Search

Head-elevated body positioning, a default clinical practice, predictably increases end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and aerated lung volume. In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), however, the net effect of such vertical inclination on tidal mechanics depends upon whether lung recruitment or overdistension predominates. We hypothesized that in moderate to severe ARDS, bed inclination toward vertical unloads the chest wall but adversely affects overall respiratory system compliance (C rs ).Prospective physiologic study.Two medical ICUs in the United States.Seventeen patients with ARDS, predominantly moderate to severe.Patients were ventilated passively by volume control. We measured airway pressures at baseline (noninclined) and following bed inclination toward vertical by an additional 15°. At baseline and following inclination, we manually loaded the chest wall to determine if C rs increased or paradoxically declined, suggestive of end-tidal overdistension.Inclination resulted in a higher plateau pressure (supineΔ: 2.8 ± 3.3 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.3 ± 2.5 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.004]), higher driving pressure (supineΔ: 2.9 ± 3.3 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.3 ± 2.8 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.007]), and lower C rs (supine Δ: 3.4 ± 3.7 mL/cm H 2 O [ p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.1 ± 3.2 mL/cm H 2 O [ p = 0.02]). Following inclination, manual loading of the chest wall restored C rs and driving pressure to baseline (preinclination) values.In advanced ARDS, bed inclination toward vertical adversely affects C rs and therefore affects the numerical values for plateau and driving tidal pressures commonly targeted in lung protective strategies. These changes are fully reversed with manual loading of the chest wall, suggestive of end-tidal overdistension in the upright position. Body inclination should be considered a modifiable determinant of transpulmonary pressure and lung protection, directionally similar to tidal volume and positive end-expiratory pressure.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) requires repetitive transfer of energy from the ventilator to the compromised lung. To understand this phenomenon, 2 sets of equations have been developed to partition total inflation energy into harmless and hazardous components using an arbitrary level of alveolar pressure as a threshold beyond which further energy increments may become damaging. One set of equations uses premeasured resistance and compliance as inputs to predict the energy that would be delivered by typical ventilator settings, whereas the other equation set uses observed output values for end-inspiratory peak and plateau pressure of an already completed inflation. METHODS: Our aim for this study was to compare the relative accuracy of these equation sets against the performance of a physical one-compartment model of the respiratory system, programmed with information readily available at the bedside and ventilated using both constant and decelerating flow profiles. Accordingly, equations of each set were compared against the corresponding energy areas measured by digital planimetry of pressure-volume curves for 76 ventilator and patient parameter combinations and over 500 power calculations. RESULTS: With few exceptions, all equations strongly correlated with their corresponding measurements by planimetry. CONCLUSIONS: This validation of threshold-partitioned energy equations suggests their potential utility for implementing practical strategies for VILI avoidance.

Background Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown. Research Question What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States? Study Design and Methods We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pa o 2 to F io 2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H2O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed. Results A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pa o 2 to F io 2 ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H2O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR. Interpretation Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes. Trial Registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov

Background Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there was serious concern that the United States (US) would encounter a short fall of mechanical ventilators. In response, the US government, utilizing the Defense Production Act ordered the development of 200,000 ventilators from 11 different manufacturers. These ventilators have different capabilities and it is not evident whether all are able to support COVID-19 patients. Research question Evaluate ventilator requirements for affected COVID-19 patients, assess the clinical performance of current SNS ventilators employed during the pandemic, and finally compare ordered ventilators functionality based on COVID-19 patient needs. Study design and methods Current published literature, publicly available documents, and lay press articles were reviewed by a diverse team of disaster experts. Data was assembled into tabular format which formed the basis for analysis and future recommendations. Results COVID-19 patients often develop severe hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and ARDS requiring high levels of ventilator support. Current SNS ventilators were unable to fully support all COVID-19 patients, and only about half of newly ordered ventilators have the capacity to support the most severely affected patients; ventilators with less capacity for providing high level support are still of significant value in caring for many patients. Interpretation Current SNS ventilators and those on order are capable of supporting most but not all COVID-19 patients. Technologic, logistic, and educational challenges encountered from current SNS ventilators are summarized, with potential next generation SNS ventilator updates offered. Clinical trial registration N/A.

