Aerosolized prostacyclins for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)

Current Practice Review in the Management of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents as an acute inflammatory lung injury characterized by refractory hypoxemia and non-cardiac pulmonary edema. An estimated 10% of patients in the intensive care unit and 25% of those who are mechanically ventilated are diagnosed with ARDS. Increased awareness is warranted as mortality rates remain high and delays in diagnosing ARDS are common. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of understanding ARDS management. Treatment of ARDS can be challenging due to the complexity of the disease state and conflicting existing evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that pharmacists understand both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies to optimize patient care. This narrative review provides a critical evaluation of current literature describing management practices for ARDS. A review of treatment modalities and supportive care strategies will be presented.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and the Use of Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in the COVID-19 Era: A Narrative Review

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic of 2019 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality, especially from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As of September 2022, more than 6.5 million patients have died globally, and up to 5% required intensive care unit treatment. COVID-19-associated ARDS (CARDS) differs from the typical ARDS due to distinct pathology involving the pulmonary vasculature endothelium, resulting in diffuse thrombi in the pulmonary circulation and impaired gas exchange. The National Institute of Health and the Society of Critical Care Medicine recommend lung-protective ventilation, prone ventilation, and neuromuscular blockade as needed. Further, a trial of pulmonary vasodilators is suggested for those who develop refractory hypoxemia. A review of the prior literature on inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in ARDS suggests only a transient improvement in oxygenation, with no mortality benefit. This narrative review aims to highlight the fundamental principles in ARDS management, delineate the fundamental differences between CARDS and ARDS, and describe the comprehensive use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators. In addition, with the differing pathophysiology of CARDS from the typical ARDS, we sought to evaluate the current evidence regarding the use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in CARDS.

A Comparison of Inhaled Epoprostenol in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Introduction

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) are both characterized by non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema and severe hypoxemia that leads to a high percentage of patients suffering in-hospital mortality. Mechanistically, inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) has shown a role in the treatment of ARDS and CARDS but little data are available directly comparing the two disease processes. Due to the lack of evidence of iEPO in ARDS and CARDS, the authors sought to compare the pulmonary effects of iEPO for mechanically ventilated patients with CARDS against a case match control of those with ARDS.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of all patients receiving iEPO between January 1, 2020, and February 22, 2022, was reviewed. Patients with ARDS were case-matched in a 2:1 allocation ratio of CARDS to ARDS by the number of medical comorbidities and age +/- 5 years. Clinical data collected included patient demographics, laboratory values, ventilator settings, length of hospitalization, and 28-day mortality. Comparisons of the effectiveness of iEPO between ARDS and CARDS were conducted using the chi-squared statistic for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney statistic for continuous variables.

Results

A total of 72 patients were included in the final analysis, with 24 having ARDS and 48 CARDS. The number of medical comorbidities was no different for patients with ARDS or CARDs (p = 0.18), though the frequency of patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease (p=0.007), congestive heart failure (p=0.003), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p=0.004), and pulmonary hypertension (p=0.004) did vary between the two groups. A moderate but non-significant difference in pre-iEPO partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) ratio was noted between the groups (0.74 vs 0.65; p=0.33). Following iEPO treatment, patients with ARDS showed a greater PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio than those with CARDS (0.87 vs 0.70; p=0.02). CARDS patients who received iEPO had a longer length of stay as compared to those with ARDS (17.5 vs 12.5 days; p=0.01). However, no difference was noted in 28-day mortality between the two groups (14 vs 34; p=0.29).

Conclusion

In this small sample from a single community hospital, a statistically significant improvement in the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was noted for both those with ARDS and CARDS. However, those with CARDS who were given iEPO had a longer length of stay without a significant difference in mortality as compared to those with traditional ARDS.

A randomised controlled trial on roles of prostaglandin E1 nebulization among patients undergoing one lung ventilation

Background

Prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) has been reported to maintain adequate oxygenation among patients under 60% FiO₂ one-lung ventilation (OLV). This research aimed to explore whether PGE1 is safe in pulmonary shunt and oxygenation under 40% FiO₂ OLV and provide a reference concentration of PGE1.

Methods

Totally 90 esophageal cancer patients treated with thoracotomy were enrolled in this study, randomly divided into three groups (n = 30/group): Group A (60% FiO₂ and 0.1 µg/kg PGE1), Group B (40% FiO₂ and 0.1 µg/kg PGE1), and Group C (40% FiO₂, 0.2 µg/kg PGE1). Primary outcomes were oxygenation and pulmonary shunt during OLV. Secondary outcomes included oxidative stress after OLV.

