The respiratory microbiome has been less explored than the gut microbiome. Despite the speculated importance of dysbiosis of the microbiome in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and acute ...respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), only few studies have been performed in invasively ventilated ICU patients. And only the results of small cohorts have been published. An overlap exists between bacterial populations observed in the lower respiratory tract and the oropharyngeal tract. The bacterial microbiota is characterized by relatively abundant bacteria difficult to cultivate by standard methods. Under mechanical ventilation, a dysbiosis occurs with a drop overtime in diversity. During VAP development, lung dysbiosis is characterized by a shift towards a dominant bacterial pathogen (mostly
Proteobacteria
) whereas enrichment of gut-associated bacteria mainly
Enterobacteriaceae
is the specific feature discriminating ARDS patients. However, the role of this dysbiosis in VAP and ARDS pathogenesis is not yet fully understood. A more in-depth analysis of the interplay between bacteria, virus and fungi and a better understanding of the host-microbiome interaction could provide a more comprehensive view of the role of the microbiome in VAP and ARDS pathogenesis. Priority should be given to validate a consensual and robust methodology for respiratory microbiome research and to conduct longitudinal studies. A deeper understanding of microbial interplay should be a valuable guide for care of ARDS and VAP preventive/therapeutic strategies. We present a review on the current knowledge and expose perspectives and potential clinical applications of respiratory microbiome research in mechanically ventilated patients.
The timing of renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients who have acute kidney injury but no potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure is a subject of ...debate.
In this multicenter randomized trial, we assigned patients with severe acute kidney injury (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes KDIGO classification, stage 3 stages range from 1 to 3, with higher stages indicating more severe kidney injury) who required mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both and did not have a potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure to either an early or a delayed strategy of renal-replacement therapy. With the early strategy, renal-replacement therapy was started immediately after randomization. With the delayed strategy, renal-replacement therapy was initiated if at least one of the following criteria was met: severe hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, pulmonary edema, blood urea nitrogen level higher than 112 mg per deciliter, or oliguria for more than 72 hours after randomization. The primary outcome was overall survival at day 60.
A total of 620 patients underwent randomization. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality at day 60 did not differ significantly between the early and delayed strategies; 150 deaths occurred among 311 patients in the early-strategy group (48.5%; 95% confidence interval CI, 42.6 to 53.8), and 153 deaths occurred among 308 patients in the delayed-strategy group (49.7%, 95% CI, 43.8 to 55.0; P=0.79). A total of 151 patients (49%) in the delayed-strategy group did not receive renal-replacement therapy. The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections was higher in the early-strategy group than in the delayed-strategy group (10% vs. 5%, P=0.03). Diuresis, a marker of improved kidney function, occurred earlier in the delayed-strategy group (P<0.001).
In a trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury, we found no significant difference with regard to mortality between an early and a delayed strategy for the initiation of renal-replacement therapy. A delayed strategy averted the need for renal-replacement therapy in an appreciable number of patients. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01932190.).
One important concern during high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure is to not delay intubation.
To validate the diagnostic accuracy of an index ...(termed ROX and defined as the ratio of oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi
to respiratory rate) for determining HFNC outcome (need or not for intubation).
This was a 2-year multicenter prospective observational cohort study including patients with pneumonia treated with HFNC. Identification was through Cox proportional hazards modeling of ROX association with HFNC outcome. The most specific cutoff of the ROX index to predict HFNC failure and success was assessed.
Among the 191 patients treated with HFNC in the validation cohort, 68 (35.6%) required intubation. The prediction accuracy of the ROX index increased over time (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 2 h, 0.679; 6 h, 0.703; 12 h, 0.759). ROX greater than or equal to 4.88 measured at 2 (hazard ratio, 0.434; 95% confidence interval, 0.264-0.715;
= 0.001), 6 (hazard ratio, 0.304; 95% confidence interval, 0.182-0.509;
< 0.001), or 12 hours (hazard ratio, 0.291; 95% confidence interval, 0.161-0.524;
< 0.001) after HFNC initiation was consistently associated with a lower risk for intubation. A ROX less than 2.85, less than 3.47, and less than 3.85 at 2, 6, and 12 hours of HFNC initiation, respectively, were predictors of HFNC failure. Patients who failed presented a lower increase in the values of the ROX index over the 12 hours. Among components of the index, oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi
had a greater weight than respiratory rate.
In patients with pneumonia with acute respiratory failure treated with HFNC, ROX is an index that can help identify those patients with low and those with high risk for intubation. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02845128).
The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends targeting a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock. However, whether this blood-pressure ...target is more or less effective than a higher target is unknown.
In a multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 776 patients with septic shock to undergo resuscitation with a mean arterial pressure target of either 80 to 85 mm Hg (high-target group) or 65 to 70 mm Hg (low-target group). The primary end point was mortality at day 28.
At 28 days, there was no significant between-group difference in mortality, with deaths reported in 142 of 388 patients in the high-target group (36.6%) and 132 of 388 patients in the low-target group (34.0%) (hazard ratio in the high-target group, 1.07; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.84 to 1.38; P=0.57). There was also no significant difference in mortality at 90 days, with 170 deaths (43.8%) and 164 deaths (42.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.30; P=0.74). The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups (74 events 19.1% and 69 events 17.8%, respectively; P=0.64). However, the incidence of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was higher in the high-target group than in the low-target group. Among patients with chronic hypertension, those in the high-target group required less renal-replacement therapy than did those in the low-target group, but such therapy was not associated with a difference in mortality.
