Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE:The optimal screening frequency and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique to liberate adults from ventilators are unknown. OBJECTIVE:To compare the effects of screening frequency (once-daily screening vs more frequent screening) and SBT technique (pressure-supported SBT with a pressure support level that was >0-≤8 cm H2O and a positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] level that was >0-≤5 cm H2O vs T-piece SBT) on the time to successful extubation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Randomized clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design including critically ill adults who were receiving invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours, who were capable of initiating spontaneous breaths or triggering ventilators, and who were receiving a fractional concentration of inspired oxygen that was 70% or less and a PEEP level of 12 cm H2O or less. Recruitment was between January 2018 and February 2022 at 23 intensive care units in North America; last follow-up occurred October 18, 2022. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were enrolled early to enable protocolized screening (more frequent vs once daily) to identify the earliest that patients met criteria to undergo pressure-supported or T-piece SBT lasting 30 to 120 minutes. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES:Time to successful extubation (time when unsupported, spontaneous breathing began and was sustained for ≥48 hours after extubation). RESULTS:Of 797 patients (198 in the once-daily screening and pressure-supported SBT group, 204 in once-daily screening and T-piece SBT, 195 in more frequent screening and pressure-supported SBT, and 200 in more frequent screening and T-piece SBT), the mean age was 62.4 (SD, 18.4) years and 472 (59.2%) were men. There were no statistically significant differences by screening frequency (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.76-1.03]; P = .12) or by SBT technique (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.91-1.23]; P = .45). The median time to successful extubation was 2.0 days (95% CI, 1.7-2.7) for once-daily screening and pressure-supported SBT, 3.1 days (95% CI, 2.7-4.8) for once-daily screening and T-piece SBT, 3.9 days (95% CI, 2.9-4.7) for more frequent screening and pressure-supported SBT, and 2.9 days (95% CI, 2.0-3.1) for more frequent screening and T-piece SBT. An unexpected interaction between screening frequency and SBT technique required pairwise contrasts that revealed more frequent screening (vs once-daily screening) and pressure-supported SBT increased the time to successful extubation (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.50-0.96]; P = .02). Once-daily screening and pressure-supported SBT (vs T-piece SBT) did not reduce the time to successful extubation (HR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.98-1.70]; P = .08). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among critically ill adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours, screening frequency (once-daily vs more frequent screening) and SBT technique (pressure-supported vs T-piece SBT) did not change the time to successful extubation. However, an unexpected and statistically significant interaction was identified; protocolized more frequent screening combined with pressure-supported SBTs increased the time to first successful extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02399267 and NCT02969226.

This review explores the complex interactions between sedation and invasive ventilation and examines the potential of volatile anesthetics for lung- and diaphragm-protective sedation. In the early stages of invasive ventilation, many critically ill patients experience insufficient respiratory drive and effort, leading to compromised diaphragm function. Compared with common intravenous agents, inhaled sedation with volatile anesthetics better preserves respiratory drive, potentially helping to maintain diaphragm function during prolonged periods of invasive ventilation. In turn, higher concentrations of volatile anesthetics reduce the size of spontaneously generated tidal volumes, potentially reducing lung stress and strain and with that the risk of self-inflicted lung injury. Taken together, inhaled sedation may allow titration of respiratory drive to maintain inspiratory efforts within lung- and diaphragm-protective ranges. Particularly in patients who are expected to require prolonged invasive ventilation, in whom the restoration of adequate but safe inspiratory effort is crucial for successful weaning, inhaled sedation represents an attractive option for lung- and diaphragm-protective sedation. A technical limitation is ventilatory dead space introduced by volatile anesthetic reflectors, although this impact is minimal and comparable to ventilation with heat and moisture exchangers. Further studies are imperative for a comprehensive understanding of the specific effects of inhaled sedation on respiratory drive and effort and, ultimately, how this translates into patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The COVID-19 pandemic amplified known challenges associated with the conduct of inpatient clinical trials, while also introducing new ones that needed to be addressed. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Stakeholders based in the United States who participated in the conduct of inpatient therapeutic trials for the treatment of COVID-19 as part of the Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines program identified challenges experienced in the conduct of these trials through a series of meeting to discuss and identify common themes. In addition, innovations developed to address these challenges and other potential solutions that may be utilized in future pandemics were highlighted. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Six thematic challenges including infection control considerations, the interplay between provision of clinical care and research, competing clinical trials, arduous consenting procedures, onerous procedural requirements, and participant recruitment including achieving representation of diverse populations were identified and are discussed here. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Consideration of the lessons learned and recommendation outlined here may allow for more efficient conduct of inpatient clinical trials in future pandemics.