BACKGROUND: To minimize ventilator-induced lung injury, the primary clinical focus is currently expanding from measuring static indices of the individual tidal cycle (eg, plateau pressure and tidal volume) to more inclusive indicators of energy load, such as total power and its elastic components. Morbid obesity may influence these components. We characterized the relative values of elastic subcomponents of total power (ie, driving power and dynamic power) in subjects with severe hypoxemia, morbid obesity, or their combination. METHODS: We analyzed data from subjects receiving mechanical ventilation divided into 4 groups. [Formula: see text] / [Formula: see text] < 150 mm Hg (severe hypoxemia) indicated probable reduction of lung compliance while body mass index > 40 kg/m(2) (morbid obesity) suggested a possible contribution to reduced respiratory system compliance from the chest wall. Group 1 included subjects with no expected abnormality of lung compliance or chest wall compliance; Group 2 included subjects with expected reduction of lung compliance on the basis of severe hypoxemia but with no morbid obesity; Group 3 included subjects with morbid obesity without severe hypoxemia; and Group 4 included subjects with morbid obesity and severe hypoxemia. All ventilator-induced lung injury predictors were compared among groups using mixed-effects linear models. RESULTS: Groups 1–4 included 61, 52, 49, and 51 subjects, respectively. Mean body mass index averaged 28.7 kg/m(2) for nonobese subjects and 52.1 kg/m(2) for morbidly obese subjects. Mean driving pressure, dynamic power, and driving power of Groups 2 and 3 exceeded the corresponding values of Group 1 but fell into similar ranges when compared with each other. These values were highest in Group 4 subjects. In Group 2, mean dynamic power and driving power values were comparable to those in Group 3. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated subjects, stress and energy-based ventilator-induced lung injury indicators are influenced by the relative contributions of chest wall and lung to overall respiratory mechanics. Numerical guidelines for ventilator-induced lung injury risk must strongly consider adjustment for these elastic characteristics in morbid obesity.

Lung injury from smoke inhalation manifests as airway and parenchymal damage, at times leading to the acute respiratory distress syndrome. From the beginning of this millennium, the approach to mechanical ventilation in the patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome was based on reduction of tidal volume to 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight, maintaining a ceiling of plateau pressure, and titration of driving pressure (plateau pressure minus PEEP). Beyond these broad constraints, there is little specification for the mechanics of ventilator settings, consideration of the metabolic impact of the disease process on the patient, or interaction of patient disease and ventilator settings. Various studies suggest that inhomogeneity of lung injury, which increases the risk of regional lung trauma from mechanical ventilation, may be found in the patient with smoke inhalation. We now appreciate that energy transfer principles may affect optimal ventilator management and come into play in damaged heterogenous lungs. Mechanical ventilation in the patient with inhalation injury should consider various factors. Self-injurious respiratory demand by the patient can be reduced using analgesia and sedation. Dynamic factors beginning with rate management can reduce the incidence of potentially damaging ventilation. Moreover, preclinical study is underway to examine the flow of gas based on the ventilator mode selected, which may also be a factor triggering regional lung injury.

