Background Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak.Methods PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). FindingsBetween March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6•3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5•7-7•1), PEEP was 14•0 cm H 2 O (IQR 11•0-15•0), and driving pressure was 14•0 cm H 2 O (11•2-16•0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31•9 mL/cm H 2 O (26•0-39•9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0-15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. Interpretation In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. Funding Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center.

IntroductionBecause of ongoing controversy, renal and vital outcomes are compared between systemically administered unfractionated heparin and regional anticoagulation with citrate-buffered replacement solution in predilution mode, during continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI).MethodsIn this multi-center randomized controlled trial, patients admitted to the intensive care unit requiring CVVH and meeting inclusion criteria, were randomly assigned to citrate or heparin. Primary endpoints were mortality and renal outcome in intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints were safety and efficacy. Safety was defined as absence of any adverse event necessitating discontinuation of the assigned anticoagulant. For efficacy, among other parameters, survival times of the first hemofilter were studied.ResultsOf the 139 patients enrolled, 66 were randomized to citrate and 73 to heparin. Mortality rates at 28 and 90 days did not differ between groups: 22/66 (33%) of citrate-treated patients died versus 25/72 (35%) of heparin-treated patients at 28 days, and 27/65 (42%) of citrate-treated patients died versus 29/69 (42%) of heparin-treated patients at 90 days (P = 1.00 for both). Renal outcome, i.e. independency of renal replacement therapy 28 days after initiation of CVVH in surviving patients, did not differ between groups: 29/43 (67%) in the citrate-treated patients versus 33/47 (70%) in heparin-treated patients (P = 0.82). Heparin was discontinued in 24/73 (33%) of patients whereas citrate was discontinued in 5/66 (8%) of patients (P < 0.001). Filter survival times were superior for citrate (median 46 versus 32 hours, P = 0.02), as were the number of filters used (P = 0.002) and the off time within 72 hours (P = 0.002). The costs during the first 72 hours of prescribed CVVH were lower in citrate-based CVVH.ConclusionsRenal outcome and patient mortality were similar for citrate and heparin anticoagulation during CVVH in the critically ill patient with AKI. However, citrate was superior in terms of safety, efficacy and costs.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00209378. Registered 13th September 2005.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0472-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

trialregister.nlIdentifier: NTR1780.

Key PointsQuestionIn patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who received invasive ventilation for reasons other than acute respiratory distress syndrome, is a ventilation strategy with lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) noninferior to a strategy using higher PEEP with respect to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28?FindingsIn this randomized clinical trial that included 980 ICU patients receiving invasive ventilation and who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours of randomization, a ventilation strategy using lower PEEP compared with a strategy using higher PEEP resulted in 18 vs 17 ventilator-free days at day 28, a difference that did not exceed the noninferiority margin of −10%.MeaningAmong patients in the ICU receiving invasive ventilation, a strategy with lower PEEP was noninferior to a strategy using higher PEEP.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Purpose: Individualising drug dosing using model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin has been proposed as an alternative to standard dosing to optimise antibiotic efficacy in critically ill patients. However, randomised clinical trials (RCT) on clinical outcomes have been lacking. Methods:This multicentre RCT, including patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who were treated with antibiotics, was conducted in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomised to MIPD with dose and interval adjustments based on monitoring serum drug levels (therapeutic drug monitoring) combined with pharmacometric modelling of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 6-month mortality, delta sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, adverse events and target attainment. Results:In total, 388 (MIPD n = 189; standard dosing n = 199) patients were analysed (median age 64 ). We found no significant differences in ICU LOS between MIPD compared to standard dosing (10 MIPD vs 8 standard dosing; IRR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.96-1.41; p = 0.13). There was no significant difference in target attainment before intervention at day 1 (T1) (55.6% MIPD vs 60.9% standard dosing; p = 0.24) or at day 3 (T3) (59.5% vs 60.4%; p = 0.84). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions:We could not show a beneficial effect of MIPD of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin on ICU LOS in critically ill patients. Our data highlight the need to identify other approaches to dose optimisation.

Objectives To describe the population pharmacokinetics and protein-binding characteristics of unbound ceftriaxone administered as continuous or intermittent infusion. Additionally, to determine the optimal dosing regimen in critically ill patients. Methods A pharmacokinetic study was performed in the ICU of a tertiary teaching hospital. Patients were treated with ceftriaxone as continuous or intermittent infusion. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed with non-linear mixed-effects analysis. Subsequently, the PTA of a 100% T&gt;MIC was assessed for influential patient characteristics using Monte Carlo simulation. Results Fifty-five patients were included. The pharmacokinetics of ceftriaxone was best described by a one-compartment model with non-linear saturable protein binding including the following covariates: body weight, estimated CLCR, serum albumin concentration and mode of administration. For pathogens with an MIC of 1 mg/L, the simulation demonstrated that intermittent infusion of 2 g/24 h only resulted in a ≥90% PTA in patients with a reduced CLCR (0–60 mL/min). Intermittent infusion of 2 g/12 h led to sufficient exposure if CLCR was 0–90 mL/min and continuous infusion of 2 g/24 h led to a ≥90% PTA in all simulations (CLCR 0–180 mL/min). Conclusions In the critically ill, the clearance of unbound ceftriaxone is closely related to CLCR. Furthermore, ceftriaxone protein binding is saturable, variable and dependent on serum albumin concentration. Intermittent dosing of 2 g/24 h ceftriaxone leads to subtherapeutic exposure in patients with a normal or increased CLCR. Treating these patients with continuous infusion of 2 g/24 h is more effective than an intermittent dosing regimen of 2 g/12 h.

No abstract