Results

During OLV, patients in Group C and B had lower levels of PaO₂, SaO₂, SpO₂, MAP, and Qs/Qt than those in Group A (P < 0.05). At T2 (OLV 10 min), patients in Group C and B exhibited a lower level of PaO₂/FiO₂ than those in Group A, without any statistical difference at other time points. The IL-6 levels of patients in different groups were different at T8 (F = 3.431, P = 0.038), with IL-6 in Group C being lower than that in Group B and A. MDA levels among the three groups differed at T5 (F = 4.692, P = 0.012) and T7 (F = 5.906, P = 0.004), with the MDA level of Group C being lower than that of Group B and A at T5, and the MDA level of Group C and B being lower than that of Group A at T7. In terms of TNF-α level, patients in Group C had a lower level than those in Group B and A at T8 (F = 3.598, P = 0.033). Compared with patients who did not use PGE1, patients in Group C had comparable complications and lung infection scores.

Conclusion

The concentration of FiO₂ could be reduced from 60 to 40% to maintain oxygenation. 40% FiO₂ + 0.2 µg/kg PGE1 is recommended as a better combination on account of its effects on the inflammatory factors.

Trial registration: Chictr.org.cn identifier: ChiCTR1800018288, 09/09/2018.

Inhaled prostacyclin analogues in COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: scientific rationale

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) is a severe form of SARS CoV-2 infection and affects about 15-30% of hospitalized patients with a high mortality rate. Growing research and data suggest several available drugs with appropriate pharmacological effects to treat COVID-19.

MAIN BODY

Prostacyclin analogues are regiments for pulmonary artery hypertension. Prostacyclin analogues are expected to be beneficial in treating CARDS based on at least four rationales: (1) inhaled prostacyclin analogues improve oxygenation, V/Q mismatch, and act as an ARDS therapy alternative; (2) it alleviates direct SARS-CoV-2-related coagulopathy; (3) increases nitric oxide production; and (4) possible anti-inflammatory effect. Prostacyclin analogues are available in oral, intravenous, and inhaled forms. The inhaled form has the advantage over other forms, such as parenteral administration risks. Previously, a meta-analysis demonstrated the beneficial effects of inhaled prostaglandins for ARDS treatment, such as improved PaO2/FiO2 and PaO2 along with reduced pulmonary artery pressure. Currently, two ongoing randomized controlled trials are evaluating inhaled epoprostenol (VPCOVID [NCT04452669]) and iloprost (ILOCOVID [NCT04445246]) for severe COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled prostacyclin could be considered in patients with refractory, life-threatening hypoxia despite standard management.

Evaluation of Inhaled Alprostadil in Hospitalized Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Intermittent inhaled alprostadil (iPGE₁) may be a viable alternative to inhaled nitric oxide or epoprostenol for management of right ventricular failure, pulmonary hypertension (pHTN) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, limited evidence exists regarding iPGE₁ use in adults, ideal dosing strategies, or optimal use cases.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical characteristics of patients receiving iPGE₁ and identify specific sub-populations warranting further research.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, descriptive analysis of inpatients who received at least one dose of iPGE₁. The primary outcome was to describe patient characteristics and alprostadil dosing strategies. Secondary outcomes included changes in respiratory support requirements, hemodynamics, and inotropic/vasoactive use. Outcomes were stratified and compared based on primary therapeutic indication (cardiac or pulmonary).

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients received iPGE₁ 40 (75%) for pulmonary (pHTN or ARDS) and 14 (25%) for cardiac indications. There was no difference between indications in the number of patients de-escalated from level of respiratory (53% vs 57%, P = 0.76), inotropic (70% vs 57%, P = 0.39), or vasopressor support (78% vs 57%, P = 0.17). Furthermore, there was no significant improvement in cardiopulmonary parameters at multiple time intervals after iPGE₁ initiation.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This is the largest study to date on the use of intermittent iPGE₁ in adults. Alprostadil was safely utilized in novel populations; however, efficacy as evaluated by clinical or surrogate endpoints could not be demonstrated and further investigation is needed to determine its potential and optimal place in therapy.

In-vitro and in-vivo comparisons of high versus low concentrations of inhaled epoprostenol to adult intubated patients

BACKGROUND

Inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) has been shown to reduce pulmonary artery pressure and improve oxygenation. iEPO is mainly delivered via a syringe pump with feed tubing connected to a vibrating mesh nebulizer with high or low formulation concentration delivery.

