Rationale: Supplemental oxygen is widely administered to ICU patients, but appropriate oxygenation targets remain unclear.Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether a low-oxygenation... Show moreRationale: Supplemental oxygen is widely administered to ICU patients, but appropriate oxygenation targets remain unclear.Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether a low-oxygenation strategy would lower 28-day mortality compared with a high-oxygenation strategy.Methods: This randomized multicenter trial included mechanically ventilated ICU patients with an expected ventilation duration of at least 24 hours. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a low-oxygenation (Pa-O2, 55-80mmHg; or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry, 91-94%) or high-oxygenation (Pa-O2, 110-150mmHg; or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry, 96-100%) target until ICU discharge or 28 days after randomization, whichever came first. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The study was stopped prematurely because of the COVID-19 pandemic when 664 of the planned 1,512 patients were included.Measurements and Main Results: Between November 2018 and November 2021, a total of 664 patients were included in the trial: 335 in the low-oxygenation group and 329 in the high-oxygenation group. The median achieved Pa-O2 was 75mmHg (interquartile range, 70-84) and 115mmHg (interquartile range, 100-129) in the low- and high-oxygenation groups, respectively. At Day 28, 129 (38.5%) and 114 (34.7%) patients had died in the low- and high-oxygenation groups, respectively (risk ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.4; P = 0.30). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 12 (3.6%) and 17 (5.2%) patients in the low- and high-oxygenation groups, respectively.Conclusions: Among mechanically ventilated ICU patients with an expected mechanical ventilation duration of at least 24 hours, using a low-oxygenation strategy did not result in a reduction of 28-day mortality compared with a high-oxygenation strategy. Show less
Background: Over the last decade, there has been an increasing awareness for the potential harm of the administration of too much oxygen. We aimed to describe self-reported attitudes towards oxygen... Show moreBackground: Over the last decade, there has been an increasing awareness for the potential harm of the administration of too much oxygen. We aimed to describe self-reported attitudes towards oxygen therapy by clinicians from a large representative sample of intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands.Methods: In April 2019, 36 ICUs in the Netherlands were approached and asked to send out a questionnaire (59 questions) to their nursing and medical staff (ICU clinicians) eliciting self-reported behaviour and attitudes towards oxygen therapy in general and in specific ICU case scenarios.Results: In total, 1361 ICU clinicians (71% nurses, 24% physicians) from 28 ICUs returned the questionnaire. Of responding ICU clinicians, 64% considered oxygen-induced lung injury to be a major concern. The majority of respondents considered a partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) of 6-10 kPa (45-75 mmHg) and an arterial saturation (SaO(2)) of 85-90% as acceptable for 15 minutes, and a PaO2 7-To kPa (53-75 mmHg) and SaO(2) 90-95% as acceptable for 24-48 hours in an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patient. In most case scenarios, respondents reported not to change the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) if SaO(2) was 90-95% or PaO2 was 12 kPa (90 mmHg).Conclusion: A representative sample of ICU clinicians from the Netherlands were concerned about oxygen-induced lung injury, and reported that they preferred PaO2 and SaO(2) targets in the lower physiological range and would adjust ventilation settings accordingly. Show less
