UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and National Institutes of Health.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

IMPORTANCEIn patients who require mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, further reduction in tidal volumes, compared with conventional low tidal volume ventilation, may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE To determine whether lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation using extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal improves outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, pragmatic clinical trial enrolled 412 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, of a planned sample size of 1120, between May 2016 and December 2019 from 51 intensive care units in the UK. Follow-up ended on March 11, 2020. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive lower tidal volume ventilation facilitated by extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for at least 48 hours (n = 202) or standard care with conventional low tidal volume ventilation (n = 210). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality 90 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28 and adverse event rates. RESULTS Among 412 patients who were randomized (mean age, 59 years; 143 [35%] women), 405 (98%) completed the trial. The trial was stopped early because of futility and feasibility following recommendations from the data monitoring and ethics committee. The 90-day mortality rate was 41.5% in the lower tidal volume ventilation with extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs 39.5% in the standard care group (risk ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.83-1.33]; difference, 2.0% [95% CI, −7.6% to 11.5%]; P = .68). There were significantly fewer mean ventilator-free days in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group compared with the standard care group (7.1 [95% CI, 5.9-8.3] vs 9.2 [95% CI, 7.9-10.4] days; mean difference, −2.1 [95% CI, −3.8 to −0.3]; P = .02). Serious adverse events were reported for 62 patients (31%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group and 18 (9%) in the standard care group, including intracranial hemorrhage in 9 patients (4.5%) vs 0 (0%) and bleeding at other sites in 6 (3.0%) vs 1 (0.5%) in the extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal group vs the control group. Overall, 21 patients experienced 22 serious adverse events related to the study device.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to facilitate lower tidal volume mechanical ventilation, compared with conventional low tidal volume mechanical ventilation, did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. However, due to early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference.

BackgroundHigh-intensity (high-pressure and high backup rate) noninvasive ventilation has recently been advocated for the management of stable hypercapnic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the relative contributions of high inspiratory pressure and high backup rate to ventilator adherence and physiological outcome have not been investigated.MethodsPatients with stable hypercapnic COPD (daytime PaCO2 > 6 kPa) and nocturnal hypoventilation were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to high-pressure and high backup rate (high-intensity) and high-pressure and low backup rate (high-pressure) for a 6-week period. At the end of the first treatment period, patients were switched to the alternative treatment. The primary outcome measure was mean nightly ventilator usage.ResultsTwelve patients were recruited, with seven completing the 12-week trial protocol. The mean patient age was 71 ± 8 years, with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) of 50% ± 13% and FEV1 of 32% ± 12%. The baseline PaCO2 and PaO2 were 8.6 ± 1.7 kPa and 7.3 ± 1.4 kPa, respectively. There was no significant difference demonstrated in mean nightly ventilator usage between the high-intensity and high-pressure groups (difference of 4 minutes; 95% confidence interval −45 to 53; P = 0.9). Furthermore, there were no differences in any of the secondary endpoints, with the exception of the respiratory domain of the Severe Respiratory Insufficiency questionnaire, which was lower in the high-intensity arm than in the high-pressure arm (57 ± 11 versus 69 ± 16; P < 0.05).ConclusionThere was no additional benefit, in terms of night-time ventilator adherence or any of the other measured parameters, demonstrated by addition of a high backup rate to high-pressure noninvasive ventilation. These data suggest that it is the high-pressure component of the high-intensity noninvasive ventilation approach that plays the important therapeutic role in the management of hypercapnic respiratory failure in COPD patients.

Objectives: To review the outcome of acute ventilatory support in patients presenting acutely with respiratory failure, either with an established diagnosis of motor neurone disease (MND) or with a clinical event where the diagnosis of MND has not yet been established. Methods: Outcome was reviewed in 24 patients with respiratory failure due to MND who received endotracheal intubation and intermittent positive pressure ventilation either at presentation or as a result of the unexpected development of respiratory failure. Patients presenting to local hospitals with acute respiratory insufficiency and requiring tracheal intubation, ventilatory support, and admission to an intensive therapy unit (ITU) before transfer to a regional respiratory care unit were selected. Clinical features of presentation, management, and outcome were studied. Results: 24 patients with MND were identified, all being intubated and ventilated acutely within hours of presentation. 17 patients (71%) were admitted in respiratory failure before the diagnosis of MND had been made; the remaining seven patients (29%) were already known to have MND but deteriorated rapidly such that intubation and ventilation were initiated acutely. Seven patients (29%) died on ITU (between seven and 54 days after admission). 17 patients (71%) were discharged from ITU. 16 patients (67%) received long term respiratory support and one patient required no respiratory support following tracheal extubation. The daily duration of support that was required increased gradually with time. Conclusion: When a patient with MND is ventilated acutely, with or without an established diagnosis, independence from the ventilator is rarely achieved. Almost all of these patients need long term ventilatory support and the degree of respiratory support increases with time as the disease progresses. The aim of management should be weaning the patient to the minimum support compatible with symptomatic relief and comfort. Respiratory failure should be anticipated in patients with MND when the diagnosis has been established.

We have assessed intubating conditions in three groups of 60 ASA I or II patients after induction of anaesthesia with propofol 2 mg kg-1 and remifentanil 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 micrograms kg-1. Tracheal intubation was graded according to ease of laryn-goscopy, position of the vocal cords, coughing, jaw relaxation and movement of the limbs. Intubation was successful in 80%, 90% and 100% of patients after remifentanil 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 micrograms kg-1, respectively. Overall intubating conditions were regarded as acceptable in 20%, 50% and 80% of patients, respectively. All three groups had a decrease in arterial pressure after induction but there was no difference between groups. The decrease in arterial pressure was not regarded as clinically significant. Intubating conditions were best after induction with remifentanil 2 micrograms kg and propofol 2 mg kg-1.