Background: There are no specific generally accepted therapies for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The full spectrum of COVID-19 ranges from asymptomatic disease to mild respiratory tract illness to severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multisystem organ failure, and death. The efficacy of corticosteroids in viral ARDS remains unknown. We postulated that adjunctive treatment of established ARDS caused by COVID-19 with intravenous dexamethasone might change the pulmonary and systemic inflammatory response and thereby reduce morbidity, leading to a decrease in duration of mechanical ventilation and in mortality. Methods/design: This is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, parallel, open-label, superiority trial testing dexamethasone in 200 mechanically ventilated adult patients with established moderate-to-severe ARDS caused by confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Established ARDS is defined as maintaining a PaO 2 /FiO 2 ≤ 200 mmHg on PEEP ≥ 10 cmH 2 O and FiO 2 ≥ 0.5 after 12 ± 3 h of routine intensive care. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to receive either dexamethasone plus standard intensive care or standard intensive care alone. Patients in the dexamethasone group will receive an intravenous dose of 20 mg once daily from day 1 to day 5, followed by 10 mg once daily from day 6 to day 10. The primary outcome is 60-day mortality. The secondary outcome is the number of ventilator-free days, defined as days alive and free from mechanical ventilation at day 28 after randomization. All analyses will be done according to the intention-to-treat principle.

We hypothesized that neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) compared to conventional lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV) decreases duration of MV and mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Methods: We carried out a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in patients with ARF from several etiologies. Intubated patients ventilated for ≤ 5 days expected to require MV for ≥ 72 h and able to breathe spontaneously were eligible for enrollment. Eligible patients were randomly assigned based on balanced treatment assignments with a computerized randomization allocation sequence to two ventilatory strategies: (1) lung-protective MV (control group), and (2) lung-protective MV with NAVA (NAVA group). Allocation concealment was maintained at all sites during the trial. Primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days. Secondary outcome was all-cause hospital mortality. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: Between March 2014 and October 2019, we enrolled 306 patients and randomly assigned 153 patients to the NAVA group and 153 to the control group. Median VFDs were higher in the NAVA than in the control group (22 vs. 18 days; between-group difference 4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 8 days; p = 0.016). At hospital discharge, 39 (25.5%) patients in the NAVA group and 47 (30.7%) patients in the control group had died (between-group difference − 5.2%, 95% CI − 15.2 to 4.8, p = 0.31). Other clinical, physiological or safety outcomes did not differ significantly between the trial groups. Conclusion: NAVA decreased duration of MV although it did not improve survival in ventilated patients with ARF.

Most deaths in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients are not directly related to lung damage but to extrapulmonary multisystem organ failure. It would be challenging to prove that specific lung-directed therapies have an effect on overall survival.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES: To establish the epidemiological characteristics, ventilator management, and outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF), with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), in the era of lung-protective mechanical ventilation (MV). DESIGN: A 6-month prospective, epidemiological, observational study. SETTING: A network of 22 multidisciplinary ICUs in Spain. PATIENTS: Consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with AHRF (defined as Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 300 mm Hg on positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] ≥ 5 cm H2O and Fio2 ≥ 0.3) and followed-up until hospital discharge. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were prevalence of AHRF and ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included prevalence of ARDS, ventilatory management, and use of adjunctive therapies. During the study period, 9,803 patients were admitted: 4,456 (45.5%) received MV, 1,271 (13%) met AHRF criteria (1,241 were included into the study: 333 [26.8%] met Berlin ARDS criteria and 908 [73.2%] did not). At baseline, tidal volume was 6.9 ± 1.1 mL/kg predicted body weight, PEEP 8.4 ± 3.1 cm H2O, Fio2 0.63 ± 0.22, and plateau pressure 21.5 ± 5.4 cm H2O. ARDS patients received higher Fio2 and PEEP than non-ARDS (0.75 ± 0.22 vs 0.59 ± 0.20 cm H2O and 10.3 ± 3.4 vs 7.7 ± 2.6 cm H2O, respectively [p < 0.0001]). Adjunctive therapies were rarely used in non-ARDS patients. Patients without ARDS had higher ventilator-free days than ARDS (12.2 ± 11.6 vs 9.3 ± 9.7 d; p < 0.001). All-cause ICU mortality was similar in AHRF with or without ARDS (34.8% [95% CI, 29.7–40.2] vs 35.5% [95% CI, 32.3–38.7]; p = 0.837). CONCLUSIONS: AHRF without ARDS is a very common syndrome in the ICU with a high mortality that requires specific studies into its epidemiology and ventilatory management. We found that the prevalence of ARDS was much lower than reported in recent observational studies.