Dataset Information

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant.

Research question

Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible?

Study design and methods

We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H₂O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days.

Results

Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group.

Interpretation

Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk.

Trial registry

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

SUBMITTER: Mauri T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7664474 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Mauri Tommaso T Foti Giuseppe G Fornari Carla C Grasselli Giacomo G Pinciroli Riccardo R Lovisari Federica F Tubiolo Daniela D Volta Carlo Alberto CA Spadaro Savino S Rona Roberto R Rondelli Egle E Navalesi Paolo P Garofalo Eugenio E Knafelj Rihard R Gorjup Vojka V Colombo Riccardo R Cortegiani Andrea A Zhou Jian-Xin JX D'Andrea Rocco R Calamai Italo I Vidal González Ánxela Á Roca Oriol O Grieco Domenico Luca DL Jovaisa Tomas T Bampalis Dimitrios D Becher Tobias T Battaglini Denise D Ge Huiqing H Luz Mariana M Constantin Jean-Michel JM Ranieri Marco M Guerin Claude C Mancebo Jordi J Pelosi Paolo P Fumagalli Roberto R Brochard Laurent L Pesenti Antonio A

Chest 20201113 4

<h4>Background</h4>Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant.<h4>Research question</h4>Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible?<h4>Study design and methods</h4>We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intu ...[more]

PMID: 33197403

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdding cyclic short sustained inflations (sigh) to assisted ventilation yields optimizes lung recruitment, decreases heterogeneity and reduces inspiratory effort in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). These findings suggest that adding sigh to pressure support ventilation (PSV) might decrease the risk of lung injury, shorten weaning and improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we conceived a pilot trial to test the feasibility of adding sigh to PSV (the PROTECTION study).MethodsPROTECTION is an international randomized controlled trial that will be conducted in 23 intensive care units (ICUs). Patients with AHRF who have been intubated from 24 h to 7 days and undergoing PSV from 4 to 24 h will be enrolled. All patients will first undergo a 30-min sigh test by adding sigh to clinical PSV for 30 min to identify early oxygenation responders. Then, patients will be randomized to PSV or PSV + sigh until extubation, ICU discharge, death or day 28. Sigh will be delivered as a 3-s pressure control breath delivered once per minute at 30 cmH2O. Standardized protocols will guide ventilation settings, switch back to controlled ventilation, use of rescue treatments, performance of spontaneous breathing trial, extubation and reintubation. The primary endpoint of the study will be to verify the feasibility of PSV + sigh evaluated through reduction of failure to remain on assisted ventilation during the first 28 days in the PSV + sigh group versus standard PSV (15 vs. 22%). Failure will be defined by switch back to controlled ventilation for more than 24 h or use of rescue treatments or reintubation within 48 h from elective extubation. Setting the power to 80% and first-risk order to 5%, the computed size of the trial is 129 patients per arm.DiscussionPROTECTION is a pilot randomized controlled trial testing the feasibility of adding sigh to PSV. If positive, it will provide physicians with an effective addition to standard PSV for lung protection, able to reduce failure of assisted ventilation. PROTECTION will provide the basis for a future larger trial aimed at verifying the impact of PSV + sigh on 28-day survival and ventilator-free days.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03201263 . Registered on 28 June 2017.

