Risk Factors for Noninvasive Ventilation Failure in Critically Ill Subjects With Confirmed Influenza Infection

Prognostic analysis of high-flow nasal cannula therapy and non-invasive ventilation in mild to moderate hypoxemia patients and construction of a machine learning model for 48-h intubation prediction-a retrospective analysis of the MIMIC database

Background

This study aims to investigate the clinical outcome between high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) therapy in mild to moderate hypoxemic patients on the first ICU day and to develop a predictive model of 48-h intubation.

Methods

The study included adult patients from the MIMIC III and IV databases who first initiated HFNC or NIV therapy due to mild to moderate hypoxemia (100 < PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 300). The 48-h and 30-day intubation rates were compared using cross-sectional and survival analysis. Nine machine learning and six ensemble algorithms were deployed to construct the 48-h intubation predictive models, of which the optimal model was determined by its prediction accuracy. The top 10 risk and protective factors were identified using the Shapley interpretation algorithm.

Result

A total of 123,042 patients were screened, of which, 673 were from the MIMIC IV database for ventilation therapy comparison (HFNC n = 363, NIV n = 310) and 48-h intubation predictive model construction (training dataset n = 471, internal validation set n = 202) and 408 were from the MIMIC III database for external validation. The NIV group had a lower intubation rate (23.1% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.001), ICU 28-day mortality (18.5% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.014), and in-hospital mortality (19.6% vs. 11.9%, p = 0.007) compared to the HFNC group. Survival analysis showed that the total and 48-h intubation rates were not significantly different. The ensemble AdaBoost decision tree model (internal and external validation set AUROC 0.878, 0.726) had the best predictive accuracy performance. The model Shapley algorithm showed Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), acute physiology scores (APSIII), the minimum and maximum lactate value as risk factors for early failure and age, the maximum PaCO2 and PH value, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), the minimum PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and PaO2 value as protective factors.

Conclusion

NIV was associated with lower intubation rate and ICU 28-day and in-hospital mortality. Further survival analysis reinforced that the effect of NIV on the intubation rate might partly be attributed to the other impact factors. The ensemble AdaBoost decision tree model may assist clinicians in making clinical decisions, and early organ function support to improve patients' SOFA, APSIII, GCS, PaCO2, PaO2, PH, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and lactate values can reduce the early failure rate and improve patient prognosis.

Validity of the ROX index in predicting invasive mechanical ventilation requirement in pneumonia

Background

The ROX index (Respiratory rate-OXygenation) has been described as a prediction tool to identify the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure treated with high-flow nasal cannula in order to avoid delay of a necessary intubation. However, its use in predicting the need for ventilatory support in hospitalised patients with CAP has not been validated.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study including subjects with CAP treated in the general ward, emergency service or intensive care unit of a third-level centre in Cundinamarca, Colombia, between January 2001 and February 2020. The ROX index was estimated as the ratio of oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen to respiratory rate.

Results

A total of 895 patients were included, of whom 93 (10%) required IMV. The ROX index proved to be a good predictor, presenting an area under the curve of receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) of 0.733 (95% CI 0.671 to 0.795, p<0.001) when determined by pulse oximetry and an AUROC of 0.779 (95% CI 0.699 to 0.859, p<0.001) when estimated by arterial blood gas (ABG) parameters, with an intraclass correlation of 0.894. The estimated cut-off point was 14.8; a score less than 14.8 indicates high risk of requiring IMV.

Conclusion

The ROX index is a good predictor of IMV in hospitalised patients with CAP. It presents good performance when calculated through pulse oximetry and can replace the one calculated by ABG.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occurs in up to 10% of patients with respiratory failure admitted through the emergency department. Use of noninvasive respiratory support has proliferated in recent years; clinicians must understand the relative merits and risks of these technologies and know how to recognize signs of failure. The cornerstone of ARDS care of the mechanically ventilated patient is low-tidal volume ventilation based on ideal body weight. Adjunctive therapies, such as prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade, may have a role in the emergency department management of ARDS depending on patient and department characteristics.

Impact of Aspergillus spp. isolation in the first 24 hours of admission in critically ill patients with severe influenza virus pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and impact of Aspergillus spp. isolation (AI) on ICU mortality in critically ill patients with severe influenza pneumonia during the first 24h of admission.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of an observational and prospective cohort study.

SETTING

ICUs voluntary participating in the Spanish severe Influenza pneumonia registry, between June 2009 and June 2019.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with diagnosis of severe influenza pneumonia, confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Incidence of AI in respiratory samples. Demographic variables, comorbidities, need for mechanical ventilation and the presence of shock according at admission. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scale calculated on ICU admission.

RESULTS

3702 patients were analyzed in this study. AI incidence was 1.13% (n=42). Hematological malignancies (OR 4.39, 95% CI 1.92-10.04); HIV (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.08-13.63), and other immunosuppression situations (OR 4.87, 95% CI 1.99-11.87) were factors independently associated with the presence of Aspergillus spp. The automatic CHAID decision tree showed that hematologic disease with an incidence of 3.3% was the most closely AI related variable. Hematological disease (OR 2.62 95% CI 1.95-3.51), immunosuppression (OR 2.05 95% CI 1.46-2.88) and AI (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.60-6.53) were variables independently associated with ICU mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Empirical antifungal treatment in our population may only be justified in immunocompromised patients. In moderate-high risk cases, active search for Aspergillus spp. should be implemented.

Noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients aged ≥ 70 years-a prospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a promising alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with a particular importance amidst the shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the use of NIV in Europe and factors associated with outcomes of patients treated with NIV.

METHODS

This is a substudy of COVIP study-an international prospective observational study enrolling patients aged ≥ 70 years with confirmed COVID-19 treated in ICU. We enrolled patients in 156 ICUs across 15 European countries between March 2020 and April 2021.The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Cohort included 3074 patients, most of whom were male (2197/3074, 71.4%) at the mean age of 75.7 years (SD 4.6). NIV frequency was 25.7% and varied from 1.1 to 62.0% between participating countries. Primary NIV failure, defined as need for endotracheal intubation or death within 30 days since ICU admission, occurred in 470/629 (74.7%) of patients. Factors associated with increased NIV failure risk were higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.36-5.90) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) on admission (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.00). Patients initially treated with NIV (n = 630) lived for 1.36 fewer days (95% CI - 2.27 to - 0.46 days) compared to primary IMV group (n = 1876).

CONCLUSIONS

Frequency of NIV use varies across European countries. Higher severity of illness and more severe frailty were associated with a risk of NIV failure among critically ill older adults with COVID-19. Primary IMV was associated with better outcomes than primary NIV. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04321265 , registered 19 March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov .

An updated HACOR score for predicting the failure of noninvasive ventilation: a multicenter prospective observational study

Background

Heart rate, acidosis, consciousness, oxygenation, and respiratory rate (HACOR) have been used to predict noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure. However, the HACOR score fails to consider baseline data. Here, we aimed to update the HACOR score to take into account baseline data and test its predictive power for NIV failure primarily after 1–2 h of NIV.

Methods

A multicenter prospective observational study was performed in 18 hospitals in China and Turkey. Patients who received NIV because of hypoxemic respiratory failure were enrolled. In Chongqing, China, 1451 patients were enrolled in the training cohort. Outside of Chongqing, another 728 patients were enrolled in the external validation cohort.

