Designing a Bayesian adaptive clinical trial to evaluate novel mechanical ventilation strategies in acute respiratory failure using integrated nested Laplace approximations

BACKGROUND

Adaptive trials usually require simulations to determine values for design parameters, demonstrate error rates, and establish the sample size. We designed a Bayesian adaptive trial comparing ventilation strategies for patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure using simulations. The complexity of the analysis would usually require computationally expensive Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods but this barrier to simulation was overcome using the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximations (INLA) algorithm to provide fast, approximate Bayesian inference.

METHODS

We simulated two-arm Bayesian adaptive trials with equal randomization that stratified participants into two disease severity states. The analysis used a proportional odds model, fit using INLA. Trials were stopped based on pre-specified posterior probability thresholds for superiority or futility, separately for each state. We calculated the type I error and power across 64 scenarios that varied the probability thresholds and the initial minimum sample size before commencing adaptive analyses. Two designs that maintained a type I error below 5%, a power above 80%, and a feasible mean sample size were evaluated further to determine the optimal design.

RESULTS

Power generally increased as the initial sample size and the futility threshold increased. The chosen design had an initial recruitment of 500 and a superiority threshold of 0.9925, and futility threshold of 0.95. It maintained high power and was likely to reach a conclusion before exceeding a feasible sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

We designed a Bayesian adaptive trial to evaluate novel strategies for ventilation using the INLA algorithm to efficiently evaluate a wide range of designs through simulation.

Effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on severe acute kidney injury and death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19: a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC randomized trial

Background

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 is partly mediated by thromboinflammation. In noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support.

Objectives

We investigated whether therapeutic-dose heparin reduces the incidence of AKI or death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Methods

We report a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC open-label, multiplatform randomized trial of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of severe AKI (≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) or all-cause mortality in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Bayesian statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, D-dimer, enrollment period, country, site, and platform.

Results

Among 1922 enrolled, 23 were excluded due to pre-existing end stage kidney disease and 205 were missing baseline or follow-up creatinine measurements. Severe AKI or death occurred in 4.4% participants assigned to therapeutic-dose heparin and 5.5% assigned to thromboprophylaxis (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.47, 1.10); the posterior probability of superiority for therapeutic-dose heparin (relative risk < 1.0) was 93.6%. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a 97.7% probability of superiority to reduce the composite of stage 3 AKI or death (3.1% vs 4.6%; aRR: 0.64; 95% CrI: 0.40, 0.99) compared to thromboprophylaxis.

Conclusion

Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a high probability of superiority to reduce the incidence of in-hospital severe AKI or death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Descriptive information on referral patterns and short-term outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective single-centre observational cohort study of ECMO referrals to Toronto General Hospital (receiving hospital) for severe respiratory failure (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19), between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2020. Data related to the referral, the referral decision, and reasons for refusal were collected. Reasons for refusal were grouped into three mutually exclusive categories selected a priori: "too sick now," "too sick before," and "not sick enough." In declined referrals, referring physicians were surveyed to collect patient outcome on day 7 after the referral. The primary study endpoints were referral outcome (accepted/declined) and patient outcome (alive/deceased).

RESULTS

A total of 193 referrals were included; 73% were declined for transfer. Referral outcome was influenced by age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 0.96; P < 0.01) and involvement of other members of the ECMO team in the discussion (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.28 to 15.2; P < 0.01). Patient outcomes were missing in 46 (24%) referrals (inability to locate the referring physician or the referring physician being unable to recall the outcome). Using available data (95 declined and 52 accepted referrals; n = 147), survival to day 7 was 49% for declined referrals (35% for patients deemed "too sick now," 53% for "too sick before," 100% for "not sick enough," and 50% for reason for refusal not reported) and 98% for transferred patients. Sensitivity analysis setting missing outcomes to directional extreme values retained robustness of survival probabilities.

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the patients declined for ECMO consideration were alive on day 7. More information on patient trajectory and long-term outcomes in declined referrals is needed to refine selection criteria.

