Patient characteristics and ventilation practices have changed over time, and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients have improved. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01093482).
IMPORTANCE Abnormal peripheral perfusion after septic shock resuscitation has been associated with organ dysfunction and mortality. The potential role of the clinical assessment of peripheral perfusion as a target during resuscitation in early septic shock has not been established. OBJECTIVE To determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation during early septic shock in adults is more effective than a lactate level-targeted resuscitation for reducing mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 28 intensive care units in 5 countries. Four-hundred twenty-four patients with septic shock were included between March 2017 and March 2018. The last date of follow-up was June 12, 2018. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to a step-by-step resuscitation protocol aimed at either normalizing capillary refill time (n = 212) or normalizing or decreasing lactate levels at rates greater than 20% per 2 hours (n = 212), during an 8-hour intervention period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were organ dysfunction at 72 hours after randomization, as assessed by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst]); death within 90 days; mechanical ventilation-, renal replacement therapy-, and vasopressor-free days within 28 days; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. RESULTS Among 424 patients randomized (mean age, 63 years; 226 [53%] women), 416 (98%) completed the trial. By day 28, 74 patients (34.9%) in the peripheral perfusion group and 92 patients (43.4%) in the lactate group had died (hazard ratio, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02]; P = .06; risk difference, −8.5% [95% CI, −18.2% to 1.2%]). Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation was associated with less organ dysfunction at 72 hours (mean SOFA score, 5.6 [SD, 4.3] vs 6.6 [SD, 4.7]; mean difference, −1.00 [95% CI, −1.97 to −0.02]; P = .045). There were no significant differences in the other 6 secondary outcomes. No protocol-related serious adverse reactions were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with septic shock, a resuscitation strategy targeting normalization of capillary refill time, compared with a strategy targeting serum lactate levels, did not reduce all-cause 28-day mortality.
The strong concordance of predicted and observed practice changes suggests that randomized trial results have advanced mechanical ventilation practices internationally.
Patients were classified according to a new weaning classification: 1,502 patients (55%) as simple weaning,1,058 patients (39%) as difficult weaning, and 154 (6%) as prolonged weaning.Variables associated with prolonged weaning(.7d)were: severity at admission (odds ratio [OR] per unit of Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001–1.02), duration of mechanical ventilation before first attempt of weaning (OR per day, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.06–1.13), chronic pulmonary disease other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR,13.23; 95% CI, 3.44–51.05), pneumonia as the reason to start mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.07–3.08), and level of positive end-expiratory pressure applied before weaning (OR per unit,1.09; 95% CI, 1.04–1.14). The prolonged weaning group had a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of reintubation (P ¼ 0.08),tracheostomy (P ¼ 0.15), and significantly longer length of stay and higher mortality in the intensive care unit (OR for death, 1.97;95%CI, 1.17–3.31). The adjusted probability of death remained constant until Day 7, at which point it increased to 12.1%.
Purpose To analyze the relationship between hypercapnia developing within the first 48 h after the start of mechanical ventilation and outcome in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Patients and methods We performed a secondary analysis of three prospective non-interventional cohort studies focusing on ARDS patients from 927 intensive care units (ICUs) in 40 countries. These patients received mechanical ventilation for more than 12 h during 1-month periods in 1998, 2004, and 2010. We used multivariable logistic regression and a propensity score analysis to examine the association between hypercapnia and ICU mortality. Main outcomes We included 1899 patients with ARDS in this study. The relationship between maximum PaCO2 in the first 48 h and mortality suggests higher mortality at or above PaCO2 of ≥50 mmHg. Patients with severe hypercapnia (PaCO2 ≥50 mmHg) had higher complication rates, more organ failures, and worse outcomes. After adjusting for age, SAPS II score, respiratory rate, positive end-expiratory pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, driving pressure, pressure/volume limitation strategy (PLS), corrected minute ventilation, and presence of acidosis, severe hypercapnia was associated with increased risk of ICU mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 2.81; p = 0.001]. In patients with severe hypercapnia matched for all other variables, ventilation with PLS was associated with higher ICU mortality (OR 1.58, CI 95% 1.04–2.41; p = 0.032). Conclusions Severe hypercapnia appears to be independently associated with higher ICU mortality in patients with ARDS.
Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.
The imaging and clinical examination (ICE) algorithm used in the Benchmark Evidence from South American Trials: Treatment of Intracranial Pressure (BEST TRIP) randomized controlled trial is the only prospectively investigated clinical protocol for traumatic brain injury management without intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. As the default literature standard, it warrants careful evaluation. We present the ICE protocol in detail and analyze the demographics, outcome, treatment intensity, frequency of intervention usage, and related adverse events in the ICE-protocol cohort. The 167 ICE protocol patients were young (median 29 years) with a median Glasgow Coma Scale motor score of 4 but with anisocoria or abnormal pupillary reactivity in 40%. This protocol produced outcomes not significantly different from those randomized to the monitor-based protocol (favorable 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Score in 39%; 41% mortality rate). Agents commonly employed to treat suspected intracranial hypertension included low-/moderate-dose hypertonic saline (72%) and mannitol (57%), mild hyperventilation (adjusted partial pressure of carbon dioxide 30-35 mm Hg in 73%), and pressors to maintain cerebral perfusion (62%). High-dose hyperosmotics or barbiturates were uncommonly used. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable to the BEST TRIP monitored group. Although this protocol should produce similar/acceptable results under circumstances comparable to those in the trial, influences such as longer pre-hospital times and non-specialist transport personnel, plus an intensive care unit model of aggressive physician-intensive care by small groups of neurotrauma-focused intensivists, which differs from most high-resource models, support caution in expecting the same results in dissimilar settings. Finally, this protocol's ICP-titration approach to suspected intracranial hypertension (vs. crisis management for monitored ICP) warrants further study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.