BACKGROUND No Food and Drug Administration-approved medication improves outcomes following traumatic brain injury (TBI). A forthcoming clinical trial that evaluated the effects of two prehospital tranexamic acid (TXA) dosing strategies compared with placebo demonstrated no differences in thromboelastography (TEG) values. We proposed to explore the impact of TXA on markers of coagulation and fibrinolysis in patients with moderate to severe TBI. METHODS Data were extracted from a placebo-controlled clinical trial in which patients 15 years or older with TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale, 3-12) and systolic blood pressure of ≥90 mm Hg were randomized prehospital to receive placebo bolus/placebo infusion (placebo), 1 g of TXA bolus/1 g of TXA infusion (bolus maintenance), or 2 g of TXA bolus/placebo infusion (bolus only). Thromboelastography was performed, and coagulation measures including prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, international ratio, fibrinogen, D-dimer, plasmin-antiplasmin (PAP), thrombin antithrombin, tissue plasminogen activator, and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 were quantified at admission and 6 hours later. RESULTS Of 966 patients receiving study drug, 700 had laboratory tests drawn at admission and 6 hours later. There were no statistically significant differences in TEG values, including LY30, between groups (p > 0.05). No differences between prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, international ratio, fibrinogen, thrombin antithrombin, tissue plasminogen activator, and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 were demonstrated across treatment groups. Concentrations of D-dimer in TXA treatment groups were less than placebo at 6 hours (p < 0.001). Concentrations of PAP in TXA treatment groups were less than placebo on admission (p < 0.001) and 6 hours (p = 0.02). No differences in D-dimer and PAP were observed between bolus maintenance and bolus only. CONCLUSION While D-dimer and PAP levels reflect a lower degree of fibrinolysis following prehospital administration of TXA when compared with placebo in a large prehospital trial of patients with TBI, TEG obtained on admission and 6 hours later did not demonstrate any differences in fibrinolysis between the two TXA dosing regimens and placebo. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic test, level III.

Anthropogenic disasters may be defined as any disaster caused by human action or inaction. Natural disasters occur without human interference. Injuries caused by terrorists and related criminal activities may be broadly grouped into 3 categories: blunt, blast, and penetrating trauma. Most terrorist and criminal activities that create a mass-casualty situation are performed using the weapons most readily available, such as firearms or explosives. A consistent pattern, comparing terrorism with interpersonal violence, is the greater severity of impact on the victim.

Background While specific interventions have previously demonstrated benefit in patients with the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown. Research Question What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS in the United States (US)? Study Design and Methods We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and PaO2/FiO2< 150 on positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) > 5 cm H2O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016 and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality were also assessed. Results A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline PaO2/FiO2 was 105 (IQR 78.0, 129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (tidal volume < 6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight, plateau pressure and/or peak inspiratory pressure < 30mm H2O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), types of modalities used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early lung protective ventilation (LPV) was correlated with SMR. Interpretation Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03021824

PEEP confers benefit by recruiting atelectatic areas for gas exchange, increasing functional residual capacity, improving compliance, and elevating arterial oxygen tension. Conversely, unnecessary PEEP may encourage overdistention of lung units that are already open, thereby reducing compliance

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is being examined as an alternative to standard oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in critically ill patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and in mechanically ventilated patients at risk for re-intubation. A number of physiological

Background Prone position and PEEP can both improve oxygenation and other parameters, but their interaction has not been fully described. Limited data directly compare selection of mechanically “optimal” or “best” PEEP in both supine and prone positions, either with or without changes in chest wall compliance. To compare best PEEP in these varied conditions, we used an experimental ARDS model to compare the mechanical, gas exchange, and hemodynamic response to PEEP titration in supine and prone position with varied abdominal pressure. Methods Twelve adult swine underwent pulmonary saline lavage and injurious ventilation to simulate ARDS. We used a reversible model of intra-abdominal hypertension to alter chest wall compliance. Response to PEEP levels of 20,17,14,11, 8, and 5 cmH2O was evaluated under four conditions: supine, high abdominal pressure; prone, high abdominal pressure; supine, low abdominal pressure; and prone, low abdominal pressure. Using lung compliance determined with esophageal pressure, we recorded the “best PEEP” and its corresponding target value. Data were evaluated for relationships among abdominal pressure, PEEP, and position using three-way analysis of variance and a linear mixed model with Tukey adjustment. Results Prone position and PEEP independently improved lung compliance (P