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in intensive care units across 50 countries (WEAN SAFE): a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Current management practices and outcomes in weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation are poorly understood. We aimed to describe the epidemiology, management, timings, risk for failure, and outcomes of weaning in patients requiring at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

WEAN SAFE was an international, multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study done in 481 intensive care units in 50 countries. Eligible participants were older than 16 years, admitted to a participating intensive care unit, and receiving mechanical ventilation for 2 calendar days or longer. We defined weaning initiation as the first attempt to separate a patient from the ventilator, successful weaning as no reintubation or death within 7 days of extubation, and weaning eligibility criteria based on positive end-expiratory pressure, fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, and vasopressors. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients successfully weaned at 90 days. Key secondary outcomes included weaning duration, timing of weaning events, factors associated with weaning delay and weaning failure, and hospital outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03255109.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 4, 2017, and June 25, 2018, 10 232 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 5869 were enrolled. 4523 (77·1%) patients underwent at least one separation attempt and 3817 (65·0%) patients were successfully weaned from ventilation at day 90. 237 (4·0%) patients were transferred before any separation attempt, 153 (2·6%) were transferred after at least one separation attempt and not successfully weaned, and 1662 (28·3%) died while invasively ventilated. The median time from fulfilling weaning eligibility criteria to first separation attempt was 1 day (IQR 0-4), and 1013 (22·4%) patients had a delay in initiating first separation of 5 or more days. Of the 4523 (77·1%) patients with separation attempts, 2927 (64·7%) had a short wean (≤1 day), 457 (10·1%) had intermediate weaning (2-6 days), 433 (9·6%) required prolonged weaning (≥7 days), and 706 (15·6%) had weaning failure. Higher sedation scores were independently associated with delayed initiation of weaning. Delayed initiation of weaning and higher sedation scores were independently associated with weaning failure. 1742 (31·8%) of 5479 patients died in the intensive care unit and 2095 (38·3%) of 5465 patients died in hospital.

INTERPRETATION

In critically ill patients receiving at least 2 days of invasive mechanical ventilation, only 65% were weaned at 90 days. A better understanding of factors that delay the weaning process, such as delays in weaning initiation or excessive sedation levels, might improve weaning success rates.

FUNDING

European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, European Respiratory Society.

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Proportional Assist Ventilation for Minimizing the Duration of Mechanical Ventilation: the PROMIZING study

BACKGROUND

Proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) is a mechanical ventilation mode that delivers assistance to breathe in proportion to the patient's effort. The proportional assistance, called the gain, can be adjusted by the clinician to maintain the patient's respiratory effort or workload within a normal range. Short-term and physiological benefits of this mode compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV) include better patient-ventilator synchrony and a more physiological response to changes in ventilatory demand.

METHODS

The objective of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if, for patients with acute respiratory failure, ventilation with PAV+ will result in a shorter time to successful extubation than with PSV. This multi-centre open-label clinical trial plans to involve approximately 20 sites in several continents. Once eligibility is determined, patients must tolerate a short-term PSV trial and either (1) not meet general weaning criteria or (2) fail a 2-min Zero Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Trial using the rapid shallow breathing index, or (3) fail a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), in this sequence. Then, participants in this study will be randomized to either PSV or PAV+ in a 1:1 ratio. PAV+ will be set according to a target of muscular pressure. The weaning process will be identical in the two arms. Time to liberation will be the primary outcome; ventilator-free days and other outcomes will be measured.

DISCUSSION

Meta-analyses comparing PAV+ to PSV suggest PAV+ may benefit patients and decrease healthcare costs but no powered study to date has targeted the difficult to wean patient population most likely to benefit from the intervention, or used consistent timing for the implementation of PAV+. Our enrolment strategy, primary outcome measure, and liberation approaches may be useful for studying mechanical ventilation and weaning and can offer important results for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02447692 . Prospectively registered on May 19, 2015.