METHODS

An in vitro study and a two-period retrospective case-control study were implemented. The in vitro study compared iEPO delivery via invasive ventilation at low concentrations of 7.5, and 15 mcg/mL and high concentration at 30 mcg/mL, to deliver the ordered dose of 30 and 50 ng/kg/min for three clinical scenarios with predicted body weight of 50, 70 and 90 kg. While in the clinical study, adult patients receiving iEPO via invasive ventilation to treat refractory hypoxemia, pulmonary hypertension, or right ventricular failure were included. 80 patients received low concentration iEPO at multiple concentrations (2.5, 7.5, and 15 mcg/mL, depending on the ordered dose) from 2015 to 2017, while 84 patients received high concentration iEPO at 30 mcg/mL from 2018 to 2019.

RESULTS

In the in vitro study, there were no significant differences in aerosol deposition between high vs low concentrations of iEPO at a dose of 50 ng/kg/min. In the clinical study, age, gender, ethnicity, and indications for iEPO were similar between high and low concentration groups. After 30-120 min of iEPO administration, both delivery strategies significantly improved oxygenation in hypoxemic patients and reduced mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) for patients with pulmonary hypertension. However, no significant differences of the incremental changes were found between two delivery groups. Compared to low concentration, high concentration delivery group had better adherence to the iEPO weaning protocol (96% vs 71%, p < 0.001), fewer iEPO syringes utilized per patient (5 [3, 10] vs 12 [6, 22], p = 0.001), and shorter duration of invasive ventilation (6 [3, 12] vs 9 [5, 18] days, p = 0.028). Intensive care unit length of stay and mortality were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to low concentration delivery of iEPO, high concentration iEPO via a vibrating mesh nebulizer maintained clinical benefits and increased clinician compliance with an iEPO weaning protocol, required less medication preparation time, and shortened duration of invasive ventilation.

Endothelial Damage in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

The pulmonary endothelium is a metabolically active continuous monolayer of squamous endothelial cells that internally lines blood vessels and mediates key processes involved in lung homoeostasis. Many of these processes are disrupted in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is marked among others by diffuse endothelial injury, intense activation of the coagulation system and increased capillary permeability. Most commonly occurring in the setting of sepsis, ARDS is a devastating illness, associated with increased morbidity and mortality and no effective pharmacological treatment. Endothelial cell damage has an important role in the pathogenesis of ARDS and several biomarkers of endothelial damage have been tested in determining prognosis. By further understanding the endothelial pathobiology, development of endothelial-specific therapeutics might arise. In this review, we will discuss the underlying pathology of endothelial dysfunction leading to ARDS and emerging therapies. Furthermore, we will present a brief overview demonstrating that endotheliopathy is an important feature of hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19).

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Inhaled Epoprostenol and Inhaled Nitric Oxide for Refractory Hypoxemia in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled epoprostenol and inhaled nitric oxide in patients with refractory hypoxemia secondary to coronavirus disease 2019.

DESIGN

Retrospective single-center study.

SETTING

ICUs at a large academic medical center in the United States.

PATIENTS

Thirty-eight adult critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and refractory hypoxemia treated with either inhaled epoprostenol or inhaled nitric oxide for at least 1 hour between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Electronic chart review.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 93 patients screened, 38 were included in the analysis, with mild (4, 10.5%), moderate (24, 63.2%), or severe (10, 26.3%), with acute respiratory distress syndrome. All patients were initiated on inhaled epoprostenol as the initial pulmonary vasodilator and the median time from intubation to initiation was 137 hours (68-228 h). The median change in Pao₂/Fio₂ was 0 (-12.8 to 31.6) immediately following administration of inhaled epoprostenol. Sixteen patients were classified as responders (increase Pao₂/Fio₂ > 10%) to inhaled epoprostenol, with a median increase in Pao₂/Fio₂ of 34.1 (24.3-53.9). The mean change in Pao₂ and Spo₂ was -0.55 ± 41.8 and -0.6 ± 4.7, respectively. Eleven patients transitioned to inhaled nitric oxide with a median change of 11 (3.6-24.8) in Pao₂/Fio₂. A logistic regression analysis did not identify any differences in outcomes or characteristics between the responders and the nonresponders. Minimal adverse events were seen in patients who received either inhaled epoprostenol or inhaled nitric oxide.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the initiation of inhaled epoprostenol and inhaled nitric oxide in patients with refractory hypoxemia secondary to coronavirus disease 2019, on average, did not produce significant increases in oxygenation metrics. However, a group of patients had significant improvement with inhaled epoprostenol and inhaled nitric oxide. Administration of inhaled epoprostenol or inhaled nitric oxide may be considered in patients with severe respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019.

