Faculty Bibliography

Mechanical ventilation can cause acute diaphragm atrophy and injury, and this is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Although the importance and impact of lung-protective ventilation is widely appreciated and well established, the concept of diaphragm-protective ventilation has recently emerged as a potential complementary therapeutic strategy. This Perspective, developed from discussions at a meeting of international experts convened by PLUG (the Pleural Pressure Working Group) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, outlines a conceptual framework for an integrated lung- and diaphragm-protective approach to mechanical ventilation on the basis of growing evidence about mechanisms of injury. We propose targets for diaphragm protection based on respiratory effort and patient-ventilator synchrony. The potential for conflict between diaphragm protection and lung protection under certain conditions is discussed; we emphasize that when conflicts arise, lung protection must be prioritized over diaphragm protection. Monitoring respiratory effort is essential to concomitantly protect both the diaphragm and the lung during mechanical ventilation. To implement lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation, new approaches to monitoring, to setting the ventilator, and to titrating sedation will be required. Adjunctive interventions, including extracorporeal life support techniques, phrenic nerve stimulation, and clinical decision-support systems, may also play an important role in selected patients in the future. Evaluating the clinical impact of this new paradigm will be challenging, owing to the complexity of the intervention. The concept of lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation presents a new opportunity to potentially improve clinical outcomes for critically ill patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a surge of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in intensive care units across the globe. As experience of managing patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS has grown, so too have efforts to classify patients according to respiratory system mechanics, with a view to optimising ventilatory management. Personalised lung-protective mechanical ventilation reduces mortality and has become the mainstay of treatment in ARDS. In this Viewpoint, we address ventilatory strategies in the context of recent discussions on phenotypic heterogeneity in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Although early reports suggested that COVID-19-associated ARDS has distinctive features that set it apart from historical ARDS, emerging evidence indicates that the respiratory system mechanics of patients with ARDS, with or without COVID-19, are broadly similar. In the absence of evidence to support a shift away from the current paradigm of ventilatory management, we strongly recommend adherence to evidence-based management, informed by bedside physiology, as resources permit.

OBJECTIVES:Recurring issues in clinical trial design may bias results toward the null, yielding findings inconclusive for treatment effects. This study evaluated for powering bias among high-impact critical care trials and the associated risk of masking clinically important treatment effects. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS:Secondary analysis of multicenter randomized trials of critically ill adults in which mortality was the main endpoint. Trials were eligible for inclusion if published between 2008 and 2018 in leading journals. Analyses evaluated for accuracy of estimated control group mortality, adaptive sample size strategy, plausibility of predicted treatment effect, and results relative to the minimal clinically important difference. The main outcome was the mortality risk difference at the study-specific follow-up interval. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Of 101 included trials, 12 met statistical significance for their main endpoint, five for increased intervention-associated mortality. Most trials (77.3%) overestimated control group mortality in power calculations (observed minus predicted difference, -6.7% ± 9.8%; p < 0.01). Due to this misestimation of control group mortality, in 14 trials, the intervention would have had to prevent at least half of all deaths to achieve the hypothesized treatment effect. Seven trials prespecified adaptive sample size strategies that might have mitigated this issue. The observed risk difference for mortality fell within 5% of predicted in 20 trials, of which 16 did not reach statistical significance. Half of trials (47.0%) were powered for an absolute risk reduction greater than or equal to 10%, but this effect size was observed in only three trials with a statistically significant treatment benefit. Most trials (67.3%) could not exclude clinically important treatment benefit or harm. CONCLUSIONS:The design of most high-impact critical care trials biased results toward the null by overestimating control group mortality and powering for unrealistic treatment effects. Clinically important treatment effects often cannot be excluded.

Mechanical ventilation may have adverse effects on both the lung and the diaphragm. Injury to the lung is mediated by excessive mechanical stress and strain, whereas the diaphragm develops atrophy as a consequence of low respiratory effort and injury in case of excessive effort. The lung and diaphragm-protective mechanical ventilation approach aims to protect both organs simultaneously whenever possible. This review summarizes practical strategies for achieving lung and diaphragm-protective targets at the bedside, focusing on inspiratory and expiratory ventilator settings, monitoring of inspiratory effort or respiratory drive, management of dyssynchrony, and sedation considerations. A number of potential future adjunctive strategies including extracorporeal CO₂ removal, partial neuromuscular blockade, and neuromuscular stimulation are also discussed. While clinical trials to confirm the benefit of these approaches are awaited, clinicians should become familiar with assessing and managing patients' respiratory effort, based on existing physiological principles. To protect the lung and the diaphragm, ventilation and sedation might be applied to avoid excessively weak or very strong respiratory efforts and patient-ventilator dysynchrony.

In ARDS patients, the change from supine to prone position generates a more even distribution of the gas-tissue ratios along the dependent-nondependent axis and a more homogeneous distribution of lung stress and strain. The change to prone position is generally accompanied by a marked improvement in arterial blood gases, which is mainly due to a better overall ventilation/perfusion matching. Improvement in oxygenation and reduction in mortality are the main reasons to implement prone position in patients with ARDS. The main reason explaining a decreased mortality is less overdistension in non-dependent lung regions and less cyclical opening and closing in dependent lung regions. The only absolute contraindication for implementing prone position is an unstable spinal fracture. The maneuver to change from supine to prone and vice versa requires a skilled team of 4-5 caregivers. The most frequent adverse events are pressure sores and facial edema. Recently, the use of prone position has been extended to non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients affected with COVID-19 ARDS. The effects of this intervention on outcomes are still uncertain.

Although the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is well defined by the development of acute hypoxemia, bilateral infiltrates and non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema, ARDS is heterogeneous in terms of clinical risk factors, physiology of lung injury, microbiology, and biology, potentially explaining why pharmacologic therapies have been mostly unsuccessful in treating ARDS. Identifying phenotypes of ARDS and integrating this information into patient selection for clinical trials may increase the chance for efficacy with new treatments. In this review, we focus on classifying ARDS by the associated clinical disorders, physiological data, and radiographic imaging. We consider biologic phenotypes, including plasma protein biomarkers, gene expression, and common causative microbiologic pathogens. We will also discuss the issue of focusing clinical trials on the patient's phase of lung injury, including prevention, administration of therapy during early acute lung injury, and treatment of established ARDS. A more in depth understanding of the interplay of these variables in ARDS should provide more success in designing and conducting clinical trials and achieving the goal of personalized medicine.