Evaluation and Management of Dyspnea in Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Generalized Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder: Protocol for a Pilot and Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Dyspnea is a prevalent symptom in individuals with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) and generalized hypermobility spectrum disorder (G-HSD), yet its contributors have not been identified. One known contributor to dyspnea is respiratory muscle weakness. The feasibility and effectiveness of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in combination with standard-of-care rehabilitation (aerobic, resistance, neuromuscular stabilization, and balance and proprioception exercises) in improving respiratory muscle strength and patient-reported outcomes in patients with hEDS or G-HSD have not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate dyspnea, respiratory muscle strength, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hEDS or G-HSD compared with healthy controls and to assess the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of IMT and standard-of-care rehabilitation for improving respiratory muscle strength, exercise capacity, and PROMs compared with standard-of-care rehabilitation in hEDS and G-HSD.

METHODS

The study will include 34 participants with hEDS or G-HSD and 17 healthy, age- and sex-matched controls to compare respiratory muscle structure and function and PROMs. After baseline assessments, participants with hEDS or G-HSD will be randomized into the intervention group and provided IMT combined with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome standard-of-care rehabilitation or into the usual care group, and provided only standard-of-care rehabilitation for 8 weeks. The intervention group will be prescribed IMT in their home environment using the POWERbreathe K5 IMT device (POWERbreathe International Ltd). IMT will comprise 2 daily sessions of 30 breaths for 5 days per week, with IMT progressing from 20% to 60% of the baseline maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) over an 8-week period. Feasibility will be assessed through rates of recruitment, attrition, adherence, adverse events, and participant satisfaction. The primary pilot outcome is MIP change over an 8-week period in hEDS or G-HSD. Secondary outcomes will include the evaluation of dyspnea using Medical Research Council Scale and 18-point qualitative dyspnea descriptors; diaphragmatic thickening fraction using ultrasound; respiratory muscle endurance; pulmonary function; prefrontal cortical activity using functional near-infrared spectroscopy; aerobic capacity during cardiopulmonary exercise testing; quality of life using Short Form-36; and scores from the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale-21. These measures will also be performed once in healthy controls to compare normative values. Multivariable regression will be used to assess the contributors to dyspnea. Paired 2-tailed t tests will be used to assess the changes in MIP and secondary measures after 8 weeks of IMT.

RESULTS

Study recruitment began in August 2021 and, with several disruptions owing to COVID-19, is expected to be completed by December 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will provide a better understanding of the factors associated with dyspnea and the feasibility and effectiveness of IMT combined with standard-of-care rehabilitation. IMT may be a novel therapeutic strategy for improving respiratory muscle function and patient-reported outcomes in individuals with hEDS or G-HSD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04972565; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04972565.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/44832.

Methodology and Design of Platform Trials: A meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

Adaptive platforms allow for the evaluation of multiple interventions at a lower cost and have been growing in popularity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of this review is to summarize published platform trials, examine specific methodological design features amongst these studies and hopefully aid readers in the evaluation and interpretation of platform trial results.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and clinicaltrials.gov from January 2015 to January 2022 for protocols or results of platform trials. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, collected data on trial characteristics of trial registrations, protocols, and publications of platform trials. We reported our results using total numbers and percentages, as well as medians with interquartile range (IQR) when appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 15,277 unique search records and screened 14,403 titles and abstracts after duplicates were removed. We identified 98 unique randomized platform trials. Sixteen platform trials were sourced from a systematic review completed in 2019, which included platform trials reported prior to 2015. Most platform trials (n=67, 68.3%) were registered between 2020-2022, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The included platform trials primarily recruited or plan to recruit patients from North America or Europe, with most subjects being recruited from the United States (n=39, 39.7%) and the United Kingdom (n=31, 31.6%). Bayesian methods were used in 28.6% (n = 28) of platform RCTs and frequentist methods in 66.3% (n = 65) of trials including 1 (1%) that used methods from both paradigms. Out of the twenty-five trials with peer reviewed publication of results, seven trials used Bayesian methods (28%) and of those, two (8%) used a pre-defined sample size calculation while the remainder used pre-specified probabilities of futility, harm, or benefit calculated at (pre-specified) intervals to inform decisions about stopping interventions or the entire trial. Seventeen (68%) peer reviewed publications used frequentist methods. Out of the seven published Bayesian trials, seven (100%) reported thresholds for benefit. The threshold for benefit ranged from 80% to >99%.