Results

Before NIV, the presence of pneumonia, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, pulmonary ARDS, immunosuppression, or septic shock and the SOFA score were strongly associated with NIV failure. These six variables as baseline data were added to the original HACOR score. The AUCs for predicting NIV failure were 0.85 (95% CI 0.84–0.87) and 0.78 (0.75–0.81) tested with the updated HACOR score assessed after 1–2 h of NIV in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. A higher AUC was observed when it was tested with the updated HACOR score compared to the original HACOR score in the training cohort (0.85 vs. 0.80, 0.86 vs. 0.81, and 0.85 vs. 0.82 after 1–2, 12, and 24 h of NIV, respectively; all p values < 0.01). Similar results were found in the validation cohort (0.78 vs. 0.71, 0.79 vs. 0.74, and 0.81 vs. 0.76, respectively; all p values < 0.01). When 7, 10.5, and 14 points of the updated HACOR score were used as cutoff values, the probability of NIV failure was 25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively. Among patients with updated HACOR scores of ≤ 7, 7.5–10.5, 11–14, and > 14 after 1–2 h of NIV, the rate of NIV failure was 12.4%, 38.2%, 67.1%, and 83.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

The updated HACOR score has high predictive power for NIV failure in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. It can be used to help in decision-making when NIV is used.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04060-7.

Risk Stratification in Noninvasive Respiratory Support Failure: A Narrative Review

TOPIC/CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of noninvasive respiratory support, including noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula therapy, has increased over the years. Failure of noninvasive respiratory support, defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, increases the mortality rate.

PURPOSE

To familiarize critical care nurses with available risk stratification assessments and identify common concepts and limitations.

CONTENT COVERED

Few risk stratification assessments are available to identify patients at risk of failure of noninvasive respiratory support. Although many studies have analyzed risk, substantial variation in study design, definitions, terminology, and outcomes have led to a wide range of findings, making clinical application difficult. Further study is needed to broaden known assessments to general patient populations, determine diagnostic accuracy during critical periods, and analyze noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula therapy. Risk stratification could allow for better implementation of preventive strategies and patient education.

CONCLUSION

Future research opportunities include improving study design for risk stratification and implementing preventive strategies for patients requiring noninvasive respiratory support. Clinically, risk stratification can provide an opportunity to share knowledge and facilitate conversations with patients and families.

State of the Art of Machine Learning-Enabled Clinical Decision Support in Intensive Care Units: Literature Review

Background

Modern clinical care in intensive care units is full of rich data, and machine learning has great potential to support clinical decision-making. The development of intelligent machine learning–based clinical decision support systems is facing great opportunities and challenges. Clinical decision support systems may directly help clinicians accurately diagnose, predict outcomes, identify risk events, or decide treatments at the point of care.

Objective

We aimed to review the research and application of machine learning–enabled clinical decision support studies in intensive care units to help clinicians, researchers, developers, and policy makers better understand the advantages and limitations of machine learning–supported diagnosis, outcome prediction, risk event identification, and intensive care unit point-of-care recommendations.

Methods

We searched papers published in the PubMed database between January 1980 and October 2020. We defined selection criteria to identify papers that focused on machine learning–enabled clinical decision support studies in intensive care units and reviewed the following aspects: research topics, study cohorts, machine learning models, analysis variables, and evaluation metrics.

Results

A total of 643 papers were collected, and using our selection criteria, 97 studies were found. Studies were categorized into 4 topics—monitoring, detection, and diagnosis (13/97, 13.4%), early identification of clinical events (32/97, 33.0%), outcome prediction and prognosis assessment (46/97, 47.6%), and treatment decision (6/97, 6.2%). Of the 97 papers, 82 (84.5%) studies used data from adult patients, 9 (9.3%) studies used data from pediatric patients, and 6 (6.2%) studies used data from neonates. We found that 65 (67.0%) studies used data from a single center, and 32 (33.0%) studies used a multicenter data set; 88 (90.7%) studies used supervised learning, 3 (3.1%) studies used unsupervised learning, and 6 (6.2%) studies used reinforcement learning. Clinical variable categories, starting with the most frequently used, were demographic (n=74), laboratory values (n=59), vital signs (n=55), scores (n=48), ventilation parameters (n=43), comorbidities (n=27), medications (n=18), outcome (n=14), fluid balance (n=13), nonmedicine therapy (n=10), symptoms (n=7), and medical history (n=4). The most frequently adopted evaluation metrics for clinical data modeling studies included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (n=61), sensitivity (n=51), specificity (n=41), accuracy (n=29), and positive predictive value (n=23).

Conclusions

Early identification of clinical and outcome prediction and prognosis assessment contributed to approximately 80% of studies included in this review. Using new algorithms to solve intensive care unit clinical problems by developing reinforcement learning, active learning, and time-series analysis methods for clinical decision support will be greater development prospects in the future.

Noninvasive respiratory support for COVID-19 patients: when, for whom, and how?

The significant mortality rate and prolonged ventilator days associated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with severe COVID-19 have incited a debate surrounding the use of noninvasive respiratory support (NIRS) (i.e., HFNC, CPAP, NIV) as a potential treatment strategy. Central to this debate is the role of NIRS in preventing intubation in patients with mild respiratory disease and the potential beneficial effects on both patient outcome and resource utilization. However, there remains valid concern that use of NIRS may prolong time to intubation and lung protective ventilation in patients with more advanced disease, thereby worsening respiratory mechanics via self-inflicted lung injury. In addition, the risk of aerosolization with the use of NIRS has the potential to increase healthcare worker (HCW) exposure to the virus. We review the existing literature with a focus on rationale, patient selection and outcomes associated with the use of NIRS in COVID-19 and prior pandemics, as well as in patients with acute respiratory failure due to different etiologies (i.e., COPD, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, etc.) to understand the potential role of NIRS in COVID-19 patients. Based on this analysis we suggest an algorithm for NIRS in COVID-19 patients which includes indications and contraindications for use, monitoring recommendations, systems-based practices to reduce HCW exposure, and predictors of NIRS failure. We also discuss future research priorities for addressing unanswered questions regarding NIRS use in COVID-19 with the goal of improving patient outcomes.

Management of Severe Influenza

Influenza infection causes severe illness in 3 to 5 million people annually, with up to an estimated 650,000 deaths per annum. As such, it represents an ongoing burden to health care systems and human health. Severe acute respiratory infection can occur, resulting in respiratory failure requiring intensive care support. Herein we discuss diagnostic approaches, including development of CLIA-waived point of care tests that allow rapid diagnosis and treatment of influenza. Bacterial and fungal coinfections in severe influenza pneumonia are associated with worse outcomes, and we summarize the approach and treatment options for diagnosis and treatment of bacterial and Aspergillus coinfection. We discuss the available drug options for the treatment of severe influenza, and treatments which are no longer supported by the evidence base. Finally, we describe the supportive management and ventilatory approach to patients with respiratory failure as a result of severe influenza in the intensive care unit.

Nursing evaluation during treatment with helmet continuous positive airway pressure in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia: A case series

Background

During COVID-19 outbreak, with the increasing number of patients presenting with acute respiratory failure, a large use of non invasive positive pressure ventilation was done in the emergency departments and medical wards despite the lack of recommendations.