Oxygen targets in the intensive care unit during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Supplemental oxygen is frequently administered to patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS secondary to viral illness such as coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). An up-to-date understanding of how best to target this therapy (e.g. arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂) or peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) aim) in these patients is urgently required.

OBJECTIVES

To address how oxygen therapy should be targeted in adults with ARDS (particularly ARDS secondary to COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses) and requiring mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit, and the impact oxygen therapy has on mortality, days ventilated, days of catecholamine use, requirement for renal replacement therapy, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 15 May 2020 for ongoing or completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently assessed all records in accordance with standard Cochrane methodology for study selection. We included RCTs comparing supplemental oxygen administration (i.e. different target PaO₂ or SpO₂ ranges) in adults with ARDS and receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. We excluded studies exploring oxygen administration in patients with different underlying diagnoses or those receiving non-invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal oxygen, or oxygen via facemask.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author performed data extraction, which a second review author checked. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We used the GRADE approach to judge the certainty of the evidence for the following outcomes; mortality at longest follow-up, days ventilated, days of catecholamine use, and requirement for renal replacement therapy.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one completed RCT evaluating oxygen targets in patients with ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. The study randomized 205 mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS to either conservative (PaO₂ 55 to 70 mmHg, or SpO₂ 88% to 92%) or liberal (PaO₂ 90 to 105 mmHg, or SpO₂ ≥ 96%) oxygen therapy for seven days. Overall risk of bias was high (due to lack of blinding, small numbers of participants, and the trial stopping prematurely), and we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. The available data suggested that mortality at 90 days may be higher in those participants receiving a lower oxygen target (odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 3.27). There was no evidence of a difference between the lower and higher target groups in mean number of days ventilated (14.0, 95% CI 10.0 to 18.0 versus 14.5, 95% CI 11.8 to 17.1); number of days of catecholamine use (8.0, 95% CI 5.5 to 10.5 versus 7.2, 95% CI 5.9 to 8.4); or participants receiving renal replacement therapy (13.7%, 95% CI 5.8% to 21.6% versus 12.0%, 95% CI 5.0% to 19.1%). Quality of life was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain as to whether a higher or lower oxygen target is more beneficial in patients with ARDS and receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care setting. We identified only one RCT with a total of 205 participants exploring this question, and rated the risk of bias as high and the certainty of the findings as very low. Further well-conducted studies are urgently needed to increase the certainty of the findings reported here. This review should be updated when more evidence is available.

Therapeutic iloprost for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (the ThIlo trial): a prospective, randomized, multicenter phase II study

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is caused by rapid-onset (within hours) acute inflammatory processes in lung tissue, and it is a life-threatening condition with high mortality. The treatment of ARDS to date is focused on the prevention of further iatrogenic damage of the lung rather than the treatment of the initial inflammatory process. Several preclinical studies have revealed a beneficial effect of iloprost on the control of pulmonary inflammation, and in a small number of patients with ARDS, iloprost treatment resulted in improved oxygenation. Therefore, we plan to conduct a large multicenter trial to evaluate the effect of iloprost on ARDS.

Methods

The Therapeutic Iloprost during ARDS trial (ThIlo trial) is a multicenter, randomized, single blinded, clinical phase II trial assessing the efficacy of inhaled iloprost for the prevention of the development and progression of ARDS in critically ill patients. One hundred fifty critically ill patients suffering from acute ARDS will be treated either by nebulized iloprost or NaCl 0.9% for 5 days. Blood samples will be drawn at defined time points to elucidate the serum levels of iloprost and inflammatory markers during treatment. Mechanical ventilation will be standardized. In follow-up visits at days 28 and 90 as well as 6 months after enrollment, functional status according to the Barthel Index and a health care-related questionnaire, and frailty (Vulnerable Elders Survey) will be evaluated. The primary endpoint is the improvement of oxygenation, defined as the ratio of PaO₂/FiO₂. Secondary endpoints include 90-day all-cause mortality, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores during the study period up to day 90, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ventilator-associated pneumonia, delirium, ICU-acquired weakness, and discharge localization. The study will be conducted in three university ARDS centers in Germany.

Discussion

The results of the ThIlo trial will highlight the anti-inflammatory effect of iloprost on early inflammatory processes during ARDS, resulting in the improvement of outcome parameters in patients with ARDS.

Trial registration

EUDRA-CT: 2016-003168-37. Registered on 12 April 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03111212. Registered on 4 June 2017.

Pharmacological agents for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition caused by direct or indirect injury to the lungs. Despite improvements in clinical management (for example, lung protection strategies), mortality in this patient group is at approximately 40%. This is an update of a previous version of this review, last published in 2004.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological agents in adults with ARDS on mortality, mechanical ventilation, and fitness to return to work at 12 months.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 10 December 2018. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological agents with control (placebo or standard therapy) to treat adults with established ARDS. We excluded trials of nitric oxide, inhaled prostacyclins, partial liquid ventilation, neuromuscular blocking agents, fluid and nutritional interventions and medical oxygen. We excluded studies published earlier than 2000, because of changes to lung protection strategies for people with ARDS since this date.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 48 RCTs with 6299 participants who had ARDS; two included only participants with mild ARDS (also called acute lung injury). Most studies included causes of ARDS that were both direct and indirect injuries. We noted differences between studies, for example the time of administration or the size of dose, and because of unclear reporting we were uncertain whether all studies had used equivalent lung protection strategies.We included five types of agents as the primary comparisons in the review: corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, and beta-agonists. We included 15 additional agents (sivelestat, mesenchymal stem cells, ulinastatin, anisodimine, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, recombinant human ACE2 (palifermin), AP301, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), levosimendan, prostacyclins, lisofylline, ketaconazole, nitroglycerins, L-2-oxothiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid (OTZ), and penehyclidine hydrochloride).We used GRADE to downgrade outcomes for imprecision (because of few studies and few participants), for study limitations (e.g. high risks of bias) and for inconsistency (e.g. differences between study data).Corticosteroids versus placebo or standard therapyCorticosteroids may reduce all-cause mortality within three months by 86 per 1000 patients (with as many as 161 fewer to 19 more deaths); however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) includes the possibility of both increased and reduced deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.05; 6 studies, 574 participants; low-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether corticosteroids make little or no difference to late all-cause mortality (later than three months) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.52; 1 study, 180 participants), or to the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) -4.30, 95% CI -9.72 to 1.12; 3 studies, 277 participants). We found that ventilator-free days up to day 28 (VFD) may be improved with corticosteroids (MD 4.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.44; 4 studies, 494 participants; low-certainty evidence). No studies reported adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication, or fitness to return to work at 12 months (FTR).Surfactants versus placebo or standard therapyWe are uncertain whether surfactants make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29; 9 studies, 1338 participants), or whether they reduce late all-cause mortality (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.61; 1 study, 418 participants). Similarly, we are uncertain whether surfactants reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.95 to -0.05; 1 study, 16 participants), make little or no difference to VFD (MD -0.39, 95% CI -2.49 to 1.72; 2 studies, 344 participants), or to adverse events leading to discontinuation of study medication (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.44; 2 studies, 88 participants). We are uncertain of these effects because we assessed them as very low-certainty. No studies reported FTR.N-aceytylcysteine versus placeboWe are uncertain whether N-acetylcysteine makes little or no difference to early mortality, because we assessed this as very low-certainty evidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.30; 1 study, 36 participants). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, VFD, adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation, or FTR.Statins versus placeboStatins probably make little or no difference to early mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.26; 3 studies, 1344 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or to VFD (MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.71 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1342 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statins may make little or no difference to duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 8.95; 1 study, 60 participants; low-certainty evidence). We could not include data for adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation in one study because it was unclearly reported. No studies reported late all-cause mortality or FTR.Beta-agonists versus placebo controlBeta-blockers probably slightly increase early mortality by 40 per 1000 patients (with as many as 119 more or 25 fewer deaths); however, the 95% CI includes the possibility of an increase as well as a reduction in mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.42; 3 studies, 646 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Due to the very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether beta-agonists increase VFD (MD -2.20, 95% CI -3.68 to -0.71; 3 studies, 646 participants), or make little or no difference to adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation (one study reported little or no difference between groups, and one study reported more events in the beta-agonist group). No studies reported late all-cause mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or FTR.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to determine with certainty whether corticosteroids, surfactants, N-acetylcysteine, statins, or beta-agonists were effective at reducing mortality in people with ARDS, or duration of mechanical ventilation, or increasing ventilator-free days. Three studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review. As the potential long-term consequences of ARDS are important to survivors, future research should incorporate a longer follow-up to measure the impacts on quality of life.