BACKGROUND:Ventilation management may differ between COVID-19 ARDS (COVID-ARDS) patients and patients with pre-COVID ARDS (CLASSIC-ARDS); it is uncertain whether associations of ventilation management with outcomes for CLASSIC-ARDS also exist in COVID-ARDS. METHODS:Individual patient data analysis of COVID-ARDS and CLASSIC-ARDS patients in six observational studies of ventilation, four in the COVID-19 pandemic and two pre-pandemic. Descriptive statistics were used to compare epidemiology and ventilation characteristics. The primary endpoint were key ventilation parameters; other outcomes included mortality and ventilator-free days and alive (VFD-60) at day 60. RESULTS:O; p < 0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, higher ΔP had an independent association with higher 60-day mortality and less VFD-60 in both groups. Higher PEEP had an association with less VFD-60, but only in COVID-ARDS patients. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings show important differences in key ventilation parameters and associations thereof with outcomes between COVID-ARDS and CLASSIC-ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT05650957), December 14, 2022.

BACKGROUND:Recruitment maneuvers are used in patients with ARDS to enhance oxygenation and lung mechanics. Heterogeneous lung and chest-wall mechanics lead to unpredictable transpulmonary pressures and could impact recruitment maneuver success. Tailoring care based on individualized transpulmonary pressure might optimize recruitment, preventing overdistention. This study aimed to identify the optimal transpulmonary pressure for effective recruitment and to explore its association with baseline characteristics. METHODS:We performed post hoc analysis on the Esophageal Pressure Guided Ventilation (EpVent2) trial. We estimated the dose-response relationship between end-recruitment end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure and the change in lung elastance after a recruitment maneuver by using logistic regression weighted by a generalized propensity score. A positive change in lung elastance was indicative of overdistention. We examined how patient characteristics, disease severity markers, and respiratory parameters predict transpulmonary pressure by using multivariate linear regression models and dominance analyses. RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:Higher end-recruitment transpulmonary pressure increases the volume of recruitment but raises the risk of overdistention, providing the rationale for transpulmonary pressure to be used as a clinical target. Predictors, for example, body mass index, could guide recruitment maneuver individualization to balance adequate volume gain with overdistention.

BACKGROUND:In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory drive often differs among patients with similar clinical characteristics. Readily observable factors like acid-base state, oxygenation, mechanics, and sedation depth do not fully explain drive heterogeneity. This study evaluated the relationship of systemic inflammation and vascular permeability markers with respiratory drive and clinical outcomes in ARDS. METHODS:0.1, the change in esophageal pressure during the first 0.1 s of inspiratory effort. Plasma angiopoietin-2, interleukin-6, and interleukin-8 were measured concomitantly, and 60-day clinical outcomes evaluated. RESULTS:O) compared to either lower drive (hazard ratio 1.58, 95% CI 0.82-3.05) or higher drive (2.63, 95% CI 1.21-5.70) (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with ARDS, systemic inflammatory and vascular permeability markers were independently associated with higher respiratory drive. The heterogeneous response of respiratory drive to varying sedation depth may be explained in part by differences in inflammation and vascular permeability.

BACKGROUND:Despite evidence associating inflammatory biomarkers with worse outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, trials of immunomodulatory therapies have met with mixed results, likely due in part to biological heterogeneity of participants. Latent class analysis (LCA) of clinical and protein biomarker data has identified two subtypes of non-COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with different clinical outcomes and treatment responses. We studied biological heterogeneity and clinical outcomes in a multi-institutional platform randomized controlled trial of adults with severe COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure (I-SPY COVID). METHODS:Clinical and plasma protein biomarker data were analyzed from 400 trial participants enrolled from September 2020 until October 2021 with severe COVID-19 requiring ≥ 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Seventeen hypothesis-directed protein biomarkers were measured at enrollment using multiplex Luminex panels or single analyte enzyme linked immunoassay methods (ELISA). Biomarkers and clinical variables were used to test for latent subtypes and longitudinal biomarker changes by subtype were explored. A validated parsimonious model using interleukin-8, bicarbonate, and protein C was used for comparison with non-COVID hyper- and hypo-inflammatory ARDS subtypes. RESULTS:Average participant age was 60 ± 14 years; 67% were male, and 28-day mortality was 25%. At trial enrollment, 85% of participants required high flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation, and 97% were receiving dexamethasone. Several biomarkers of inflammation (IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, sTNFR-1, TREM-1), epithelial injury (sRAGE), and endothelial injury (Ang-1, thrombomodulin) were associated with 28- and 60-day mortality. Two latent subtypes were identified. Subtype 2 (27% of participants) was characterized by persistent derangements in biomarkers of inflammation, endothelial and epithelial injury, and disordered coagulation and had twice the mortality rate compared with Subtype 1. Only one person was classified as hyper-inflammatory using the previously validated non-COVID ARDS model. CONCLUSIONS:We discovered evidence of two novel biological subtypes of severe COVID-19 with significantly different clinical outcomes. These subtypes differed from previously established hyper- and hypo-inflammatory non-COVID subtypes of ARDS. Biological heterogeneity may explain inconsistent findings from trials of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and guide treatment approaches.