Research

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction (VIDD) occurs in up to 60% of mechanically ventilated patients and prolongs ventilatory dependance. The consequences of VIDD are muscle atrophy, reduction of strength, and injury of muscle fibers. Atrophy and contractile activity of the diaphragm can be estimated by ultrasound muscle thickness and thickening fraction. Prior experience demonstrates invasive electrical stimulation of the diaphragm helps preserve muscle thickness. This is the first study on a non-invasive phrenic nerve stimulator that aims to assess its feasibility, safety, and usefulness in preserving diaphragm thickness.

METHODS: A multi-center randomized clinical trial will be performed in four intensive care units (ICUs) in the United States of America and Canada. Inclusion criteria include patients older than 21 years, in the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation (MV) and predicted to remain on the ventilator for at least 48 h. Patients with contraindications for phrenic nerve stimulation, severe chronic pulmonary diseases, or impossibility to measure diaphragm thickness with ultrasound will be excluded. Patients enrolled will be randomized to standard care (control) or 30-min daily non-invasive phrenic nerve stimulation up to 10 days after enrollment (intervention). The primary effectiveness endpoint is the change in diaphragm thickness on day 10, extubation, or death whichever occurs first. Secondary endpoints include change in diaphragm thickness on day 4, maximal inspiratory pressure before extubation, and time-to rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI) <105. Safety objectives include the proportion of device- or procedure-related adverse events (SAE). The estimated sample size will be 40 patients (20 per group).  DISCUSSION: The STIMIT ACTIVATOR trial is a randomized multi-center study powered to elucidate whether non-invasive phrenic nerve stimulation is feasible, safe, and preserves diaphragm thickness. Meeting the primary endpoint will demonstrate its applicability in clinical practice to prevent diaphragmatic atrophy in ventilated patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05883163, August 29, 2023.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous condition with varying response to prone positioning. We aimed to identify subphenotypes of ARDS patients undergoing prone positioning using machine learning and assess their association with mortality and response to prone positioning.

METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we enrolled 353 mechanically ventilated ARDS patients who underwent at least one prone positioning cycle. Unsupervised machine learning was used to identify subphenotypes based on respiratory mechanics, oxygenation parameters, and demographic variables collected in supine position. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included response to prone positioning in terms of respiratory system compliance, driving pressure, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ventilatory ratio, and mechanical power.

RESULTS: Three distinct subphenotypes were identified. Cluster 1 (22.9% of whole cohort) had a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio and lower Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP). Cluster 2 (51.3%) had a higher proportion of COVID-19 patients, lower driving pressure, higher PEEP, and higher respiratory system compliance. Cluster 3 (25.8%) had a lower pH, higher PaCO2, and higher ventilatory ratio. Mortality differed significantly across clusters (p = 0.03), with Cluster 3 having the highest mortality (56%). There were no significant differences in the proportions of responders to prone positioning for any of the studied parameters. Transpulmonary pressure measurements in a subcohort did not improve subphenotype characterization.

CONCLUSIONS: Distinct ARDS subphenotypes with varying mortality were identified in patients undergoing prone positioning; however, predicting which patients benefited from this intervention based on available data was not possible. These findings underscore the need for continued efforts in phenotyping ARDS through multimodal data to better understand the heterogeneity of this population.

OBJECTIVES: High mechanical power and driving pressure (ΔP) have been associated with postoperative respiratory failure (PRF) and may be important parameters guiding mechanical ventilation. However, it remains unclear whether high mechanical power and ΔP merely reflect patients with poor respiratory system mechanics at risk of PRF. We investigated the effect of mechanical power and ΔP on PRF in cohorts after exact matching by patients' baseline respiratory system compliance.

DESIGN: Hospital registry study.

SETTING: Academic hospital in New England.

PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing general anesthesia between 2008 and 2020.