Beyond Low Tidal Volume Ventilation: Treatment Adjuncts for Severe Respiratory Failure in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Despite decades of research, the acute respiratory distress syndrome remains associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This Concise Definitive Review provides a practical and evidence-based summary of treatments in addition to low tidal volume ventilation and their role in the management of severe respiratory failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the PubMed database for clinical trials, observational studies, and review articles describing treatment adjuncts in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, including high positive end-expiratory pressure strategies, recruitment maneuvers, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, glucocorticoids, and renal replacement therapy.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Results were reviewed by the primary author in depth. Disputed findings and conclusions were then reviewed with the other authors until consensus was achieved.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Severe respiratory failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome may present with refractory hypoxemia, severe respiratory acidosis, or elevated plateau airway pressures despite lung-protective ventilation according to acute respiratory distress syndrome Network protocol. For severe hypoxemia, first-line treatment adjuncts include high positive end-expiratory pressure strategies, recruitment maneuvers, neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. For refractory acidosis, we recommend initial modest liberalization of tidal volumes, followed by neuromuscular blockade and prone positioning. For elevated plateau airway pressures, we suggest first decreasing tidal volumes, followed by neuromuscular blockade, modification of positive end-expiratory pressure, and prone positioning. Therapies such as inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, glucocorticoids, and renal replacement therapy have significantly less evidence in favor of their use and should be considered second line. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be life-saving in selected patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome but should be used only when other alternatives have been applied.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe respiratory failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome often necessitates the use of treatment adjuncts. Evidence-based application of these therapies in acute respiratory distress syndrome remains a significant challenge. However, a rational stepwise approach with frequent monitoring for improvement or harm can be achieved.

Physiology-guided management of hemodynamics in acute respiratory distress syndrome

Skillfully implemented mechanical ventilation (MV) may prove of immense benefit in restoring physiologic homeostasis. However, since hemodynamic instability is a primary factor influencing mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), clinicians should be vigilant regarding the potentially deleterious effects of MV on right ventricular (RV) function and pulmonary vascular mechanics (PVM). During both spontaneous and positive pressure MV (PPMV), tidal changes in pleural pressure (P_PL), transpulmonary pressure (P_TP, the difference between alveolar pressure and P_PL), and lung volume influence key components of hemodynamics: preload, afterload, heart rate, and myocardial contractility. Acute cor pulmonale (ACP), which occurs in 20-25% of ARDS cases, emerges from negative effects of lung pathology and inappropriate changes in P_PL and P_TP on the pulmonary microcirculation during PPMV. Functional, minimally invasive hemodynamic monitoring for tracking cardiac performance and output adequacy is integral to effective care. In this review we describe a physiology-based approach to the management of hemodynamics in the setting of ARDS: avoiding excessive cardiac demand, regulating fluid balance, optimizing heart rate, and keeping focus on the pulmonary circuit as cornerstones of effective hemodynamic management for patients in all forms of respiratory failure.

Inhaled Epoprostenol Through Noninvasive Routes of Ventilator Support Systems

BACKGROUND

The administration of inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) through noninvasive routes of ventilator support systems has never been previously evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

Describe the use of iEPO when administered through noninvasive routes of ventilator support systems.

METHODS

Critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit who received iEPO through noninvasive routes were analyzed. Improvements in respiratory status and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated. Safety end points assessed included hypotension, rebound hypoxemia, significant bleeding, and thrombocytopenia.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients received iEPO through noninvasive routes: high-flow oxygen therapy through nasal cannula, n = 29 (81%) and noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, n = 7 (19%). Sixteen patients had improvement in their respiratory status: mean decrease in fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂), 20% ± 13%; mean increase in partial pressure of arterial oxygen to FiO₂ (PaO₂/FiO₂) ratio, 60 ± 50 mm Hg; and mean decrease in HFNC oxygen flow rate, 6 ± 3 liters per minute (LPM). Eight patients had declines in their respiratory status (mean increase in FiO₂, 30% ± 20%; mean decrease in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, 38 ± 20 mm Hg; and mean increase in HFNC oxygen flow rate, 15 ± 10 LPM), and 12 patients had no change in their respiratory status. Conclusion and Relevance: This represents the first evaluation of the administration of iEPO through noninvasive routes of ventilator support systems and demonstrates that in critically ill patients, iEPO could be administered through a noninvasive route. Further evaluation is needed to determine the extent of benefit with this route of administration.