Search

BACKGROUND:. Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are at high risk of death and prolonged time on the ventilator. Interventions often aim to reduce both mortality and time on the ventilator. Many methods have been proposed for analyzing these endpoints as a single composite outcome (days alive and free of ventilation), but it is unclear which analytical method provides the best performance. Thus, we aimed to determine the analysis method with the highest statistical power for use in clinical trials. METHODS:. Using statistical simulation, we compared multiple methods for analyzing days alive and free of ventilation: the t, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Kryger Jensen and Lange tests, as well as the proportional odds, hurdle-Poisson, and competing risk models. We compared 14 scenarios relating to: 1) varying baseline distributions of mortality and duration of ventilation, which were based on data from a registry of patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and 2) the varying effects of treatment on mortality and duration of ventilation. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS:. All methods have good control of type 1 error rates (i.e., avoid false positive findings). When data are simulated using a proportional odds model, the t test and ordinal models have the highest relative power (92% and 90%, respectively), followed by competing risk models. When the data are simulated using survival models, the competing risk models have the highest power (100% and 92%), followed by the t test and a ten-category ordinal model. All models struggled to detect the effect of the intervention when the treatment only affected one of mortality and duration of ventilation. Overall, the best performing analytical strategy depends on the respective effects of treatment on survival and duration of ventilation and the underlying distribution of the outcomes. The evaluated models each provide a different interpretation for the treatment effect, which must be considered alongside the statistical power when selecting analysis models.

OBJECTIVES:. We planned to synthesize evidence examining the potential efficacy and safety of performing physical rehabilitation and/or mobilization (PR&M) in adult patients receiving extracorporeal life support (ECLS). DATA SOURCES:. We included any study that compared PR&M to no PR&M or among different PR&M strategies in adult patients receiving any ECLS for any indication and any cannulation. We searched seven electronic databases with no language limitations. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:. Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened all citations for eligibility. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tools to assess individual study risk of bias. Although we had planned for meta-analysis, this was not possible due to insufficient data, so we used narrative and tabular data summaries for presenting results. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. DATA SYNTHESIS:. We included 17 studies that enrolled 996 patients. Most studies examined venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and/or venoarterial ECMO as a bridge to recovery in the ICU. We found an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, or quality of life compared with low-intensity/passive PR&M in patients receiving ECLS (very low certainty due to very serious imprecision). There was similarly an uncertain effect on safety events including clinically important bleeding, spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, limb ischemia, accidental decannulation, or ECLS circuit dysfunction (very low certainty due to very serious risk of bias and imprecision). CONCLUSIONS:. Based on the currently available summary of evidence, there is an uncertain effect of high-intensity/active PR&M on patient important outcomes or safety in patients receiving ECLS. Despite indirect data from other populations suggesting potential benefit of high-intensity PR&M in the ICU; further high-quality randomized trials evaluating the benefits and risks of physical therapy and/or mobilization in this population are needed.

IMPORTANCE:. Prone positioning is associated with improved mortality in patients with moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and has been increasingly used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In patients with refractory hypoxemia, transfer to an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) center may improve outcome but may be challenging due to severely compromised gas exchange. Transport of these patients in prone position may be advantageous; however, there is a paucity of data on their outcomes. OBJECTIVES:. The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe the early outcomes of ARDS patients transported in prone position for evaluation at a regional ECMO center. A secondary objective was to examine the safety of their transport in the prone position. DESIGN:. Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:. This study used patient charts from Ornge and Toronto General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, between February 1, 2020, and November 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS:. Patient with ARDS transported in the prone position for ECMO evaluation to Toronto General Hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:. Descriptive analysis of patients transported in the prone position and their outcomes. RESULTS:. One hundred fifteen patients were included. Seventy-two received ECMO (63%) and 51 died (44%) with ARDS and sepsis as the most common listed causes of death. Patients were transported primarily for COVID-related indications (93%). Few patients required additional analgesia (8%), vasopressors (4%), or experienced clinically relevant desaturation during transport (2%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:. This cohort of patients with severe ARDS transported in prone position had outcomes ranging from similar to better compared with existing literature. Prone transport was performed safely with few complications or escalation in treatments. Prone transport to an ECMO center should be regarded as safe and potentially beneficial for patients with ARDS and refractory hypoxemia.