Objectives

This study describes the clinical characteristics of patients presenting to the hospital with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 related pneumonia undergoing treatment with helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with a strict nursing evaluation and monitoring.

Methods

A case series study enrolling adult patients admitted to an emergency department of an Italian hospital with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia from March 18th to April 18th, 2020, was conducted. Only patients who strictly followed a local CPAP protocol were enrolled.

Results

A total of 52 patients were included in this study. Thirty-eight patients (73%) were judged eligible for endotracheal intubation (ETI). Eighteen (34.6%) were intubated. Sixteen (30.8%) patients died: seven (38.9%) and nine (26.5%) in the eligible-for-ETI and non eligible-for-ETI group, respectively. The median hospital length of stay was different in the ETI and non-ETI group: 26 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 16–37) vs 15 days [IQR 9–17] (p = 0.005). The median invasive mechanical ventilation time was 11 days [IQR 7–21] with an ICU length of stay of 14.5 days [IQR 10–28]. During the CPAP trial, among patients eligible for ETI variations over time for positive end-expiratory pressure (p = 0.003) and respiratory rate (p = 0.059) were found between intubated and non-intubated patients.

Conclusions

A short closed monitored CPAP trial could be considered for acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia before considering ETI. A progressive positive end-expiratory pressure titration should target reduction in a patient’s respiratory rate. More studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy and predictors of failure of CPAP and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia.

Burden of primary influenza and respiratory syncytial virus pneumonia in hospitalized adults: insights from a two-year multi-centre cohort study (2017-2018)

This two-year (2017-2018) multi-centre study on 356 adults hospitalized for influenza A/B and RSV pneumonia analysed factors associated with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) failure and in-hospital death (IHD.) Patients with both obstructive sleep apnoea or obesity hypoventilation syndrome and influenza-A virus pneumonia showed a higher risk for NIV failure (OR 4.66; 95% CI 1.42-15.30). Patients submitted to NIV showed a higher risk for IHD, regardless of comorbidities (influenza-A OR 3.00; 95% CI 1.35-6.65, influenza-B OR 4.52; 95% CI 1.13-18.01, RSV OR 5.61; 95% CI 1.26-24.93). The increased knowledge of influenza-A/B and RSV pneumonia burden may contribute to a better management of patients with viral pneumonia. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The Effect of Noninvasive Ventilation Support on COVID-19 Patients and Risk Factors for Invasive Ventilation - A Retrospective and Multicenter Study

Background

Oxygen therapy (OT) is the most widely used supportive regime in patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of this study was to identify the effect of noninvasive ventilation support on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients and risk factors for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed confirmed COVID-19 subjects from nine hospitals outside Wuhan. All hospitalized patients who tested positive for COVID-19 by real-time polymerase chain reaction between January 1st and March 31st, 2020, were recruited. The patients were divided into four groups based on the most advanced OT regime, including no OT, nasal oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and IMV. Multiple logistic regression models were performed to determine risk factors for IMV.

Results

Of the 683 recruited subjects, 315 (46.1%) subjects did not need OT, 300 (43.9%) received nasal oxygen therapy, 51 (7.5%) received HFNOT or NIV, while 17 (2.5%) subjects had to be intubated. The lactate in the OT group was higher than in the no OT group (2.7 vs 1.6, P = 0.02). In addition, HFNOT or NIV patients had a higher respiratory rate, but a lower PaO2 (P < 0.001). HFNOT and NIV had an obvious beneficial effect on ARF with 75% of COVID-19 patients recovering from respiratory failure. Patients with IMV were older (P < 0.001), had a higher rate of hypertension (P < 0.001) and more secondary bacterial infections (P < 0.001) compared to those without intubation. The multivariate model showed that secondary bacterial infection (OR = 6.87, P = 0.009) was independently associated with IMV failure among COVID-19 patients.

Conclusion

We identified that HFNOT and NIV had an obvious beneficial effect on ARF among COVID-19 patients. We also demonstrated that secondary bacterial infection was an independent risk factor for NIV failure in patients infected by SARS-COV2.

Associations of influenza, chronic comorbid conditions, and severe maternal morbidity among U.S. pregnant women with influenza at delivery hospitalization, 2000-2015

BACKGROUND

Chronic comorbid conditions increase the risk of influenza-related morbidity. Whether this holds for pregnant women who are at high risk of complications from influenza remains to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether chronic comorbid conditions are associated with an increased risk of severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among pregnant women with an influenza diagnosis at delivery hospitalization.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of delivery hospitalizations complicated by an influenza diagnosis using the National Inpatient Sample from 2000-2015. We assessed four prevalent chronic comorbid conditions associated with increased influenza-complications outside of pregnancy, obstructive lung disease (asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]), chronic hypertension, obesity, and pregestational diabetes, overall and individually. The primary outcome was SMM excluding transfusion as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and secondarily, specific SMM measures recognized as influenza-related complications, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), mechanical intubation and ventilation, and sepsis and shock. Multivariable survey-weighted log linear models were used, adjusting for patient, hospital, and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 62.7 million delivery hospitalizations, 0.2% (n=144,572) were complicated by an influenza diagnosis at delivery hospitalization (23 cases of influenza per 10,000 delivery hospitalizations), and 24.9% (n=36,054) with 1 or more chronic comorbid conditions, of which 77.4% included obstructive lung disease. Pregnant women with an influenza diagnosis at delivery hospitalization with a chronic comorbid condition had a slightly higher risk of SMM compared to those without (2.6% vs. 1.7%; adjusted risk ratio (aRR): 1.11; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.21), as well as ARDS (0.9% vs. 0.5%; aRR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.23, 1.64) and mechanical intubation and ventilation (0.2% vs. 0.1%; aRR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.37, 2.69), but a lower risk of sepsis and shock (0.2% vs. 0.3%; aRR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.73). Regarding specific conditions, obstructive lung disease was associated with an increased risk of SMM (adjusted risk ratio (aRR): 1.21; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.32), as well as ARDS (aRR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.32, 1.79) and mechanical intubation and ventilation (aRR: 2.80; 95% CI: 2.00, 3.91). Chronic hypertension was associated with an increased risk of ARDS (aRR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.49), but a lower risk of sepsis and shock (aRR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.85). Obesity was associated with a lower risk of SMM (aRR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74, 0.97). Pregestational diabetes was not associated with SMM.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with a diagnosis of influenza at delivery hospitalization, chronic comorbid conditions may increase the risk of SMM, and in particular, those outcomes related to influenza. These results can inform efforts to increase influenza vaccination for pregnant women with chronic comorbidities.

Barotrauma during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19: a balance between risks and benefits

Ventilatory support is vital for the management of severe forms of COVID-19. Non-invasive ventilation is often used in patients who do not meet criteria for intubation or when invasive ventilation is not available, especially in a pandemic when resources are limited. Despite non-invasive ventilation providing effective respiratory support for some forms of acute respiratory failure, data about its effectiveness in patients with viral-related pneumonia are inconclusive. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection causes life-threatening respiratory failure, weakening the lung parenchyma and increasing the risk of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma results from positive pressure ventilation leading to elevated transalveolar pressure, and in turn to alveolar rupture and leakage of air into the extra-alveolar tissue. This article reviews the literature regarding the use of non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other epidemic or pandemic viral infections and the related risk of barotrauma.