Project description:BackgroundInhaled nitric oxide (INO), a selective pulmonary vasodilator, has revolutionized the treatment of neonatal hypoxemic respiratory failure (NHRF). However, there is lack of sustained improvement in 30 to 46% of infants. Aerosolized prostaglandins I2 (PGI2) and E1 (PGE1) have been reported to be effective selective pulmonary vasodilators. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of inhaled PGE1 (IPGE1) in NHRF.MethodsTwo pilot multicenter phase II RCTs are included in this report. In the first pilot, late preterm and term neonates with NHRF, who had an oxygenation index (OI) of ≥15 and <25 on two arterial blood gases and had not previously received INO, were randomly assigned to receive two doses of IPGE1 (300 and 150 ng/kg/min) or placebo. The primary outcome was the enrollment of 50 infants in six to nine months at 10 sites. The first pilot was halted after four months for failure to enroll a single infant. The most common cause for non-enrollment was prior initiation of INO. In a re-designed second pilot, co-administration of IPGE1 and INO was permitted. Infants with suboptimal response to INO received either aerosolized saline or IPGE1 at a low (150 ng/kg/min) or high dose (300 ng/kg/min) for a maximum duration of 72 hours. The primary outcome was the recruitment of an adequate number of patients (n = 50) in a nine-month-period, with fewer than 20% protocol violations.ResultsNo infants were enrolled in the first pilot. Seven patients were enrolled in the second pilot; three in the control, two in the low-dose IPGE1, and two in the high-dose IPGE1 groups. The study was halted for recruitment futility after approximately six months as enrollment targets were not met. No serious adverse events, one minor protocol deviation and one pharmacy protocol violation were reported.ConclusionsThese two pilot RCTs failed to recruit adequate eligible newborns with NHRF. Complex management RCTs of novel therapies for persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) may require novel study designs and a longer period of time from study approval to commencement of enrollment.Trial registrationCLINICALTRIALS.GOV: Pilot one: NCT number: 00598429 registered on 10 January 2008. Last updated: 3 February 2011. Pilot two: NCT number: 01467076 17 October 2011. Last updated: 13 February 2013.

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary intravascular thrombus formation has been widely observed in patients with respiratory failure, for example, in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy/safety of alteplase thrombolysis in COVID-19 severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this multicenter, open-label study, patients were randomized to receive alteplase (low- or high-dose) over 5 days plus standard of care (SOC), or SOC alone. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement (≥ 2-point decrease on WHO Clinical Progression Scale, or hospital discharge) up to Day 28. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality at Day 28, treatment failure at Day 28 and change in arterial oxygen partial pressure/fractional inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio at Day 6 versus baseline.ResultsSixty-nine patients were randomized to alteplase (low- or high-dose) and 35 to SOC; 65% were on high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation at baseline. Median time to clinical improvement was 25 days in the alteplase group and > 28 days (median not reached) in the SOC group. All-cause mortality was 8/69 (12%) versus 10/35 (29%) in the alteplase versus SOC groups, respectively (unadjusted risk difference [RD], - 17% [95% confidence interval (CI) - 34 to 0], p = 0.047; adjusted RD, - 16% [95% CI - 31 to 1], p = 0.058). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio (mean [standard deviation]) increased by + 30 (84) mmHg in the alteplase group and decreased by - 12 (59) mmHg in the SOC group (adjusted mean difference vs. SOC, p = 0.052). Differences were greater in patients receiving high-dose alteplase, and in those not receiving invasive ventilation. Eighteen patients (26.1%) in the alteplase group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Major bleeding was more frequent with alteplase than with SOC (9 vs. 0 patients); no bleeding was fatal. The study closed early due to insufficient patient recruitment.ConclusionAlteplase was not associated with faster clinical recovery from COVID-19 severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. A numerical difference in survival and PaO2/FiO2 ratio was observed, particularly in patients not receiving invasive ventilation. These exploratory findings merit further investigation in larger patient cohorts that are adequately powered to confirm the hypotheses generated in this study regarding the impact of alteplase on treatment outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04640194 (November 23, 2020); https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04640194 (early discontinuation due to insufficient patient recruitment).

Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive respiratory support modalities are common alternatives to mechanical ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. However, studies historically compare noninvasive respiratory support to conventional oxygen rather than mechanical ventilation. In this study, we compared outcomes in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support to patients treated initially with invasive mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019 at a large healthcare network in the United States. We used a validated phenotyping algorithm to classify adult patients (≥18 years) with eligible International Classification of Diseases codes into two cohorts: those treated initially with noninvasive respiratory support or those treated invasive mechanical ventilation only. The primary outcome was time-to-in-hospital death analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox model adjusted for potential confounders. Secondary outcomes included time-to-hospital discharge alive. A secondary analysis was conducted to examine potential differences between noninvasive positive pressure ventilation and nasal high flow.ResultsDuring the study period, 3177 patients met inclusion criteria (40% invasive mechanical ventilation, 60% noninvasive respiratory support). Initial noninvasive respiratory support was not associated with a decreased hazard of in-hospital death (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35-1.2), but was associated with an increased hazard of discharge alive (HR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.92-2.67). In-hospital death varied between the nasal high flow (HR 3.27, 95% CI: 1.43-7.45) and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.07), but both were associated with increased likelihood of discharge alive (nasal high flow HR 2.12, 95 CI: 1.25-3.57; noninvasive positive pressure ventilation HR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.92-2.74).ConclusionsThese data show that noninvasive respiratory support is not associated with reduced hazards of in-hospital death but is associated with hospital discharge alive.

Project description:Background and aimsThe application of prone positioning with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in non-intubation patients is increasing gradually, applying prone positioning for more high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) patients. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and tolerance of prone positioning combined with non-invasive respiratory support in patients with AHRF or ARDS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (prospective or retrospective cohort studies, RCTs and case series) published in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2020. We included studies that compared prone and supine positioning with non-invasive respiratory support in awake patients with AHRF or ARDS. The meta-analyses used random effects models. The methodological quality of the RCTs was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.ResultsA total of 16 studies fulfilled selection criteria and included 243 patients. The aggregated intubation rate and mortality rate were 33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.42, I2 = 25%], 4% (95% CI: 0.01-0.07, I2 = 0%), respectively, and the intolerance rate was 7% (95% CI: 0.01-0.12, I2 = 5%). Prone positioning increased PaO2/FiO2 [mean difference (MD) = 47.89, 95% CI: 28.12-67.66; p < 0.00001, I2 = 67%] and SpO2 (MD = 4.58, 95% CI: 1.35-7.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 97%), whereas it reduced respiratory rate (MD = -5.01, 95% CI: -8.49 to -1.52, p = 0.005, I2 = 85%). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the intubation rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 34% and 21%, respectively; and the mortality rate of shorter duration prone (⩽5 h/day) and longer duration prone (>5 h/day) were 6% and 0%, respectively. PaO2/FiO2 and SpO2 were significantly improved in COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients.ConclusionProne positioning could improve the oxygenation and reduce respiratory rate in both COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients with non-intubated AHRF or ARDS.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Project description:BackgroundInsufficient or excessive respiratory effort during acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) increases the risk of lung and diaphragm injury. We sought to establish whether respiratory effort can be optimized to achieve lung- and diaphragm-protective (LDP) targets (esophageal pressure swing - 3 to - 8 cm H2O; dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure ≤ 15 cm H2O) during AHRF.MethodsIn patients with early AHRF, spontaneous breathing was initiated as soon as passive ventilation was not deemed mandatory. Inspiratory pressure, sedation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), and sweep gas flow (in patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO)) were systematically titrated to achieve LDP targets. Additionally, partial neuromuscular blockade (pNMBA) was administered in patients with refractory excessive respiratory effort.ResultsOf 30 patients enrolled, most had severe AHRF; 16 required VV-ECMO. Respiratory effort was absent in all at enrolment. After initiating spontaneous breathing, most exhibited high respiratory effort and only 6/30 met LDP targets. After titrating ventilation, sedation, and sweep gas flow, LDP targets were achieved in 20/30. LDP targets were more likely to be achieved in patients on VV-ECMO (median OR 10, 95% CrI 2, 81) and at the PEEP level associated with improved dynamic compliance (median OR 33, 95% CrI 5, 898). Administration of pNMBA to patients with refractory excessive effort was well-tolerated and effectively achieved LDP targets.ConclusionRespiratory effort is frequently absent under deep sedation but becomes excessive when spontaneous breathing is permitted in patients with moderate or severe AHRF. Systematically titrating ventilation and sedation can optimize respiratory effort for lung and diaphragm protection in most patients. VV-ECMO can greatly facilitate the delivery of a LDP strategy.Trial registrationThis trial was registered in Clinicaltrials.gov in August 2018 (NCT03612583).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of early high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and low-flow oxygen support (LFOS) in children under 5 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to severe community-acquired pneumonia in low-middle-income countries.MethodsAn open-label randomized clinical trial enrolled children aged 2-59 months with AHRF due to severe community-acquired pneumonia and randomized into HFNC and LFOS. In the LFOS group, the patient received cold wall oxygen humidified by bubbling through sterile water administered through simple nasal prongs at a fixed flow rate of 2 L/min. In the HFNC group, the patient received humidified, heated (37 °C), high-flow oxygen at a flow rate assigned based on weight range, with a titratable oxygen fraction. The primary outcome was treatment failure in 72 h (escalating the respiratory support method using any modality other than primary intervention).ResultsData was analyzed intention-to-treat (HFNC = 124; LFOS = 120). Median (IQR) age was 12 (6-20) and 11 (6-27) months, respectively. Treatment failure occurred in a significantly lower proportion in the HFNC group (7.3%, n = 9/124) as compared to the LFOS group (20%, n = 24/120) (relative risk = 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; p = 0.004; adjusted hazard ratio 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.73; p = 0.006). The intubation rate was significantly lower in the HFNC group (7.3%, n = 9/124 vs. 16.7%, n = 20/120; relative risk = 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.92, p = 0.023). There were no significant differences noted in other secondary outcomes. No mortality occurred.ConclusionHigh-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy used as early respiratory support in children under 5 years with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe community-acquired pneumonia was associated with significantly lower treatment failure compared with standard low-flow oxygen support.Trial registrationCTRI/2016/04/006788. Registered 01 April 2016, https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44253-024-00031-8.