INTERVENTION: None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure was high (≥ 6.7 J/min, cohort median) versus low mechanical power and the key-secondary exposure was high (≥ 15.0 cm H 2 O) versus low ΔP. The primary endpoint was PRF (reintubation or unplanned noninvasive ventilation within seven days). Among 97,555 included patients, 4,030 (4.1%) developed PRF. In adjusted analyses, high intraoperative mechanical power and ΔP were associated with higher odds of PRF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.37 [95% CI, 1.25-1.50]; p < 0.001 and aOR 1.45 [95% CI, 1.31-1.60]; p < 0.001, respectively). There was large variability in applied ventilatory parameters, dependent on the anesthesia provider. This facilitated matching of 63,612 (mechanical power cohort) and 53,260 (ΔP cohort) patients, yielding identical baseline standardized respiratory system compliance (standardized difference [SDiff] = 0.00) with distinctly different mechanical power (9.4 [2.4] vs 4.9 [1.3] J/min; SDiff = -2.33) and ΔP (19.3 [4.1] vs 11.9 [2.1] cm H 2 O; SDiff = -2.27). After matching, high mechanical power and ΔP remained associated with higher risk of PRF (aOR 1.30 [95% CI, 1.17-1.45]; p < 0.001 and aOR 1.28 [95% CI, 1.12-1.46]; p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: High mechanical power and ΔP are associated with PRF independent of patient's baseline respiratory system compliance. Our findings support utilization of these parameters for titrating mechanical ventilation in the operating room and ICU.

BACKGROUND: Long-term pulmonary complications have been reported after a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). We hypothesized that a history of COVID-19 is associated with a measurable decrease in baseline respiratory system compliance in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

METHODS: In this hospital registry study, we included adult patients undergoing general anesthesia between January 2020 and March 2022 at a tertiary health care network in Massachusetts. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status >IV, laryngoscopic surgeries, and patients who arrived intubated. The primary exposure was a history of COVID-19. The primary outcome was baseline respiratory system compliance (mL/cmH 2 O). Effects of severity of infection, surges (Alpha 1 , Alpha 2 , Delta, and Omicron), patient demographics, and time between infection and assessment of compliance were investigated.

RESULTS: A total of 19,921 patients were included. Approximately 1386 (7.0%) patients had a history of COVID-19. A history of COVID-19 at any time before surgery was associated with a measurably lower baseline respiratory system compliance (ratio of means adj = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-0.97; P < .001; adjusted compliance difference: -1.6 mL/cmH 2 O). The association was more pronounced in patients with a severe form of COVID-19 (ratio of means adj = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99; P = .02, adjusted compliance difference: -2 mL/cmH 2 O). Alpha 1 , Alpha 2 , and Delta surges, but not Omicron, led to a lower baseline respiratory system compliance ( P < .001, P = .02, and P < .001). The Delta surge effect was magnified in Hispanic ethnicity ( P -for-interaction = 0.003; ratio of means adj = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = .001; adjusted compliance difference: -4.6 mL/cmH 2 O).

CONCLUSIONS: A history of COVID-19 infection during Alpha 1 , Alpha 2 , and Delta surges was associated with a measurably lower baseline respiratory system compliance.

Rationale: Lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies have been proven beneficial in the operating room (OR) and the ICU. However, differential practices in ventilator management persist, often resulting in adjustments of ventilator parameters when transitioning patients from the OR to the ICU. Objectives: To characterize patterns of ventilator adjustments during the transition of mechanically ventilated surgical patients from the OR to the ICU and assess their impact on 28-day mortality. Methods: Hospital registry study including patients undergoing general anesthesia with continued, controlled mechanical ventilation in the ICU between 2008 and 2022. Ventilator parameters were assessed 1 hour before and 6 hours after the transition. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,103 patients, 212 (10.1%) died within 28 days. Upon OR-to-ICU transition, VT and driving pressure decreased (-1.1 ml/kg predicted body weight [IQR, -2.0 to -0.2]; P < 0.001; and -4.3 cm H2O [-8.2 to -1.2]; P < 0.001). Concomitantly, respiratory rates increased (+5.0 breaths/min [2.0 to 7.5]; P < 0.001), resulting overall in slightly higher mechanical power (MP) in the ICU (+0.7 J/min [-1.9 to 3.0]; P < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, increases in MP were associated with a higher 28-day mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.14; P < 0.001; adjusted risk difference, 0.7%; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0, both per 1 J/min). Conclusion: During transition of mechanically ventilated patients from the OR to the ICU, ventilator adjustments resulting in higher MP were associated with a greater risk of 28-day mortality.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies linked a high intensity of ventilation, measured as mechanical power, to mortality in patients suffering from "classic" ARDS. By contrast, mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 may present with intact pulmonary mechanics while undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time. We investigated whether an association between higher mechanical power and mortality is modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19.