Influenza management with new therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Influenza represents a significant treatment burden to critical care services. A variety of treatment strategies exist, with more and more therapeutic avenues opening up as research progresses. We examined both pharmacological and supportive treatment strategies currently available to see how they might be applied in an ICU setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Supportive care in Influenza centres around optimizing respiratory failure, particularly through well established and recognized ventilatory strategies. Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal oxygen may have a limited role in selected patients under carefully monitored circumstances. Drug therapy exerts only a modest clinical effect and has been poorly studied in the critically ill, though there is some evidence to support the use of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAI) - particularly oseltamivir - as early as possible in this cohort. Newer agents have failed to demonstrate superiority over NAIs but may be useful options if the patient fails to respond or should resistant influenza strains emerge. Steroid therapy, in the absence of another indication, must be recommended against given the repeated trend towards increased mortality in this group.

SUMMARY

Influenza management is an evolving field of significant interest to any critical care provider. Currently, good respiratory supportive care and early enteral oseltamivir are the best supported treatment strategies. Further study in the intensive care setting will be needed before the use of novel agents can be recommended.

Emergency Department Management of Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure in Adults With COVID-19

Background

While emergency physicians are familiar with the management of hypoxemic respiratory failure, management of mechanical ventilation and advanced therapies for oxygenation in the emergency department have become essential during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Objective

We review the current evidence on hypoxemia in COVID-19 and place it in the context of known evidence-based management of hypoxemic respiratory failure in the emergency department.

Discussion

COVID-19 causes mortality primarily through the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with hypoxemia arising from shunt, a mismatch of ventilation and perfusion. Management of patients developing ARDS should focus on mitigating derecruitment and avoiding volutrauma or barotrauma.

Conclusions

High flow nasal cannula and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation have a more limited role in COVID-19 because of the risk of aerosolization and minimal benefit in severe cases, but can be considered. Stable patients who can tolerate repositioning should be placed in a prone position while awake. Once intubated, patients should be managed with ventilation strategies appropriate for ARDS, including targeting lung-protective volumes and low pressures. Increasing positive end-expiratory pressure can be beneficial. Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators do not decrease mortality but may be given to improve refractory hypoxemia. Prone positioning of intubated patients is associated with a mortality reduction in ARDS and can be considered for patients with persistent hypoxemia. Neuromuscular blockade should also be administered in patients who remain dyssynchronous with the ventilator despite adequate sedation. Finally, patients with refractory severe hypoxemic respiratory failure in COVID-19 should be considered for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients managed in a high-volume severe respiratory failure and ECMO centre in the United Kingdom

During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic institutions have needed to develop pragmatic clinical pathways to balance the excess critical care demand and local resources. In this single-centre retrospective cohort study we describe the outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) critical care service. Patients were managed according to a local respiratory failure management pathway that was predicated on timely invasive ventilation when indicated and tailored ventilatory strategies according to pulmonary mechanics. Between 2 March and 25 May 2020 GSTT critical care service admitted 316 patients with confirmed COVID-19. Of the 201 patients admitted directly through the Emergency Department (ED) with a completed critical care outcome, 71.1% survived to critical care discharge. These favourable outcomes may serve to inform the wider debate on optimal organ support in COVID-19.

COVID-19-related organ dysfunction and management strategies on the intensive care unit: a narrative review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a significant surge of critically ill patients and an unprecedented demand on intensive care services. The rapidly evolving understanding of pathogenesis, limited disease specific evidence, and demand-resource imbalances have posed significant challenges for intensive care clinicians. COVID-19 is a complex multisystem inflammatory vasculopathy with a significant mortality implication for those admitted to intensive care. Institutional strategic preparation and meticulous intensive care support are essential to maximising outcomes during the pandemic. The significant mortality variation observed between institutions and internationally, despite a single aetiology and uniform presentation, highlights the potential influence of management strategies on outcome. Given that optimal organ support and adjunctive therapies for COVID-19 have not yet been well defined by trial-based outcomes, strategies are predicated on existing literature and experiential learning. This review outlines the relevant pathophysiology and management strategies for critically ill patients with COVID-19, and shares some of the collective learning accumulated in a high volume severe respiratory failure centre in London.

COVID-19 respiratory support in the emergency department setting

Introduction

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may result in severe complications, multiorgan dysfunction, acute respiratory failure, and death. SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious and places healthcare workers at significant risk, especially during aerosol-generating procedures, including airway management.

Objective

This narrative review outlines the underlying respiratory pathophysiology of patients with COVID-19 and discusses approaches to airway management in the emergency department (ED) based on current literature.

Discussion

Patients presenting with SARS-CoV-2 infection are at high risk for acute respiratory failure requiring airway management. Among hospitalized patients, 10–20% require intensive care unit admission, and 3–10% require intubation and mechanical ventilation. While providing respiratory support for these patients, proper infection control measures, including adherence to personal protective equipment policies, are necessary to prevent nosocomial transmission to healthcare workers. A structured approach to respiratory failure in these patients includes the use of exogenous oxygen via nasal cannula or non-rebreather, as well as titrated high-flow nasal cannula and non-invasive ventilation. This review offers several guiding principles and resources designed to be adapted in conjunction with local workplace policies for patients requiring respiratory support.

Conclusions

While the fundamental principles of acute respiratory failure management are similar between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients, there are some notable differences, including a focus on provider safety. This review provides an approach to airway management and respiratory support in the patient with COVID-19.

Risk factors for non-invasive ventilation failure in influenza infection with acute respiratory failure in emergency department

OBJECTIVE

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been widely used in hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to influenza pneumonia in the emergency department (ED). However, NIV used in influenza-associated acute respiratory failure had a variable rate of failure. Previous studies have reported that prolonged use of NIV was associated with increased mortality. Our study aimed to identify risk factors for NIV failure in influenza infection with acute respiratory failure in ED.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective cohort observational study. Enrolled patients were older than 18 years who used NIV due to influenza infection with ARF between 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018 in Ramathibodi Emergency Department. Patients characteristics, comorbidity, clinical, laboratory outcome, chest imaging, initial NIV setting, and parameters were collected in ED setting. Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and PaO2/FiO2 (PF) ratio were calculated from the first arterial blood gas in ED. We followed the outcome success or failure of the NIV used.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were enrolled and 72 (44%) suffered NIV failure in influenza infection with ARF. We used univariate and multivariate logistic analyses to assess risk factors for NIV failure. The ability of risk factor to predict NIV failure was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Risk factors of NIV failure included SOFA score (P = 0.001), PF ratio (P = 0.001) and quadrant infiltrations in chest x-rays (CXR) (P = 0.001). SOFA score, PF ratio, and number quadrant infiltrations in chest radiography have good ability to predict NIV failure, AUROC 0.894 (95%CI 0.839-0.948), 0.828 (95%CI 0.764-0.892), and 0.792 (95%CI 0.721-0.863), respectively and no significant difference in the ability to predict NIV failure among three parameters. The use of PF ratio plus number quadrant infiltrations in chest radiography demonstrated a higher predictive ability for NIV failure in influenza infection with ARF.

