Patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS receive treatment adjuncts frequently, especially with refractory hypoxemia. Paradoxically, therapies with less evidence supporting their use (e.g., pulmonary vasodilators) were over-used, whereas those with more evidence (e.g., prone positioning, neuromuscular blockade) were under-used. Patients received higher Vts and lower PEEP than would be suggested by the evidence.

The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM-RPG) is to formulate an evidence-based guidance for the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The panel comprised 20 international clinical experts from 12 countries, and 2 patient representatives. We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines and followed a strict conflict of interest policy. We convened panelists through teleconferences and web-based discussions. Guideline experts from the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation Group provided methodological support. Two content experts provided input and shared their expertise with the panel but did not participate in drafting the final recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and suggestions. We used the evidence to decision framework to generate recommendations. The panel provided input on guideline implementation and monitoring, and suggested future research priorities. The overall certainty in the evidence was low. The ICM-RPG panel issued one recommendation and two suggestions regarding the use of NMBAs in adults with ARDS. Current evidence does not support the early routine use of an NMBA infusion in adults with ARDS of any severity. It favours avoiding a continuous infusion of NMBA for patients who are ventilated using a lighter sedation strategy. However, for patients who require deep sedation to facilitate lung protective ventilation or prone positioning, and require neuromuscular blockade, an infusion of an NMBA for 48 h is a reasonable option. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06227-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Expiratory flow limitation (EFL) is present when the flow cannot rise despite an increase in the expiratory driving pressure. The mechanisms of EFL are debated but are believed to be related to the collapsibility of small airways. In patients who are mechanically ventilated, EFL can exist during tidal ventilation, representing an extreme situation in which lung volume cannot decrease, regardless of the expiratory driving forces. It is a key factor for the generation of auto- or intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and requires specific management such as positioning and adjustment of external PEEP. EFL can be responsible for causing dyspnea and patient-ventilator dyssynchrony, and it is influenced by the fluid status of the patient. EFL frequently affects patients with COPD, obesity, and heart failure, as well as patients with ARDS, especially at low PEEP. EFL is, however, most often unrecognized in the clinical setting despite being associated with complications of mechanical ventilation and poor outcomes such as postoperative pulmonary complications, extubation failure, and possibly airway injury in ARDS. Therefore, prompt recognition might help the management of patients being mechanically ventilated who have EFL and could potentially influence outcome. EFL can be suspected by using different means, and this review summarizes the methods to specifically detect EFL during mechanical ventilation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is extensively used for acute respiratory failure. However, questions remain regarding its physiological effects. We explored 1) whether HFNC produced similar effects to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); 2) possible explanations of respiratory rate changes; 3) the effects of mouth opening. Two studies were conducted: a bench study using a manikin's head with lungs connected to a breathing simulator while delivering HFNC flow rates from 0 to 60L/min; a physiological cross-over study in 10 healthy volunteers receiving HFNC (20 to 60L/min) with the mouth open or closed and CPAP 4cmH2O delivered through face-mask. Nasopharyngeal and esophageal pressures were measured; tidal volume and flow were estimated using calibrated electrical impedance tomography. In the bench study, nasopharyngeal pressure at end-expiration reached 4cmH2O with HFNC at 60L/min, while tidal volume decreased with increasing flow. In volunteers with HFNC at 60L/min, nasopharyngeal pressure reached 6.8cmH2O with mouth closed and 0.8cmH2O with mouth open; p<0.001. When increasing HFNC flow, respiratory rate decreased by lengthening expiratory time, tidal volume did not change, and effort decreased (pressure-time product of the respiratory muscles); at 40L/min, effort was equivalent between CPAP and HFNC40L/min and became lower at 60L/min (p=0.045). During HFNC with mouth closed, and not during CPAP, resistance to breathing was increased, mostly during expiration. In conclusion, mouth closure during HFNC induces a positive nasopharyngeal pressure proportional to flow rate and an increase in expiratory resistance that might explain the prolonged expiration and reduction in respiratory rate and effort, and contribute to physiological benefits.