METHODS: This retrospective study included critically ill, adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h between March 2020 and December 2021 at a tertiary healthcare facility in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary exposure was median mechanical power during the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation, calculated using a previously validated formula. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. As co-primary analysis, we investigated whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 modified the primary association. We further investigated the association between mechanical power and days being alive and ventilator free and effect modification of this by a diagnosis of COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, effect modification and negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, severity of disease and in-hospital factors, were applied.

RESULTS: 1,737 mechanically ventilated patients were included, 411 (23.7%) suffered from COVID-19. 509 (29.3%) died within 30 days. The median mechanical power during the first 24 h of ventilation was 19.3 [14.6-24.0] J/min in patients with and 13.2 [10.2-18.0] J/min in patients without COVID-19. A higher mechanical power was associated with 30-day mortality (ORadj 1.26 per 1-SD, 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI 1.09-1.46; p = 0.002). Effect modification and interaction analysis did not support that this association was modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.38; p-for-interaction = 0.68). A higher mechanical power was associated with a lower number of days alive and ventilator free until day 28 (IRRadj 0.83 per 7.1 J/min increase; 95% CI 0.75-0.91; p < 0.001, adjusted risk difference - 2.7 days per 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI - 4.1 to - 1.3).

CONCLUSION: A higher mechanical power is associated with elevated 30-day mortality. While patients with COVID-19 received mechanical ventilation with higher mechanical power, this association was independent of a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies suggest that ketamine stimulates breathing. We investigated whether adding a ketamine infusion at low and high doses to propofol sedation improves inspiratory flow and enhances sedation in spontaneously breathing critically ill patients.

METHODS: In this prospective interventional study, twelve intubated, spontaneously breathing patients received ketamine infusions at 5 mcg/kg/min, followed by 10 mcg/kg/min for 1 h each. Airway flow, pressure, and esophageal pressure were recorded during a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) at baseline, and during the SBT conducted at the end of each ketamine infusion regimen. SBT consisted of one-minute breathing with zero end-expiratory pressure and no pressure support. Changes in inspiratory flow at the pre-specified time points were assessed as the primary outcome. Ketamine-induced change in beta-gamma electroencephalogram power was the key secondary endpoint. We also analyzed changes in other ventilatory parameters respiratory timing, and resistive and elastic inspiratory work of breathing.

RESULTS: Ketamine infusion of 5 and 10 mcg/kg/min increased inspiratory flow (median, IQR) from 0.36 (0.29-0.46) L/s at baseline to 0.47 (0.32-0.57) L/s and 0.44 (0.33-0.58) L/s, respectively (p = .013). Resistive work of breathing decreased from 0.4 (0.1-0.6) J/l at baseline to 0.2 (0.1-0.3) J/l after ketamine 10 mcg/kg/min (p = .042), while elastic work of breathing remained unchanged. Electroencephalogram beta-gamma power (19-44 Hz) increased compared to baseline (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS: In intubated, spontaneously breathing patients receiving a constant rate of propofol, ketamine increased inspiratory flow, reduced inspiratory work of breathing, and was associated with an "activated" electroencephalographic pattern. These characteristics might facilitate weaning from mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) may be important mediators of lung injury in ARDS; however, there is little evidence for strategies directed at reducing these parameters. We applied predictive modeling to estimate the effects of modifying ventilator parameters on ΔP and MP.

METHODS: Two thousand six hundred twenty-two subjects with ARDS (Berlin criteria) from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV version 1.0 database admitted to the ICU at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 2008-2019 were included. Flexible confounding-adjusted regression models for time-varying data were fit to estimate the effects of adjusting PEEP and tidal volume (VT) on ΔP and adjusting VT and breathing frequency on MP.

RESULTS: Reduction in VT reduced ΔP and MP, with more pronounced effect on MP with lower compliance. Strategies reducing frequency consistently increased MP (when VT was adjusted to maintain consistent minute ventilation). Adjustment of PEEP yielded a U-shaped effect on ΔP.