CONCLUSIONS

SOFA score, PF ratio, and quadrant infiltrations in chest radiography were good predictors of NIV failure in influenza infection with ARF.

Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.

This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

Grupo de Trabajo Gripe A Grave (GETGAG) de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC). Spanish Influenza Score (SIS): Usefulness of machine learning in the development of an early mortality prediction score in severe influenza

OBJECTIVE

To develop a mortality prediction score (Spanish Influenza Score [SIS]) for patients with severe influenza considering only variables at ICU admission, and compare its performance respect of Random Forest (RF).

DESIGN

Sub-analysis from the GETGAG/SEMICYUC database.

SCOPE

Intensive Care Medicine.

PATIENTS

Patients admitted to 184 Spanish ICUs (2009-2018) with influenza infection Intervention: None.

VARIABLES

Demographic data, severity of illness, times from symptoms onset until hospital admission (Gap-H), hospital to ICU (Gap-ICU) or hospital to diagnosis (Gap-Dg), antiviral vaccination, number of quadrants infiltrated, acute renal failure, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, shock and comorbidities. The study variable cut-off points and importance were obtained automatically. Logistic regression analysis with cross-validation was performed to develop the SIS score using the output coefficients. Accuracy and discrimination (AUC-ROC) were applied to evaluate SIS and RF. All analyses were performed using R (CRAN-R Project).

RESULTS

A total of 3959 patients were included. The mean age was 55 years (range 43-67), 60% were men, APACHE II 16 (12-21) and SOFA 5 (4-8), with ICU mortality 21.3%. Mechanical ventilation, shock, APACHE II, SOFA, acute renal failure and Gap-ICU were included in the SIS. The latter was generated according to the ORs obtained by logistic regression, and showed an accuracy of 83% with an AUC-ROC of 82%, similar to RF (AUC-ROC 82%).

CONCLUSIONS

The SIS score is easy to apply and shows adequate capacity to stratify the risk of ICU mortality. However, further studies are needed to validate the tool prospectively.

[Intensive care during the 2019-coronavirus epidemic]

On 31 December 2019, the Health Commission of Hubei Province of China first unveiled a group of unexplained cases of pneumonia, which WHO subsequently defined as the new coronavirus of 2019 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 has presented rapid person-to-person transmission and is currently a global pandemic. In the largest number of cases described to date of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 disease (2019-nCoViD), 26% required care in an intensive care unit (ICU). This pandemic is causing an unprecedented mobilization of the scientific community, which has been associated with an exponentially growing number of publications in relation to it. This narrative literature review aims to gather the main contributions in the area of intensive care to date in relation to the epidemiology, clinic, diagnosis and management of 2019-nCoViD.

Intensive care during the 2019-coronavirus epidemic

On 31 December 2019, the Health Commission of Hubei Province of China first unveiled a group of unexplained cases of pneumonia, which WHO subsequently defined as the new coronavirus of 2019 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 has presented rapid person-to-person transmission and is currently a global pandemic. In the largest number of cases described to date of hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 disease (2019-nCoViD), 26% required care in an intensive care unit (ICU). This pandemic is causing an unprecedented mobilization of the scientific community, which has been associated with an exponentially growing number of publications in relation to it. This narrative literature review aims to gather the main contributions in the area of intensive care to date in relation to the epidemiology, clinic, diagnosis and management of 2019-nCoViD.

Predictive Factors for Failure of Noninvasive Ventilation in Adult Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Clinical Study

Background

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has been reported to be beneficial for patients with acute respiratory failure in intensive care unit (ICU); however, factors that influence the clinical outcome of NIV were unclarified. We aim to determine the factors that predict the failure of NIV in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Setting. Adult mixed ICU in a medical university affiliated hospital. Patients and Methods. A retrospective clinical study using data from critical adult patients with initial NIV admitted to ICU in the period August 2016 to November 2017. Failure of NIV was regarded as patients needing invasive ventilation. Logistic regression was employed to determine the risk factor(s) for NIV, and a predictive model for NIV outcome was set up using risk factors.

Results

Of 101 included patients, 50 were unsuccessful. Although more than 20 variables were associated with NIV failure, multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that only ideal body weight (IBW) (OR 1.110 (95%1.027-1.201), P=0.009), the maximal heart rate during NIV period (HR-MAX) (OR 1.024 (1.004-1.046), P=0.021), the minimal respiratory rate during NIV period (RR-MIN) (OR 1.198(1.051-1.365), P=0.007), and the highest body temperature during NIV period (T-MAX) (OR 1.838(1.038-3.252), P=0.037) were independent risk factors for NIV failure. We set up a predictive model based on these independent risk factors, whose area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.783 (95% CI: 0.676-0.899, P < 0.001), and the sensitivity and specificity of model were 68.75% and 71.43%, respectively, with the optimal cut-off value of 0.4863.

Conclusion

IBW, HR-MAX, RR-MIN, and T-MAX were associated with NIV failure in patients with ARF. A predictive model based on the risk factors could help to discriminate patients who are vulnerable to NIV failure.

Flowchart for non-invasive ventilation support in COVID-19 patients from a northern Italy Emergency Department

With the rapid pandemic spread of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2), Emergency Departments of affected countries are facing an increasing number of patients presenting with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Providing mechanical support and endotracheal intubation can be challenging due to a number of patients larger than usual, often exceeding available resources. Considering the lack of recommendations available, we developed a flowchart to standardize the first approach to patients presenting to the Emergency Department with hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.

Managing ICU surge during the COVID-19 crisis: rapid guidelines

Given the rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, clinicians and policy makers require urgent review and summary of the literature, and synthesis of evidence-based guidelines to inform practice. The WHO advocates for rapid reviews in these circumstances. The purpose of this rapid guideline is to provide recommendations on the organizational management of intensive care units caring for patients with COVID-19 including: planning a crisis surge response; crisis surge response strategies; triage, supporting families, and staff.

Noninvasive ventilation failure in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure: the role of sepsis and septic shock

BACKGROUND

Sepsis and septic shock are common in noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients. However, studies on the association between sepsis and NIV failure are lacking.

METHODS

A prospective multi-center observational study was performed in 16 Chinese intensive care units (ICUs). Patients who used NIV due to hypoxemic respiratory failure were enrolled. Sepsis and septic shock were diagnosed according to the guideline of sepsis-3.