CONCLUSION

We identified and summarized key components of platform trials, including the basics of the methodological and statistical considerations. Ultimately, improving standardization and reporting in platform trials require an understanding of the current landscape. We provide the most updated and rigorous review of platform trials to date.

Helmet non-invasive ventilation compared to facemask non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although small randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have examined helmet non-invasive ventilation (NIV), uncertainty remains regarding its role. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the effect of helmet NIV compared to facemask NIV or high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in acute respiratory failure.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases to identify RCTs and observational studies reporting on at least one of mortality, intubation, ICU length of stay, NIV duration, complications, or comfort with NIV therapy. We assessed study risk of bias (ROB) using the Cochrane ROB tool for RCTs and the Ottawa-Newcastle scale for observational studies and rated certainty of pooled evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

We separately pooled data from 16 RCTs (n=949) and 8 observational studies (n=396). Compared to facemask NIV, based on low certainty evidence, helmet NIV may reduce mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.33 to 0.95)), and intubation (RR 0.35, 95% CI (0.22 to 0.56)) in both hypoxic and hypercapnic respiratory failure but may have no effect on duration of NIV. There was an uncertain effect of helmet on ICU length of stay and development of pressure sores. Data from observational studies was consistent with the foregoing findings but of lower certainty. Based on low and very low certainty data, helmet NIV may reduce intubation compared to HFNC, but its effect on mortality is uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Compared to facemask NIV, helmet NIV may reduce mortality and intubation; however, the effect of helmet compared to HFNC remains uncertain.

Ventilatory Variables and Mechanical Power in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Rationale: Mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has decreased after the adoption of lung-protective strategies. Lower Vt, lower driving pressure (ΔP), lower respiratory rates (RR), and higher end-expiratory pressure have all been suggested as key components of lung protection strategies. A unifying theoretical explanation has been proposed that attributes lung injury to the energy transfer rate (mechanical power) from the ventilator to the patient, calculated from a combination of several ventilator variables.Objectives: To assess the impact of mechanical power on mortality in patients with ARDS as compared with that of primary ventilator variables such as the ΔP, Vt, and RR.Methods: We obtained data on ventilatory variables and mechanical power from a pooled database of patients with ARDS who had participated in six randomized clinical trials of protective mechanical ventilation and one large observational cohort of patients with ARDS. The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days or 60 days.Measurements and Main Results: We included 4,549 patients (38% women; mean age, 55 ± 23 yr). The average mechanical power was 0.32 ± 0.14 J · min^-1 · kg^-1 of predicted body weight, the ΔP was 15.0 ± 5.8 cm H₂O, and the RR was 25.7 ± 7.4 breaths/min. The driving pressure, RR, and mechanical power were significant predictors of mortality in adjusted analyses. The impact of the ΔP on mortality was four times as large as that of the RR.Conclusions: Mechanical power was associated with mortality during controlled mechanical ventilation in ARDS, but a simpler model using only the ΔP and RR was equivalent.