CONCLUSIONS: This novel conditional modeling confirmed expected response patterns for ΔP, with the response to adjustments depending on subjects' lung mechanics. Furthermore, a VT-driven approach should be favored over a breathing frequency-driven approach when aiming to reduce MP.

PURPOSE: Dyssynchrony may cause lung injury and is associated with worse outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. Reverse triggering (RT) is a common type of dyssynchrony presenting with several phenotypes which may directly cause lung injury and be difficult to identify. Due to these challenges, automated software to assist in identification is needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study using a training set of 15 patients and a validation dataset of 13 patients. RT events were manually identified and compared with "rules-based" programs (with and without esophageal manometry and reverse triggering with breath stacking), and were used to train a neural network artificial intelligence (AI) program. RT phenotypes were identified using previously defined rules. Performance of the programs was compared via sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and F1 score.

RESULTS: 33,244 breaths were manually analyzed, with 8718 manually identified as reverse-triggers. The rules-based and AI programs yielded excellent specificity (>95% in all programs) and F1 score (>75% in all programs). RT with breath stacking (24.4%) and mid-cycle RT (37.8%) were the most common phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS: Automated detection of RT demonstrated good performance, with the potential application of these programs for research and clinical care.

BACKGROUND: Few therapies exist to treat severe COVID-19 respiratory failure once it develops. Given known diffuse pulmonary microthrombi on autopsy studies of COVID-19 patients, we hypothesized that tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) may improve pulmonary function in COVID-19 respiratory failure.

METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients with confirmed COVID-19 and severe respiratory failure who received systemic tPA (alteplase) was performed. Seventy-nine adults from seven medical centers were included in the final analysis after institutional review boards' approval; 23 were excluded from analysis because tPA was administered for pulmonary macroembolism or deep venous thrombosis. The primary outcome was improvement in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio from baseline to 48 h after tPA. Linear mixed modeling was used for analysis.

RESULTS: tPA was associated with significant PaO2/FiO2 improvement at 48 h (estimated paired difference = 23.1 ± 6.7), which was sustained at 72 h (interaction term p < 0.00). tPA administration was also associated with improved National Early Warning Score 2 scores at 24, 48, and 72 h after receiving tPA (interaction term p = 0.00). D-dimer was significantly elevated immediately after tPA, consistent with lysis of formed clot. Patients with declining respiratory status preceding tPA administration had more marked improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratios than those who had poor but stable (not declining) respiratory status. There was one intracranial hemorrhage, which occurred within 24 h following tPA administration.

CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest tPA is associated with significant improvement in pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, especially in patients whose pulmonary function is in decline, and has an acceptable safety profile in this patient population.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive support ventilation (ASV) is a partially closed-loop ventilation mode that adjusts tidal volume (VT) and breathing frequency (f) to minimize mechanical work and driving pressure. ASV is routinely used but has not been widely studied in ARDS.

METHODS: The study was a crossover study with randomization to intervention comparing a pressure-regulated, volume-targeted ventilation mode (adaptive pressure ventilation [APV], standard of care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center) set to VT 6 mL/kg in comparison with ASV mode where VT adjustment is automated. Subjects received standard of care (APV) or ASV and then crossed over to the alternate mode, maintaining consistent minute ventilation with 1-2 h in each mode. The primary outcome was VT corrected for ideal body weight (IBW) before and after crossover. Secondary outcomes included driving pressure, mechanics, gas exchange, mechanical power, and other parameters measured after crossover and longitudinally.