RESULTS

A total of 519 patients were enrolled. Sepsis developed in 365 patients (70%) and septic shock developed in 79 patients (15%). However, 75 patients (14%) had no sepsis. NIV failure was 23%, 38%, and 61% in patients, with no sepsis, sepsis, and septic shock, respectively. Multivariate analysis found that sepsis [odds ratio (OR) = 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-3.61] and septic shock (OR = 2.47, 95% CI: 1.12-5.45) were independently associated with NIV failure. In sepsis and septic shock population, the NIV failure was 13%, 31%, 37%, 53%, and 67% in patients with sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores of ⩽2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, and ⩾9, respectively. Patients with nonpulmonary induced sepsis had similar NIV failure rate compared with those with pulmonary induced sepsis, but had higher proportion of septic shock (37% versus 10%, p ⩽ 0.01) and lower ICU mortality (10% versus 22%, p ⩽ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Sepsis was associated with NIV failure in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, and the association was stronger in septic shock patients. NIV failure increased with the increase of organ dysfunction caused by sepsis. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

COVID-19 Infection: Implications for Perioperative and Critical Care Physicians

Healthcare systems worldwide are responding to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), an emerging infectious syndrome caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus. Patients with COVID-19 can progress from asymptomatic or mild illness to hypoxemic respiratory failure or multisystem organ failure, necessitating intubation and intensive care management. Healthcare providers, and particularly anesthesiologists, are at the frontline of this epidemic, and they need to be aware of the best available evidence to guide therapeutic management of patients with COVID-19 and to keep themselves safe while doing so. Here, the authors review COVID-19 pathogenesis, presentation, diagnosis, and potential therapeutics, with a focus on management of COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. The authors draw on literature from other viral epidemics, treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and recent publications on COVID-19, as well as guidelines from major health organizations. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the evidence currently available to guide management of critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Clinical Consensus Recommendations Regarding Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the Adult Patient with Acute Respiratory Failure Secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure. This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a respiratory tract infection caused by a newly emergent coronavirus, that was first recognized in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Currently, the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined the infection as a global pandemic and there is a health and social emergency for the management of this new infection. While most people with COVID-19 develop only mild or uncomplicated illness, approximately 14% develop severe disease that requires hospitalization and oxygen support, and 5% require admission to an intensive care unit. In severe cases, COVID-19 can be complicated by the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and septic shock, and multiorgan failure. This consensus document has been prepared on evidence-informed guidelines developed by a multidisciplinary panel of health care providers from four Spanish scientific societies (Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine [SEMICYUC], Spanish Society of Pulmonologists [SEPAR], Spanish Society of Emergency [SEMES], Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation, and Pain [SEDAR]) with experience in the clinical management of patients with COVID-19 and other viral infections, including SARS, as well as sepsis and ARDS. The document provides clinical recommendations for the noninvasive respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation, high flow oxygen therapy with nasal cannula) in any patient with suspected or confirmed presentation of COVID-19 with acute respiratory failure.

This consensus guidance should serve as a foundation for optimized supportive care to ensure the best possible chance for survival and to allow for reliable comparison of investigational therapeutic interventions as part of randomized controlled trials.

Risk factors associated to noninvasive ventilation failure in primary influenza A pneumonia in the critical care setting

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk factors associated to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) failure in patients with primary pneumonia due to influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and to demonstrate the association of NIV failure to increased mortality and longer stays.

DESIGN

A cohort study was carried out.

SCOPE

A mixed ICU (16 beds) in a teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of pneumonia due to influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus requiring mechanical ventilation.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, sex, severity scores, administration of corticosteroids, oseltamivir within 72h of symptoms onset, days of symptoms prior to admission, affected quadrants, hemodynamic parameters, renal failure, laboratory test data on admission, mortality and stay in ICU and in hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients were admitted to the ICU and 49 were ventilated; 29 were females (59.2%), and the mean age±standard deviation was 66.77±14.77 years. Forty-three patients (87.75%) were ventilated with NIV, and 18 (41.9%) of them failed. Patients with NIV failure were younger (63 vs. 74 years; p=0.04), with a higher SOFA score (7 vs. 4; p=0.01) and greater early hemodynamic failure (61.1 vs. 8%; p=0.01). In addition, they presented longer ICU (26.28 vs. 6.88 days; p=0.01) and hospital stay (32.78 vs. 18.8 days; p=0.01). The ICU mortality rate was also higher in the NIV failure group (38.9 vs. 0%; p=0.02). In the multivariate analysis, corticosteroid therapy (OR 7.08; 95% CI 1.23-40.50) and early hemodynamic failure (OR 14.77; 95% CI 2.34-92.97) were identified as independent risk factors for NIV failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with corticosteroids and early hemodynamic failure were associated to NIV failure in patients with primary pneumonia due to influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus infection admitted to the ICU. The failure of NIV was associated to increased mortality.

Rule-Based Cohort Definitions for Acute Respiratory Failure: Electronic Phenotyping Algorithm

Background

Acute respiratory failure is generally treated with invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive respiratory support strategies. The efficacies of the various strategies are not fully understood. There is a need for accurate therapy-based phenotyping for secondary analyses of electronic health record data to answer research questions regarding respiratory management and outcomes with each strategy.

Objective

The objective of this study was to address knowledge gaps related to ventilation therapy strategies across diverse patient populations by developing an algorithm for accurate identification of patients with acute respiratory failure. To accomplish this objective, our goal was to develop rule-based computable phenotypes for patients with acute respiratory failure using remotely monitored intensive care unit (tele-ICU) data. This approach permits analyses by ventilation strategy across broad patient populations of interest with the ability to sub-phenotype as research questions require.

Methods

Tele-ICU data from ≥200 hospitals were used to create a rule-based algorithm for phenotyping patients with acute respiratory failure, defined as an adult patient requiring invasive mechanical ventilation or a noninvasive strategy. The dataset spans a wide range of hospitals and ICU types across all US regions. Structured clinical data, including ventilation therapy start and stop times, medication records, and nurse and respiratory therapy charts, were used to define clinical phenotypes. All adult patients of any diagnoses with record of ventilation therapy were included. Patients were categorized by ventilation type, and analysis of event sequences using record timestamps defined each phenotype. Manual validation was performed on 5% of patients in each phenotype.

Results

We developed 7 phenotypes: (0) invasive mechanical ventilation, (1) noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, (2) high-flow nasal insufflation, (3) noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation subsequently requiring intubation, (4) high-flow nasal insufflation subsequently requiring intubation, (5) invasive mechanical ventilation with extubation to noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, and (6) invasive mechanical ventilation with extubation to high-flow nasal insufflation. A total of 27,734 patients met our phenotype criteria and were categorized into these ventilation subgroups. Manual validation of a random selection of 5% of records from each phenotype resulted in a total accuracy of 88% and a precision and recall of 0.8789 and 0.8785, respectively, across all phenotypes. Individual phenotype validation showed that the algorithm categorizes patients particularly well but has challenges with patients that require ≥2 management strategies.

Conclusions

Our proposed computable phenotyping algorithm for patients with acute respiratory failure effectively identifies patients for therapy-focused research regardless of admission diagnosis or comorbidities and allows for management strategy comparisons across populations of interest.

[Clinical consensus recommendations regarding non-invasive respiratory support in the adult patient with acute respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection]

La enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) es una infección del tracto respiratorio causada por un nuevo coronavirus emergente que se reconoció por primera vez en Wuhan, China, en diciembre de 2019. Actualmente la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha definido la infección como pandemia y existe una situación de emergencia sanitaria y social para el manejo de esta nueva infección. Mientras que la mayoría de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollan solo una enfermedad leve o no complicada, aproximadamente el 14% desarrollan una enfermedad grave que requiere hospitalización y oxígeno, y el 5% pueden requerir ingreso en una unidad de cuidados intensivos. En casos severos, COVID-19 puede complicarse por el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA), sepsis y shock séptico y fracaso multiorgánico. Este documento de consenso se ha preparado sobre directrices basadas en evidencia desarrolladas por un panel multidisciplinario de profesionales médicos de cuatro sociedades científicas españolas (Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias [SEMICYUC], Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica [SEPAR], Sociedad Española de Urgencias y Emergencias [SEMES], Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor [SEDAR]) con experiencia en el manejo clínico de pacientes con COVID-19 y otras infecciones virales, incluido el SARS, así como en sepsis y SDRA. El documento proporciona recomendaciones clínicas para el soporte respiratorio no invasivo (ventilación no invasiva, oxigenoterapia de alto flujo con cánula nasal) en cualquier paciente con presentación sospechada o confirmada de COVID-19 con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda.