Outcome Predictors of Stroke Mortality in the Neurocritical Care Unit

Background: Risk factors for medium to long-term mortality after stroke are well-established but predictors of in-hospital stroke mortality are less clearly characterized. Kazakhstan has the highest age-standardized mortality rate from ischemic stroke in the world. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with stroke who were admitted over a 3.5-years period to the neurocritical care unit of a tertiary care hospital in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Results: In total, 148 critically ill patients were included in the analysis (84 ischemic stroke, 64 hemorrhagic stroke). The mean age was 63 years, 45% were male and the mean Glasgow Coma Score (±SD) at baseline was 10.3 (±3.4). The in-hospital mortality rate was similar in patients with ischemic (36%) and hemorrhagic (39%) stroke (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.48-1.60). Median survival was 38 days (range: 1-89 days) in patients with ischemic stroke and 39 days (range: 1-63 days) in patients with hemorrhagic stroke. Univariable analysis found that patients who had a lower Glasgow Coma Scale, were in coma and who had cerebral edema were more likely to die in-hospital (P = 0.04, 0.02, <0.01, respectively). Conclusions: Our analysis showed that mortality risk in critically ill patients with hemorrhagic stroke was closer to mortality risk in patients with ischemic stroke than has been reported in other analyses. Hypertension, chronic heart failure, ischemic heart disease and atrial fibrillation were the most frequent comorbidities in patients who developed severe (life-threatening) stroke. Coma and cerebral edema on admission appear to be associated with poor outcome. This is the first publication of in-hospital stroke mortality from a Central Asian population and could form the basis for future research including development of risk scores and identifying modifiable risk factors.

Anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials and call for international collaboration

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high incidence of thrombosis and mortality despite standard anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis. There is equipoise regarding the optimal dose of anticoagulant intervention in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and consequently, immediate answers from high-quality randomized trials are needed.

METHODS

The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was searched on June 17, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing increased dose to standard dose anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Two authors independently screened the full records for eligibility and extracted data in duplicate.

RESULTS

A total of 20 trials were included in the review. All trials are open label, 5 trials use an adaptive design, 1 trial uses a factorial design, 2 trials combine multi-arm parallel group and factorial designs in flexible platform trials, and at least 15 trials have multiple study sites. With individual target sample sizes ranging from 30 to 3000 participants, the pooled sample size of all included trials is 12 568 participants. Two trials include only intensive care unit patients, and 10 trials base patient eligibility on elevated D-dimer levels. Therapeutic intensity anticoagulation is evaluated in 14 trials. All-cause mortality is part of the primary outcome in 14 trials.

DISCUSSION

Several trials evaluate different dose regimens of anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Because these trials compete for sites and study participants, a collaborative effort is needed to complete trials faster, conduct pooled analyses and bring effective interventions to patients more quickly.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%).

RESULTS

After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Electrical impedance tomography in adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to systematically review and summarize current literature concerning the validation and application of electrical impedance tomography (EIT) in mechanically ventilated adult patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science was performed up to June 2014. Studies investigating the use of EIT in an adult human patient population treated with mechanical ventilation (MV) were included. Data extracted included study objectives, EIT details, interventions, MV protocol, validation and comparators, population characteristics, and key findings.

RESULTS

Of the 67 included studies, 35 had the primary objective of validating EIT measures including regional ventilation distribution, lung volume, regional respiratory mechanics, and nonventilatory parameters. Thirty-two studies had the primary objective of applying EIT to monitor the response to therapeutic MV interventions including change in ventilation mode, patient repositioning, endotracheal suctioning, recruitment maneuvers, and change in positive end-expiratory pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients, EIT has been successfully validated for assessing ventilation distribution, measuring changes in lung volume, studying regional respiratory mechanics, and investigating nonventilatory parameters. Electrical impedance tomography has also been demonstrated to be useful in monitoring regional respiratory system changes during MV interventions, although existing literature lacks clinical outcome evidence.

Setting mechanical ventilation in ARDS patients during VV-ECMO: where are we?

Currently, many centers use venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) as an adjunctive means of gas exchange to mechanical ventilation (MV) in patients with severe ARDS and refractory hypoxemia. One of the most interesting and controversial issues in the management of these patients is how to set the ventilatory strategy. The support provided by VV-ECMO makes the balance between risks and benefits of MV remarkably different from the conventional setting, since the need for MV to facilitate oxygenation and carbon dioxide clearance is greatly reduced or abolished during VV-ECMO. Therefore, the risks of causing ventilator-induced lung injury are of foremost importance; however, the issue of the optimum ventilatory strategy during VV-ECMO has not received sufficient consideration. This paper will describe the diverse MV strategies applied during VV-ECMO in clinical practice and will highlight specific pathophysiological considerations that are crucial in the process of defining optimal ventilation settings in patients with ARDS supported with VV-ECMO.