Project description:BackgroundIt is uncertain whether awake prone positioning can prevent intubation for invasive ventilation in spontaneous breathing critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Awake prone positioning could benefit these patients for various reasons, including a reduction in direct harm to lung tissue, and prevention of tracheal intubation-related complications.Design and methodsThe PRONELIFE study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical trial in patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Consecutive patients admitted to participating ICUs are randomly assigned to standard care with awake prone positioning, versus standard care without awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint is a composite of tracheal intubation and all-cause mortality in the first 14 days after enrolment. Secondary endpoints include time to tracheal intubation and effects of awake prone positioning on oxygenation parameters, dyspnea sensation, and complications. Other endpoints are the number of days free from ventilation and alive at 28 days, total duration of use of noninvasive respiratory support, total duration of invasive ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, and mortality in ICU and hospital, and at 28, 60, and 90 days. We will also collect data regarding the tolerance of prone positioning.DiscussionThe PRONELIFE study is among the first randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation rate in ICU patients with acute hypoxemic failure from any cause. The PRONELIFE study is sufficiently sized to determine the effect of awake prone positioning on intubation for invasive ventilation-patients are eligible in case of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure without restrictions regarding etiology. The PRONELIFE study is a pragmatic trial in which blinding is impossible-however, as around 35 ICUs worldwide will participate in this study, its findings will be highly generalizable. The findings of the PRONELIFE study have the potential to change clinical management of patients who may need invasive ventilation because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN11536318 . Registered on 17 September 2021. The PRONELIFE study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with reference number NCT04142736 (October, 2019).

Project description:ImportanceContinuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies.ObjectiveTo determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.Design, setting, and participantsA parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021.InterventionsAdult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075.

Dataset Information

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background

Research question

Study design and methods

Results

Interpretation

Trial registry

Publications

Sigh in Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets