Search

Background: This trial aimed to evaluate the effects of a protective ventilation strategy on oxygenation/pulmonary indexes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in the steep Trendelenburg position.Methods: In phase 1, the most optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) was determined in 25 patients at 11 cmH2O. In phase 2, 64 patients were randomized to the traditional ventilation group with tidal volume (VT) of 9 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW) and the protective ventilation group with VT of 7 ml/kg of PBW with optimal PEEP and recruitment maneuvers (RMs). The primary endpoint was the intraoperative and postoperative PaO2/FiO2. The secondary endpoints were the PaCO2, SpO2, modified clinical pulmonary infection score (mCPIS), and the rate of complications in the postoperative period.Results: Compared with controls, PaO2/FiO2 in the protective group increased after the second RM (P=0.018), and the difference remained until postoperative day 3 (P=0.043). PaCO2 showed transient accumulation in the protective group after the first RM (T2), but this phenomenon disappeared with time. SpO2 in the protective group was significantly higher during the first three postoperative days. Lung compliance was significantly improved after the second RM in the protective group (P=0.025). The mCPIS was lower in the protective group on postoperative day 3 (0.59 (1.09) vs. 1.46 (1.27), P=0.010).Conclusion: A protective ventilation strategy with lower VT combined with optimal PEEP and RMs could improve oxygenation and reduce mCPIS in patients undergoing RARP.Trial Registration: ChiCTR ChiCTR1800015626 . Registered on 12 April 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop severe respiratory failure requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and about 80% of them need mechanical ventilation (MV). These patients show great complexity due to multiple organ involvement and a dynamic evolution over time; moreover, few information is available about the risk factors that may contribute to increase the time course of mechanical ventilation. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the risk factors associated with the inability to liberate COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation. Due to the complex evolution of the disease, we analyzed both pulmonary variables and occurrence of non-pulmonary complications during mechanical ventilation. The secondary objective of this study was the evaluation of risk factors for ICU mortality. Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study enrolled 391 patients from fifteen COVID-19 dedicated Italian ICUs which underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia. Clinical and laboratory data, ventilator parameters, occurrence of organ dysfunction, and outcome were recorded. The primary outcome measure was 28 days ventilator-free days and the liberation from MV at 28 days was studied by performing a competing risks regression model on data, according to the method of Fine and Gray; the event death was considered as a competing risk. Results: Liberation from mechanical ventilation was achieved in 53.2% of the patients (208/391). Competing risks analysis, considering death as a competing event, demonstrated a decreased sub-hazard ratio for liberation from mechanical ventilation (MV) with increasing age and SOFA score at ICU admission, low values of PaO2/FiO2 ratio during the first 5 days of MV, respiratory system compliance (CRS) lower than 40 mL/cmH2O during the first 5 days of MV, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and cardiovascular complications. ICU mortality during the observation period was 36.1% (141/391). Similar results were obtained by the multivariate logistic regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable. Conclusions: Age, SOFA score at ICU admission, CRS, PaO2/FiO2, renal and cardiovascular complications, and late-onset VAP were all independent risk factors for prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. Trial registration: NCT04411459 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical rehabilitation (PR) interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) can improve patients' functional outcomes, yet systematic reviews identified discordant effects and poor reporting. We conducted a scoping review to determine the extent of ICU PR interventions and how they were reported and measured. Methods: We searched five databases from inception to December 2016 for prospective studies evaluating adult ICU PR interventions. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion. We assessed completeness of reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, or Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence guidelines, as appropriate. For planned PR interventions, we evaluated reporting with the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) and assessed intervention and control groups separately. We calculated completeness of reporting scores for each study; scores represented the proportion of reported items. We compared reporting between groups using Kruskal-Wallis with Bonferroni corrections and t tests, α = 0.05. Results: We screened 61,774 unique citations, reviewed 1429 full-text publications, and included 117: 39 randomized trials, 30 case series, 9 two-group comparison, 14 before-after, and 25 cohort. Interventions included neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) (14.5%), passive/active exercises (15.4%), cycling (6.8%), progressive mobility (32.5%), and multicomponent (29.9%). The median (first,third quartiles) study reporting score was 75.9% (62.5, 86.7) with no significant differences between reporting guidelines. Of 87 planned intervention studies, the median CERT score was 55.6%(44.7,75.0); cycling had the highest (85.0%(62.2,93.8)), and NMES and multicomponent the lowest (50.0% (39.5, 70.3) and 50.0% (41.5, 58.8), respectively) scores. Authors reported intervention groups better than controls (p < 0.001). Conclusions: We identified important reporting deficiencies in ICU PR interventions, limiting clinical implementation and future trial development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]