Background: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used increasingly to support patients who are in cardiogenic shock. Due to the risk of complications, prediction models may aid in identifying patients who would benefit most from VA-ECMO. One such model is the Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (SAVE) score. Therefore, we wanted to validate the utility of the SAVE score in a contemporary cohort of adult patients. Methods: Retrospective data were extracted from electronic health records of 120 patients with cardiogenic shock supported with VA-ECMO between 2011 and 2018. The SAVE score was calculated for each patient to predict survival to hospital discharge. We assessed the SAVE score calibration by comparing predicted vs observed survival at discharge. We assessed discrimination with the area under the receiver operating curve using logistic regression. Results: A total of 45% of patients survived to hospital discharge. Survivors had a significantly higher mean SAVE score (–9.3 ± 4.1 in survivors vs –13.1 ± 4.4, respectively; P = 0.001). SAVE score discrimination was adequate (c = 0.77; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.86; P < 0.001). SAVE score calibration was limited, as observed survival rates for risk classes II-V were higher in our cohort (II: 67% vs 58%; III: 78% vs 42%; IV: 61% vs 30%; and V: 29% vs 18%). Conclusions: The SAVE score underestimates survival in a contemporary North American cohort of adult patients with cardiogenic shock. Its inaccurate performance could lead to denying ECMO support to patients deemed to be too high risk. Further studies are needed to validate additional predictive models for patients requiring VA-ECMO. Résumé: Contexte: L’oxygénation extracorporelle veino-artérielle (ECMO-VA) est de plus en plus utilisée comme assistance pour les patients qui sont en choc cardiogène. En raison du risque de complications, des modèles de prédiction peuvent aider à déterminer quels patients bénéficieraient le plus d’une ECMO-VA. Le score SAVE (Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) est un modèle de ce genre. Par conséquent, nous voulions valider l’utilité du score SAVE dans une cohorte contemporaine de patients adultes. Méthodologie: Des données rétrospectives ont été extraites de dossiers médicaux électroniques de 120 patients atteints d’un choc cardiogène ayant reçu une ECMO-VA entre 2011 et 2018. Le score SAVE a été calculé pour chaque patient afin de prédire la survie au congé de l’hôpital. Nous avons évalué la calibration du score SAVE en comparant la survie prédite au moment du congé et la survie observée. Nous avons évalué la discrimination par l’aire sous la courbe opérationnelle chez le receveur en faisant appel à la régression logistique. Résultats: Au total, 45 % des patients ont survécu au congé de l’hôpital. Les survivants affichaient un score SAVE moyen considérablement plus élevé (–9,3 ± 4,1 chez les survivants vs –13,1 ± 4,4; p = 0,001). La discrimination par le score SAVE était adéquate (c = 0,77; intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 0,69 à 0,86; p < 0,001). La calibration du score SAVE était limitée, car les taux pour les classes de risque II à V étaient plus élevés dans notre cohorte (II : 67 % vs 58 %; III : 78 % vs 42 %; IV : 61 % vs 30 %; et V : 29 % vs 18 %). Conclusions: Le score SAVE sous-estime la survie dans une cohorte nord-américaine contemporaine de patients adultes atteints d’un choc cardiogène. L’inexactitude de ses résultats pourrait faire en sorte qu’une assistance par ECMO serait refusée à des patients jugés comme présentant un risque élevé. D’autres études sont nécessaires pour valider d’autres modèles de prédiction pour les patients ayant besoin d’une ECMO-VA.

IMPORTANCE:. Factors associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation are still not fully elucidated. OBJECTIVES:. To identify patient-level parameters, readily available at the bedside, associated with the risk of in-hospital mortality within 28 days from commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation or coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:. Prospective observational cohort study by the global Coronavirus Disease 2019 Critical Care Consortium. Patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation from February 2, 2020, to May 15, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:. Patient characteristics and clinical data were assessed upon ICU admission, the commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation and for 28 days thereafter. We primarily aimed to identify time-independent and time-dependent risk factors for 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality. RESULTS:. One-thousand five-hundred eighty-seven patients were included in the survival analysis; 588 patients died in hospital within 28 days of commencing invasive mechanical ventilation (37%). Cox-regression analysis identified associations between the hazard of 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality with age (hazard ratio, 1.26 per 10-yr increase in age; 95% CI, 1.16–1.37; p < 0.001), positive end-expiratory pressure upon commencement of invasive mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio, 0.81 per 5 cm H2O increase; 95% CI, 0.67–0.97; p = 0.02). Time-dependent parameters associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality were serum creatinine (hazard ratio, 1.28 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.15–1.41; p < 0.001), lactate (hazard ratio, 1.22 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.11–1.34; p < 0.001), Paco2 (hazard ratio, 1.63 per doubling; 95% CI, 1.19–2.25; p < 0.001), pH (hazard ratio, 0.89 per 0.1 increase; 95% CI, 0.8–14; p = 0.041), Pao2/Fio2 (hazard ratio, 0.58 per doubling; 95% CI, 0.52–0.66; p < 0.001), and mean arterial pressure (hazard ratio, 0.92 per 10 mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 0.88–0.97; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:. This international study suggests that in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 on invasive mechanical ventilation, older age and clinically relevant variables monitored at baseline or sequentially during the course of invasive mechanical ventilation are associated with 28-day invasive mechanical ventilation mortality hazard. Further investigation is warranted to validate any causative roles these parameters might play in influencing clinical outcomes.

Objectives:. To assess differences in cognitive outcomes and sleep in adult survivors of critical illness, managed with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as compared to conventional mechanical ventilation only. Design:. Retrospective cohort study linked with data from the COGnitive outcomes and WELLness study. Setting:. A multisite study from five adult medical/surgical ICUs in Toronto. Patients:. Thirty-three ICU survivors including adult patients who received venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 11) matched with patients who received mechanical ventilation only (n = 22) using specified covariates (e.g., age). Interventions:. None. Measurements and Main Results:. Baseline demographics and admission diagnoses were collected at enrollment. Cognitive outcome was evaluated using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychologic Status (global cognitive function) and Trail Making Test B (executive function), and sleep variables were estimated using actigraphy. Assessments occurred at 7 days post ICU discharge and again at 6- and 12-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference was seen between patients treated with or without venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the mean daily Riker Sedation Agitation Score; however, patients in the venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation group received greater amounts of fentanyl over their ICU stay as compared to patients receiving conventional mechanical ventilation only (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in performance on either of the cognitive assessment tools, between survivors treated or not with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at any of the time points assessed. Total sleep time estimated by actigraphy increased from approximately 6.5 hours in hospital to 7.5 hours at 6-month follow-up in all patients, regardless of treatment type. Total sleep time remained consistent in both groups from 6 to 12 months post ICU discharge. Conclusions:. In this small retrospective case series, no significant differences were found in sleep or cognitive outcomes between extracorporeal life support and non–extracorporeal life support survivors. Further, in this hypothesis-generating study, differences in administered sedative doses during the ICU stay seen between the two groups did not impact 6- or 12-month cognitive performance or actigraphy-estimated sleep time.