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: Oxygen therapy is a widely used intervention in acutely ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is established that not only hypoxia, but also prolonged hyperoxia is... Show moreBackground: Oxygen therapy is a widely used intervention in acutely ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is established that not only hypoxia, but also prolonged hyperoxia is associated with poor patient-centered outcomes. Nevertheless, a fundamental knowledge gap remains regarding optimal oxygenation for critically ill patients. In this randomized clinical trial, we aim to compare ventilation that uses conservative oxygenation targets with ventilation that uses conventional oxygen targets with respect to mortality in ICU patients.Methods: The "ConservatIve versus CONventional oxygenation targets in Intensive Care patients" trial (ICONIC) is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical two-arm trial in ventilated adult ICU patients. The ICONIC trial will run in multiple ICUs in The Netherlands and Italy to enroll 1512 ventilated patients. ICU patients with an expected mechanical ventilation time of more than 24 h are randomized to a ventilation strategy that uses conservative (PaO2 55-80 mmHg (7.3-10.7 kPa)) or conventional (PaO2 110-150 mmHg (14.7-20 kPa)) oxygenation targets. The primary endpoint is 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints are ventilator-free days at day 28, ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 90-day mortality, ICU- and hospital length of stay, ischemic events, quality of life, and patient opinion of research and consent in the emergency setting.Discussion: The ICONIC trial is expected to provide evidence on the effects of conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in the ICU population. This study may guide targeted oxygen therapy in the future. Show less
Introduction: COVID-19 infections are associated with a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism, particularly pulmonary embolism (PE). It is suggested that COVID-19 associated PE represents in... Show moreIntroduction: COVID-19 infections are associated with a high prevalence of venous thromboembolism, particularly pulmonary embolism (PE). It is suggested that COVID-19 associated PE represents in situ immunothrombosis rather than venous thromboembolism, although the origin of thrombotic lesions in COVID-19 patients remains largely unknown.Methods: In this study, we assessed the clinical and computed tomography (CT) characteristics of PE in 23 consecutive patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and compared these to those of 100 consecutive control patients diagnosed with acute PE before the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, RV/LV diameter ratio, pulmonary artery trunk diameter and total thrombus load (according to Qanadli score) were measured and compared.Results: We observed that all thrombotic lesions in COVID-19 patients were found to be in lung parenchyma affected by COVID-19. Also, the thrombus load was lower in COVID-19 patients (Qanadli score -8%, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -16 to -0.36%) as was the prevalence of the most proximal PE in the main/lobar pulmonary artery (17% versus 47%; -30%, 95%CI -44% to -8.2). Moreover, the mean RV/LV ratio (mean difference -0.23, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.07) and the prevalence of RV/LV ratio > 1.0 (prevalence difference -23%, 95%CI -41 to -0.86%) were lower in the COVID-19 patients.Conclusion: Our findings therefore suggest that the phenotype of COVID-19 associated PE indeed differs from PE in patients without COVID-19, fuelling the discussion on its pathophysiology. Show less
