) incidence and outcome of ARDS and to assess clinician recognition, ventilation management, and use of adjuncts-for example prone positioning-in routine clinical practice for patients fulfilling the ARDS Berlin Definition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing invasive or noninvasive ventilation, conducted during 4 consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. EXPOSURES: Acute respiratory distress syndrome. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was ICU incidence of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included assessment of clinician recognition of ARDS, the application of ventilatory management, the use of adjunctive interventions in routine clinical practice, and clinical outcomes from ARDS. RESULTS: Of 29,144 patients admitted to participating ICUs, 3022 (10.4%) fulfilled ARDS criteria. Of these, 2377 patients developed ARDS in the first 48 hours and whose respiratory failure was managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. The period prevalence of mild ARDS was 30.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-31.9%); of moderate ARDS, 46.6% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.6%); and of severe ARDS, 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%). ARDS represented 0.42 cases per ICU bed over 4 weeks and represented 10.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-10.7%) of ICU admissions and 23.4% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-55.0%) in mild to 78.5% (95% CI, 74.8%-81.8%) in severe ARDS. Less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received a tidal volume 8 of mL/kg or less of predicted body weight. Plateau pressure was measured in 40.1% (95% CI, 38.2-42.1), whereas 82.6% (95% CI, 81.0%-84.1%) received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H2O. Prone positioning was used in 16.3% (95% CI, 13.7%-19.2%) of patients with severe ARDS. Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. Hospital mortality was 34.9% (95% CI, 31.4%-38.5%) for those with mild, 40.3% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.3%) for those with moderate, and 46.1% (95% CI, 41.9%-50.4%) for those with severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ICUs in 50 countries, the period prevalence of ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions. This syndrome appeared to be underrecognized and undertreated and associated with a high mortality rate. These findings indicate the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02010073.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains controversial. METHODS: of less than 80 mm Hg for more than 6 hours; or an arterial blood pH of less than 7.25 with a partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide of at least 60 mm Hg for more than 6 hours - to receive immediate venovenous ECMO (ECMO group) or continued conventional treatment (control group). Crossover to ECMO was possible for patients in the control group who had refractory hypoxemia. The primary end point was mortality at 60 days. RESULTS: At 60 days, 44 of 124 patients (35%) in the ECMO group and 57 of 125 (46%) in the control group had died (relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.04; P=0.09). Crossover to ECMO occurred a mean (±SD) of 6.5±9.7 days after randomization in 35 patients (28%) in the control group, with 20 of these patients (57%) dying. The frequency of complications did not differ significantly between groups, except that there were more bleeding events leading to transfusion in the ECMO group than in the control group (in 46% vs. 28% of patients; absolute risk difference, 18 percentage points; 95% CI, 6 to 30) as well as more cases of severe thrombocytopenia (in 27% vs. 16%; absolute risk difference, 11 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 21) and fewer cases of ischemic stroke (in no patients vs. 5%; absolute risk difference, -5 percentage points; 95% CI, -10 to -2). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with very severe ARDS, 60-day mortality was not significantly lower with ECMO than with a strategy of conventional mechanical ventilation that included ECMO as rescue therapy. (Funded by the Direction de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement and the French Ministry of Health; EOLIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01470703 .).

BACKGROUND: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the use of mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel conducted systematic reviews and metaanalyses of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations. RESULTS: O) (moderate confidence in effect estimates). For patients with severe ARDS, the recommendation is strong for prone positioning for more than 12 h/d (moderate confidence in effect estimates). For patients with moderate or severe ARDS, the recommendation is strong against routine use of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (high confidence in effect estimates) and conditional for higher positive end-expiratory pressure (moderate confidence in effect estimates) and recruitment maneuvers (low confidence in effect estimates). Additional evidence is necessary to make a definitive recommendation for or against the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with severe ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected ventilatory interventions for adult patients with ARDS. Clinicians managing patients with ARDS should personalize decisions for their patients, particularly regarding the conditional recommendations in this guideline.

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.