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
BackgroundINTELLiVENT–Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a closed–loop ventilation mode that uses capnography to adjust tidal volume (VT) and respiratory rate according to a user–set end–tidal... Show moreBackgroundINTELLiVENT–Adaptive Support Ventilation (ASV) is a closed–loop ventilation mode that uses capnography to adjust tidal volume (VT) and respiratory rate according to a user–set end–tidal CO2 (etCO2) target range. We compared sidestream versus mainstream capnography with this ventilation mode with respect to the quality of breathing in patients after cardiac surgery.Methods Single–center, single–blinded, non–inferiority, randomized clinical trial in adult patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery that were expected to receive at least two hours of postoperative ventilation in the ICU. Patients were randomized 1:1 to closed–loop ventilation with sidestream or mainstream capnography. Each breath was classified into a zone based on the measured VT, maximum airway pressure, etCO2 and pulse oximetry. The primary outcome was the proportion of breaths spent in a predefined ‘optimal’ zone of ventilation during the first three hours of postoperative ventilation, with a non–inferiority margin for the difference in the proportions set at –20%. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of breaths in predefined ‘acceptable’ and ‘critical’ zones of ventilation, and the proportion of breaths with hypoxemia.Results Of 80 randomized subjects, 78 were included in the intention–to–treat analysis. We could not confirm the non–inferiority of closed–loop ventilation using sidestream with respect to the proportion of breaths in the ‘optimal’ zone (mean ratio 0.87 [0.77 to ∞]; P = 0.116 for non–inferiority). The proportion of breaths with hypoxemia was higher in the sidestream capnography group versus the mainstream capnography group.Conclusions We could not confirm that INTELLiVENT–ASV using sidestream capnography is non–inferior to INTELLiVENT–ASV using mainstream capnography with respect to the quality of breathing in subjects receiving postoperative ventilation after cardiac surgery. Show less
Background The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase... Show moreBackground The major complication of COVID-19 is hypoxaemic respiratory failure from capillary leak and alveolar oedema. Experimental and early clinical data suggest that the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor imatinib reverses pulmonary capillary leak.Methods This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was done at 13 academic and non-academic teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Hospitalised patients (aged >= 18 years) with COVID-19, as confirmed by an RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, requiring supplemental oxygen to maintain a peripheral oxygen saturation of greater than 94% were eligible. Patients were excluded if they had severe pre-existing pulmonary disease, had pre-existing heart failure, had undergone active treatment of a haematological or non-haematological malignancy in the previous 12 months, had cytopenia, or were receiving concomitant treatment with medication known to strongly interact with imatinib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral imatinib, given as a loading dose of 800 mg on day 0 followed by 400 mg daily on days 1-9, or placebo. Randomisation was done with a computer-based clinical data management platform with variable block sizes (containing two, four, or six patients), stratified by study site. The primary outcome was time to discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours, while being alive during a 28-day period. Secondary outcomes included safety, mortality at 28 days, and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in all randomised patients who had received at least one dose of study medication (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2020-001236-10).Findings Between March 31, 2020, and Jan 4, 2021, 805 patients were screened, of whom 400 were eligible and randomly assigned to the imatinib group (n=204) or the placebo group (n=196). A total of 385 (96%) patients (median age 64 years [IQR 56-73]) received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. Time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 h was not significantly different between the two groups (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.95 [95% CI 0.76-1.20]). At day 28, 15 (8%) of 197 patients had died in the imatinib group compared with 27 (14%) of 188 patients in the placebo group (unadjusted HR 0.51 [0.27-0.95]). After adjusting for baseline imbalances between the two groups (sex, obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease) the HR for mortality was 0.52 (95% CI 0.26-1.05). The HR for mechanical ventilation in the imatinib group compared with the placebo group was 1.07 (0.63-1.80; p=0.81). The median duration of invasive mechanical ventilation was 7 days (IQR 3-13) in the imatinib group compared with 12 days (6-20) in the placebo group (p=0.0080). 91 (46%) of 197 patients in the imatinib group and 82 (44%) of 188 patients in the placebo group had at least one grade 3 or higher adverse event. The safety evaluation revealed no imatinib-associated adverse events.Interpretation The study failed to meet its primary outcome, as imatinib did not reduce the time to discontinuation of ventilation and supplemental oxygen for more than 48 consecutive hours in patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen. The observed effects on survival (although attenuated after adjustment for baseline imbalances) and duration of mechanical ventilation suggest that imatinib might confer clinical benefit in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, but further studies are required to validate these findings. Copyright (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