RESULTS: Twenty subjects with ARDS were consented, with 17 randomized and completing the study (median PaO2 /FIO2 146.6 [128.3-204.8] mm Hg) and were mostly passive without spontaneous breathing. ASV mode produced marginally larger VT corrected for IBW (6.3 [5.9-7.0] mL/kg IBW vs 6.04 [6.0-6.1] mL/kg IBW, P = .035). Frequency was lower with patients in ASV mode (25 [22-26] breaths/min vs 27 [22-30)] breaths/min, P = .01). In ASV, lower respiratory-system compliance correlated with smaller delivered VT/IBW (R2 = 0.4936, P = .002). Plateau (24.7 [22.6-27.6] cm H2O vs 25.3 [23.5-26.8] cm H2O, P = .14) and driving pressures (12.8 [9.0-15.8] cm H2O vs 11.7 [10.7-15.1] cm H2O, P = .29) were comparable between conventional ventilation and ASV. No adverse events were noted in either ASV or conventional group related to mode of ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS: ASV targeted similar settings as standard of care consistent with lung-protective ventilation strategies in mostly passive subjects with ARDS. ASV delivered VT based upon respiratory mechanics, with lower VT and mechanical power in subjects with stiffer lungs.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vascular microthrombi are a proposed mechanism of COVID-19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does tPA improve pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and is it safe?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized from May14, 2020 through March 3, 2021, in two phases. Phase 1 (n = 36) comprised a control group (standard-of-care treatment) vs a tPA bolus (50-mg tPA IV bolus followed by 7 days of heparin; goal activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], 60-80 s) group. Phase 2 (n = 14) comprised a control group vs a tPA drip (50-mg tPA IV bolus, followed by tPA drip 2 mg/h plus heparin 500 units/h over 24 h, then heparin to maintain aPTT of 60-80 s for 7 days) group. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had not undergone a neurologic examination or cross-sectional brain imaging within the previous 4.5 h to rule out stroke and potential for hemorrhagic conversion. The primary outcome was Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement from baseline at 48 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement of > 50% or Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≥ 200 at 48 h (composite outcome), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality.

RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized: 17 in the control group and 19 in the tPA bolus group in phase 1 and eight in the control group and six in the tPA drip group in phase 2. No severe bleeding events occurred. In the tPA bolus group, the Pao2 to Fio2 ratio values were significantly (P < .017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 h after randomization; the control group showed no significant improvements. Among patients receiving a tPA bolus, the percent change of Pao2 to Fio2 ratio at 48 h (16.9% control [interquartile range (IQR), -8.3% to 36.8%] vs 29.8% tPA bolus [IQR, 4.5%-88.7%]; P = .11), the composite outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%; P = .03), VFD (0.0 [IQR, 0.0-9.0] vs 12.0 [IQR, 0.0-19.0]; P = .11), and in-hospital mortality (41.2% vs 21.1%; P = .19) did not reach statistically significant differences when compared with those of control participants. The patients who received a tPA drip did not experience benefit.

INTERPRETATION: The combination of tPA bolus plus heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A phase 3 study is warranted given the improvements in oxygenation and promising observations in VFD and mortality.

TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04357730; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if sevoflurane based anesthesia is superior to propofol in preventing lung inflammation and preventing postoperative pulmonary complications.

DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING: Single tertiary care university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS: Forty adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to anesthetic maintenance with sevoflurane or propofol.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was sampled before and after bypass to measure pulmonary inflammation using a biomarker panel. The change in bronchoalveolar lavage concentration of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included lung inflammation defined as changes in other biomarkers and postoperative pulmonary complications. There were no significant differences between groups in the change in bronchoalveolar lavage TNFα concentration (median [IQR] change, 17.24 [1.11-536.77] v 101.51 [1.47-402.84] pg/mL, sevoflurane v propofol, p = 0.31). There was a significantly lower postbypass concentration of plasma interleukin 8 (median [IQR], 53.92 [34.5-55.91] v 66.92 [53.03-94.44] pg/mL, p = 0.04) and a significantly smaller postbypass increase in the plasma receptor for advanced glycosylation end products (median [IQR], 174.59 [73.59-446.06] v 548.22 [193.15-852.39] pg/mL, p = 0.03) in the sevoflurane group compared with propofol. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications was 100% in both groups, with high rates of pleural effusion (17/18 [94.44%] v 19/22 [86.36%], p = 0.39) and hypoxemia (16/18 [88.88%] v 22/22 [100%], p = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS: Sevoflurane anesthesia during cardiac surgery did not consistently prevent lung inflammation or prevent postoperative pulmonary complications compared to propofol. There were significantly lower levels of 2 plasma biomarkers specific for lung injury and inflammation in the sevoflurane group.