Pressure support ventilation vs Continuous positive airway pressure for treating of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: A pilot study

Lung ultrasound-guided PEEP titration in COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of COVID-19 patients were treated with continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP). To evaluate the clinical effects of personalized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) compared to standard fixed PEEP in COVID-19 patients requiring CPAP.

METHODS

This is a single center, prospective, randomized clinical study. Sixty-three COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and bilateral pneumonia were randomized in two Groups: Group A received CPAP with fixed PEEP of 10 cm H2O, Group B performed the "PEEP trial", that consists in the evaluation of best PEEP defined as the PEEP value that precedes the echographic appearance of "lung pulse" determining a PaO2/FiO2 increase. Primary outcome was composite in-hospital mortality + intubation, secondary outcome was the percentage increase of PaO2/FiO2. As safety indicator, the incidence of pneumothorax was collected.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were enrolled in Group A and 31 in Group B. The two groups were comparable for clinical characteristics and laboratory parameters. The primary outcome occurred in 36 (57.1 %) patients: 23 (71.8 %) in Group A and 13 (41.9 %) in Group B (p<0.01). Mortality was higher in Group A (53.1 vs. 19.3 %, p<0.01), while intubation rate was comparable between groups. Group B showed a higher PaO2/FiO2 increase than Group A (34.9 vs. 13.1 %, p<0.01). Five cases of pneumothorax were reported in Group A, none in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung ultrasound-guided PEEP trial is associated with lower mortality in COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP. Identifying the best PEEP is useful to increase oxygenation and reduce the incidence of complications.

Finding Cost-effective Solutions: Need of the Hour

How to cite this article: Patil VP, Rajput A. Finding Cost-effective Solutions: Need of the Hour. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(11):1163-1164.

Time-weighted lactate as a predictor of adverse outcome in acute heart failure

Aims

The role of dynamic changes in lactate concentrations on prognosis in acute heart failure has been poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to explore the predictive value of 24 h time‐weighted lactate (LAC_TW) in patients with acute heart failure.

Methods and results

Ninety‐six consecutive acute heart failure patients presenting to the Emergency Department of San Paolo Hospital, Naples, Italy, were prospectively enrolled. Arterial blood lactate was measured at admission and during the following 24 h at random time intervals. LAC_TW was obtained by the sum of the average lactate values among consecutive time points multiplied by the intervals between consecutive time points and dividing the sum by the total time (24 h). The outcome was a composite of need of admission to the intensive care unit, hospitalization duration >7 days, or intra‐hospital death. Admission lactate, maximum measured lactate, and LAC_TW were collected. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was applied to determine the hazard ratio (HR) of developing the outcome. Forty‐three patients experienced the pre‐specified outcome. In sex‐adjusted and age‐adjusted multivariable analysis, LAC_TW predicted the outcome occurrence (HR: 1.51, 95% confidence interval: 1.24, 1.84, P < 0.001). Risk stratification analysis based on LAC_TW tertiles demonstrated a gradual increase in risk of developing the outcome (HR: 17.32, 95% confidence interval: 2.30, 130.23, P = 0.006) for the highest LAC_TW tertile.

Conclusions

In acute heart failure patients, 24 h LAC_TW had a significant independent predictive value for adverse intra‐hospital outcome. LAC_TW could be a useful index at identifying high‐risk patients who may require a more aggressive treatment during hospitalization.

Non-invasive CPAP in mild and moderate ARDS secondary to SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 outbreak, a very high number of infected patients developed pneumonia and many of them complicated with acute respiratory distress syndrome. The optimal management of respiratory failure and the role of lung ultrasound imaging in the evaluation of efficacy of treatment are unknown.

METHODS

In March 2020 we treated 18 patients with mild and moderate ARDS secondary to SARS-CoV-2 with non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure therapy (NI-CPAP). All patients underwent lung ultrasound imaging to verify the entity of lung recruitment after NI-CPAP initiation.

RESULTS

After one hour of treatment we observed a significant improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio in 10 patients. Notably, only 50 % of them reached an effective improvement in lung aeration detectable with lung ultrasound. In the other 50 % or patients the improvement in PaO2/FiO2 might be related to blood redistribution and reverse of hypoxic vasoconstriction.

CONCLUSION

NI- CPAP is a valid therapeutic option in mild and moderate ARDS secondary SARS-CoV-2. Lung recruitment detected by means of lung ultrasound is a relevant but not the exclusive mechanism that underlies the therapeutic efficacy of NI-CPAP in this clinical setting.

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (CPAP or bilevel NPPV) for cardiogenic pulmonary oedema

BACKGROUND

Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I² = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I² = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I² = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.