Esta guía de consenso debe servir como base para una atención optimizada y garantizar la mejor posibilidad de supervivencia, así como permitir una comparación fiable de las futuras intervenciones terapéuticas de investigación que formen parte de futuros estudios observacionales o de ensayos clínicos.

Clinical Consensus Recommendations Regarding Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in the Adult Patient with Acute Respiratory Failure Secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection

La enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) es una infección del tracto respiratorio causada por un nuevo coronavirus emergente que se reconoció por primera vez en Wuhan, China, en diciembre de 2019. Actualmente la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ha definido la infección como pandemia y existe una situación de emergencia sanitaria y social para el manejo de esta nueva infección. Mientras que la mayoría de las personas con COVID-19 desarrollan solo una enfermedad leve o no complicada, aproximadamente el 14% desarrollan una enfermedad grave que requiere hospitalización y oxígeno, y el 5% pueden requerir ingreso en una Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos. En casos severos, COVID-19 puede complicarse por el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA), sepsis y shock séptico y fracaso multiorgánico. Este documento de consenso se ha preparado sobre directrices basadas en evidencia desarrolladas por un panel multidisciplinario de profesionales médicos de cuatro sociedades científicas españolas (Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva y Unidades Coronarias [SEMICYUC], Sociedad Española de Neumología y Cirugía Torácica [SEPAR], Sociedad Española de Urgencias y Emergencias [SEMES], Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor [SEDAR]) con experiencia en el manejo clínico de pacientes con COVID-19 y otras infecciones virales, incluido el SARS, así como en sepsis y SDRA. El documento proporciona recomendaciones clínicas para el soporte respiratorio no invasivo (ventilación no invasiva, oxigenoterapia de alto flujo con cánula nasal) en cualquier paciente con presentación sospechada o confirmada de COVID-19 con insuficiencia respiratoria aguda.

Esta guía de consenso debe servir como base para una atención optimizada y garantizar la mejor posibilidad de supervivencia, así como permitir una comparación fiable de las futuras intervenciones terapéuticas de investigación que formen parte de futuros estudios observacionales o de ensayos clínicos.

Critical care management of adults with community-acquired severe respiratory viral infection

With the expanding use of molecular assays, viral pathogens are increasingly recognized among critically ill adult patients with community-acquired severe respiratory illness; studies have detected respiratory viral infections (RVIs) in 17-53% of such patients. In addition, novel pathogens including zoonotic coronaviruses like the agents causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019 nCoV) are still being identified. Patients with severe RVIs requiring ICU care present typically with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Oseltamivir is the most widely used neuraminidase inhibitor for treatment of influenza; data suggest that early use is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients with influenza. At present, there are no antiviral therapies of proven efficacy for other severe RVIs. Several adjunctive pharmacologic interventions have been studied for their immunomodulatory effects, including macrolides, corticosteroids, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, sirolimus, statins, anti-influenza immune plasma, and vitamin C, but none is recommended at present in severe RVIs. Evidence-based supportive care is the mainstay for management of severe respiratory viral infection. Non-invasive ventilation in patients with severe RVI causing acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and pneumonia is associated with a high likelihood of transition to invasive ventilation. Limited existing knowledge highlights the need for data regarding supportive care and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy that is specific for critically ill patients with severe RVI. There is a need for more pragmatic and efficient designs to test different therapeutics both individually and in combination.

Risk factors associated to noninvasive ventilation failure in primary influenza A pneumonia in the critical care setting

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk factors associated to noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) failure in patients with primary pneumonia due to influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), and to demonstrate the association of NIV failure to increased mortality and longer stays.

DESIGN

A cohort study was carried out.

SCOPE

A mixed ICU (16 beds) in a teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to the ICU with a diagnosis of pneumonia due to influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus requiring mechanical ventilation.

MEASUREMENTS

Age, sex, severity scores, administration of corticosteroids, oseltamivir within 72h of symptoms onset, days of symptoms prior to admission, affected quadrants, hemodynamic parameters, renal failure, laboratory test data on admission, mortality and stay in ICU and in hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients were admitted to the ICU and 49 were ventilated; 29 were females (59.2%), and the mean age±standard deviation was 66.77±14.77 years. Forty-three patients (87.75%) were ventilated with NIV, and 18 (41.9%) of them failed. Patients with NIV failure were younger (63 vs. 74 years; P=.04), with a higher SOFA score (7 vs. 4; P=.01) and greater early hemodynamic failure (61.1 vs. 8%; P=.01). In addition, they presented longer ICU (26.28 vs. 6.88 days; P=.01) and hospital stay (32.78 vs. 18.8 days; P=.01). The ICU mortality rate was also higher in the NIV failure group (38.9 vs. 0%; P=.02). In the multivariate analysis, corticosteroid therapy (OR 7.08; 95% CI 1.23-40.50) and early hemodynamic failure (OR 14.77; 95% CI 2.34-92.97) were identified as independent risk factors for NIV failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with corticosteroids and early hemodynamic failure were associated to NIV failure in patients with primary pneumonia due to influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 virus infection admitted to the ICU. The failure of NIV was associated to increased mortality.

Severe flu management: a point of view

Annual flu seasons are typically characterized by changes in types and subtypes of influenza, with variations in terms of severity. Despite remarkable improvements in the prevention and management of patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of influenza, annual seasonal influenza continues to be associated with a high morbidity and mortality. Admission to the intensive care unit is required for patients with severe forms of seasonal influenza infection, with primary pneumonia being present in most of the cases. This review summarizes the most recent knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment strategies in critically ill patients with influenza, focused on diagnostic testing methods, antiviral therapy, use of corticosteroids, antibacterial and antifungal therapy, and supportive measures. The review focuses on diagnostic testing methods, antiviral therapy, use of corticosteroids, antibacterial and antifungal therapy, supportive measures and relevant existing evidence, in order to provide the non-expert clinician a useful overview. An enhanced understanding of current diagnostic and treatment aspects of influenza infection can contribute to improve outcomes and reduce mortality among ICU patients with influenza.

ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs

A. ACUTE HYPERCAPNIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE A1. Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Recommendations: NIV should be used in management of acute exacerbation of COPD in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory acidosis (pH = 7.25-7.35). (1A) NIV should be attempted in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (pH <7.25 & PaCO2 ≥ 45) before initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) except in patients requiring immediate intubation. (2A). Lower the pH higher the chance of failure of NIV. (2B) NIV should not to be used routinely in normo- or mildly hyper-capneic patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, without acidosis (pH > 7.35). (2B) A2. NIV in ARF due to Chest wall deformities/Neuromuscular diseases: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients of ARF due to chest wall deformity/Neuromuscular diseases. (PaCO2 ≥ 45) (UPP) A3. NIV in ARF due to Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS): Recommendations: NIV may be used in AHRF in OHS patients when they present with acute hypercapnic or acute on chronic respiratory failure (pH 45). (3B) NIV/CPAP may be used in obese, hypercapnic patients with OHS and/or right heart failure in the absence of acidosis. (UPP) B. NIV IN ACUTE HYPOXEMIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE: B1. NIV in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema: Recommendations: NIV is recommended in hospital patients with ARF, due to Cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). NIV should be used in patients with acute heart failure/ cardiogenic pulmonary edema, right from emergency department itself. (1B) Both CPAP and BiPAP modes are safe and effective in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). However, BPAP (NIV-PS) should be preferred in cardiogenic pulmonary edema with hypercapnia. (3A) B2. NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Recommendations: NIV may be used over conventional oxygen therapy in mild early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (P/F ratio <300 and >200 mmHg), under close supervision. (2B) We strongly recommend against a trial of NIV in patients with acute hypoxemic failure with P/F ratio <150. (2A) B3. NIV in ARF due to Chest Trauma: Recommendations: NIV may be used in traumatic flail chest along with adequate pain relief. (3B) B4. NIV in Immunocompromised Host: Recommendations: In Immunocompromised patients with early ARF, we may consider NIV over conventional oxygen. (2B). B5. NIV in Palliative Care: Recommendations: We strongly recommend use of NIV for reducing dyspnea in palliative care setting. (2A) B6. NIV in post-operative cases: Recommendations: NIV should be used in patients with post-operative acute respiratory failure. (2A) B6a. NIV in abdominal surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients with ARF following abdominal surgeries. (2A) B6b. NIV in bariatric surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in post-bariatric surgery patients with pre-existent OSA or OHS. (3A) B6c. NIV in Thoracic surgery: Recommendations: In cardiothoracic surgeries, use of NIV is recommended post operatively for acute respiratory failure to improve oxygenation and reduce chance of reintubation. (2A) NIV should not be used in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. (UPP) B6d. NIV in post lung transplant: Recommendations: NIV may be used for shortening weaning time and to avoid re-intubation following lung transplantation. (2B) B7. NIV during Procedures (ETI/Bronchoscopy/TEE/Endoscopy): Recommendations: NIV may be used for pre-oxygenation before intubation. (2B) NIV with appropriate interface may be used in patients of ARF during Bronchoscopy/Endoscopy to improve oxygenation. (3B) B8. NIV in Viral Pneumonitis ARDS: Recommendations: NIV cannot be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with acute respiratory failure with H1N1 pneumonia. However, it may be reasonable to use NIV in selected patients with single organ involvement, in a strictly controlled environment with close monitoring. (2B) B9. NIV and Acute exacerbation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Recommendations: Careful use of NIV in patients with acute Tuberculosis may be considered, with effective infection control precautions to prevent air-borne transmission. (3B) B10. NIV after planned extubation in high risk patients: Recommendation: We recommend that NIV may be used to wean high risk patients from invasive mechanical ventilation as it reduces re-intubation rate. (2B) B11. NIV for respiratory distress post extubation: Recommendations: We recommend that NIV therapy should not be used to manage respiratory distress post-extubation in high risk patients. (2B) C. APPLICATION OF NIV: Recommendation: Choice of mode should be mainly decided by factors like disease etiology and severity, the breathing effort by the patient and the operator familiarity and experience. (UPP) We suggest using flow trigger over pressure triggering in assisted modes, as it provides better patient ventilator synchrony. Especially in COPD patients, flow triggering has been found to benefit auto PEEP. (3B) D. MANAGEMENT OF PATIENT ON NIV: D1. Sedation: Recommendations: A non-pharmacological approach to calm the patient (Reassuring the patient, proper environment) should always be tried before administrating sedatives. (UPP) In patients on NIV, sedation may be used with extremely close monitoring and only in an ICU setting with lookout for signs of NIV failure. (UPP) E. EQUIPMENT: Recommendations: We recommend that portable bilevel ventilators or specifically designed ICU ventilators with non-invasive mode should be used for delivering Non–invasive ventilation in critically ill patients. (UPP) Both critical care ventilators with leak compensation and bi-level ventilators have been equally effective in decreasing the WOB, RR, and PaCO2. (3B) Currently, Oronasal mask is the most preferred interface for non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. (3B) F. WEANING: Recommendations: We recommend that weaning from NIV may be done by a standardized protocol driven approach of the unit. (2B)

How to cite this article: Chawla R, Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Chaudhry D, Khilnani GC, Mehta Y, et al. ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 1):S61–S81.

Is immunosuppression status a risk factor for noninvasive ventilation failure in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure? A post hoc matched analysis

Background

Recent European/American guidelines recommend noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as a first-line therapy to manage acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients. By contrast, NIV may have deleterious effects in nonimmunocompromised patients and experts have been unable to offer a recommendation. Immunocompromised patients have particularly high mortality rates when they require intubation. However, it is not clear whether immunosuppression status is a risk factor for NIV failure. We assessed the impact of immunosuppression status on NIV failure in a post hoc analysis pooling two studies including patients with de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with NIV. Patients with hypercapnia, acute exacerbation of chronic lung disease, cardiogenic pulmonary edema, or with do-not-intubate order were excluded.

Results

Among the 208 patients included in the analysis, 71 (34%) were immunocompromised. They had higher severity scores upon ICU admission, higher pressure-support levels, and minute ventilation under NIV, and were more likely to have bilateral lung infiltrates than nonimmunocompromised patients. Intubation and in-ICU mortality rates were higher in immunocompromised than in nonimmunocompromised patients: 61% vs. 43% (p = 0.02) and 38% vs. 15% (p < 0.001), respectively. After adjustment or using a propensity score-matched analysis, immunosuppression was not associated with intubation, whereas it remained independently associated with ICU mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.64 (95% CI 1.24–5.67, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

Immunosuppression status may directly influence mortality but does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of intubation in patients with de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with NIV. Studies in this specific population are needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13613-019-0566-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Set of Quality Indicators of Pediatric Intensive Care in Spain: Delphi Method Selection

Introduction:

This study objective was to identify, select, and define a basic set of quality indicators for pediatric intensive care in Spain.

Methods:

(1) Review of the literature to identify quality indicators and their defining elements and (2) selection of indicators by consensus of a group of experts using basic Delphi methodology (2 rounds) and forms distributed by email among experts from the Spanish society of pediatric intensive care.

Results:

We selected quality indicators according to their relevance and feasibility and the experts’ agreement on their incorporation in the final set. We included only those indicators whose assessment was within the highest tertile and greater than or equal to 70% evaluator agreement in the final selection. Starting from an initially proposed set of 136 indicators, 31 experts first selected 43 indicators for inclusion in the second round. Twenty indicators were selected for the final set. This “top 20” set comprised 9 process indicators, 9 of results (especially treatment-associated adverse effects), and 2 indicators of structure. Several of them are classical indicators in intensive care medicine (rates of hospital-acquired infections, pressure ulcers, etc.), whereas others are specifically pediatric (eg, unrestricted parent visitation or training the parents of technology-dependent children).

Conclusions:

We reached a consensus on a set of 20 essential quality indicators for pediatric intensive care in Spain. A significant subset reflects the peculiarities of pediatric care. We consider this subset as a starting point for future projects of network collaboration between pediatric intensive care units in Spain.