Targeting a mean arterial pressure of 80 to 85 mm Hg, as compared with 65 to 70 mm Hg, in patients with septic shock undergoing resuscitation did not result in significant differences in mortality at either 28 or 90 days. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; SEPSISPAM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149278.).
Whether the antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of glucocorticoids may decrease mortality among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia is unclear.
In this phase 3, multicenter, ...double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for severe community-acquired pneumonia to receive intravenous hydrocortisone (200 mg daily for either 4 or 7 days as determined by clinical improvement, followed by tapering for a total of 8 or 14 days) or to receive placebo. All the patients received standard therapy, including antibiotics and supportive care. The primary outcome was death at 28 days.
A total of 800 patients had undergone randomization when the trial was stopped after the second planned interim analysis. Data from 795 patients were analyzed. By day 28, death had occurred in 25 of 400 patients (6.2%; 95% confidence interval CI, 3.9 to 8.6) in the hydrocortisone group and in 47 of 395 patients (11.9%; 95% CI, 8.7 to 15.1) in the placebo group (absolute difference, -5.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.6 to -1.7; P = 0.006). Among the patients who were not undergoing mechanical ventilation at baseline, endotracheal intubation was performed in 40 of 222 (18.0%) in the hydrocortisone group and in 65 of 220 (29.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.86). Among the patients who were not receiving vasopressors at baseline, such therapy was initiated by day 28 in 55 of 359 (15.3%) of the hydrocortisone group and in 86 of 344 (25.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.82). The frequencies of hospital-acquired infections and gastrointestinal bleeding were similar in the two groups; patients in the hydrocortisone group received higher daily doses of insulin during the first week of treatment.
Among patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia being treated in the ICU, those who received hydrocortisone had a lower risk of death by day 28 than those who received placebo. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; CAPE COD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517489.).
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with severe lung damage. Corticosteroids are a possible therapeutic option.
To determine the effect of hydrocortisone on treatment failure on day 21 ...in critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and acute respiratory failure.
Multicenter randomized double-blind sequential trial conducted in France, with interim analyses planned every 50 patients. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure were enrolled from March 7 to June 1, 2020, with last follow-up on June 29, 2020. The study intended to enroll 290 patients but was stopped early following the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board.
Patients were randomized to receive low-dose hydrocortisone (n = 76) or placebo (n = 73).
The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, was defined as death or persistent dependency on mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen therapy. Prespecified secondary outcomes included the need for tracheal intubation (among patients not intubated at baseline); cumulative incidences (until day 21) of prone position sessions, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inhaled nitric oxide; Pao2:Fio2 ratio measured daily from day 1 to day 7, then on days 14 and 21; and the proportion of patients with secondary infections during their ICU stay.
The study was stopped after 149 patients (mean age, 62.2 years; 30.2% women; 81.2% mechanically ventilated) were enrolled. One hundred forty-eight patients (99.3%) completed the study, and there were 69 treatment failure events, including 11 deaths in the hydrocortisone group and 20 deaths in the placebo group. The primary outcome, treatment failure on day 21, occurred in 32 of 76 patients (42.1%) in the hydrocortisone group compared with 37 of 73 (50.7%) in the placebo group (difference of proportions, -8.6% 95.48% CI, -24.9% to 7.7%; P = .29). Of the 4 prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference. No serious adverse events were related to the study treatment.
In this study of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure, low-dose hydrocortisone, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce treatment failure (defined as death or persistent respiratory support) at day 21. However, the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517489.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, several centers had independently reported extending prone positioning beyond 24 h. Most of these centers reported maintaining patients in prone position until ...significant clinical improvement was achieved. One center reported extending prone positioning for organizational reasons relying on a predetermined fixed duration. A recent study argued that a clinically driven extension of prone positioning beyond 24 h could be associated with reduced mortality. On a patient level, the main benefit of extending prone positioning beyond 24 h is to maintain a more homogenous distribution of the gas-tissue ratio, thus delaying the increase in overdistention observed when patients are returned to the supine position. On an organizational level, extending prone positioning reduces the workload for both doctors and nurses, which might significantly enhance the quality of care in an epidemic. It might also reduce the incidence of accidental catheter and tracheal tube removal, thereby convincing intensive care units with low incidence of ARDS to prone patients more systematically. The main risk associated with extended prone positioning is an increased incidence of pressure injuries. Up until now, retrospective studies are reassuring, but prospective evaluation is needed.
Nasal high flow (NHF) has gained popularity among intensivists to manage patients with acute respiratory failure. An important literature has accompanied this evolution. In this review, an ...international panel of experts assessed potential benefits of NHF in different areas of acute respiratory failure management. Analyses of the physiological effects of NHF indicate flow-dependent improvement in various respiratory function parameters. These beneficial effects allow some patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure to avoid intubation and improve their outcome. They require close monitoring to not delay intubation. Such a delay may worsen outcome. The ROX index may help clinicians decide when to intubate. In immunocompromised patients, NHF reduces the need for intubation but does not impact mortality. Beneficial physiological effects of NHF have also been reported in patients with chronic respiratory failure, suggesting a possible indication in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. When intubation is required, NHF can be used to pre-oxygenate patients either alone or in combination with non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Similarly, NHF reduces reintubation alone in low-risk patients and in combination with NIV in high-risk patients. NHF may be used in the emergency department in patients who would not be offered intubation and can be better tolerated than NIV.
PDF
