ERS International Congress 2021: highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly

Aileen Kharat, Carla Ribeiro, Berrin Er, Christoph Fisser, Daniel López-Padilla, Foteini Chatzivasiloglou, Leo M.A. Heunks, Maxime Patout, Rebecca F. D'Cruz
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00016-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00016-2022

Abstract

Early Career Members of Assembly 2 (Respiratory Intensive Care) attended the European Respiratory Society International Congress through a virtual platform in 2021. Sessions of interest to our assembly members included symposia on the implications of acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotyping on diagnosis and treatment, safe applications of noninvasive ventilation in hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and new developments in mechanical ventilation and weaning, and a guidelines session on applying high-flow therapy in acute respiratory failure. These sessions are summarised in this article.

Abstract

Early Career Members of @ERSAssembly2 attended the #ERSCongress 2021, and reported on symposia on ARDS phenotyping, noninvasive ventilation in hypoxic respiratory failure, ventilator weaning and high-flow therapy in acute respiratory failure https://bit.ly/3D68r50

Introduction

Assembly 2 of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) encompasses the broad fields of respiratory critical care. Our assembly is divided into two groups, those of acute critical care and of noninvasive ventilatory support. Currently, our assembly is headed by Leo Heunks, João Winck has the role of secretary and Maxime Patout is our Early Career Representative. The acute critical care subgroup is chaired by Christian Karagiannidis, with Ignacio Martin-Loeches as secretary. The noninvasive ventilatory support group is chaired by Marieke Duiverman, and Claudia Crimi is secretary. At the time of publication, we have 1553 Assembly 2 members, 36% of whom are early career members. A recent highlight of Assembly 2 was our organisation of the inaugural Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation conference, which was held in Berlin in March 2020. This was a great success, with attendees arriving from around the world to enjoy engaging and educational seminars delivered by expert panels, workshops and lectures within the streams of adult acute respiratory failure, chronic respiratory failure and paediatric respiratory failure [1]. Early career members had the opportunity to present cases and posters and to chair sessions. We look forward to the second meeting, which will be held in Berlin between 9 and 11 June 2022. In this review, we present highlights from the ERS International Congress 2021 of interest to Assembly 2 members and those interested in critical care and mechanical ventilation. The sessions we have reported on include the symposia on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) phenotypes, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in hypoxic respiratory failure, and new developments in mechanical ventilation and weaning, and the guidelines session on high-flow therapy (HFT) in adults with acute respiratory failure.

ARDS phenotypes: implications for diagnosis and treatment

ARDS pathophysiology was presented by Nuala Meyer (Philadelphia, PA, USA). In the 1970s, ARDS pathophysiology was driven by oxygen toxicity. Since then, ventilator management and supportive care have changed. Epithelial cell death is characteristic but endothelial damage is more subtle [2]. However, lung autopsy studies from patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) showed endothelial damage, microthrombi and endothelial disruption. Classic cells driving ARDS are predominantly neutrophils and macrophages [3]. Neutrophil-derived chlorolipids, neutrophil extracellular traps, are excellent biomarkers for ARDS [4]. Moreover, new cell death mechanisms and pathways may represent novel therapeutic targets in ARDS [5].

Jean-Michel Constantin (Paris, France) focused on personalised ventilator settings and implications of lung morphology in ARDS. He reported that the mortality was lower in the focal ARDS group than in the non-focal groups, despite similar ratio of arterial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2 /FIO2), with different responses to lung recruitment [6]. In the non-focal group, the lungs can be ventilated homogeneously with higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), whereas higher pressure can cause overinflation in normal areas in the focal group. Therefore, the LIVE study was designed by Constantin et al. [7]. In the intervention arm of this study, the focal group was ventilated with low PEEP and high tidal volume (8 mL·kg−1) and the non-focal group with low tidal volume and high PEEP. 90-day mortality was similar between groups. However, mortality was higher in those who had been misclassified. In conclusion, dynamic parameters like ultrasound, electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and computed tomography (CT) scan can help in choosing the correct ventilator settings.

Charlotte Summers (Cambridge, UK) presented biological sub-phenotyping of ARDS. Previously, two sub-phenotypes were identified by retrospectively analysing the ARMA and the ALVEOLI trials [8]. The hyperinflammatory group were observed to have higher mortality, while response to higher PEEP and conservative fluid therapy was better [9]. Data from the UK Critical Care Genomics, the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit and the MOSAIC Influenza Consortium were integrated to develop disease subtypes. Three types of influenza-associated ARDS were identified as adaptive, endothelial leak and neutrophil-driven (figure 1). Survival was poorer in the neutrophil-driven subtype.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1

Neutrophils are identifiable by their multi-lobulated nuclei and are indicated by arrows in this Giemsa-stained blood film. Neutrophil-driven hyperinflammatory acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher mortality. Image: Graham Beards via Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Brijesh Patel (London, UK) talked on individual approaches to resolve lung injury. Pneumonia, lower PaO2 /FIO2, higher pressures, higher tidal volume and higher non-respiratory sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score were risk factors for persisting ARDS [10]. Patel et al. [11] used machine learning to report that patients who did not resolve hypoxaemia within the first week had higher intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. To understand resolution phenotypes, multimodal approaches should be developed combining physiology, radiology and bioinformatics.

Take-home messages

  • ARDS may be phenotyped using imaging and inflammatory markers.

  • A range of imaging modalities may be used, including ultrasound, EIT and CT.

  • Hyperinflammatory ARDS has a poorer prognosis.

  • Phenotyping is important to guide the ventilatory strategy and may impact upon clinical outcomes.

Noninvasive respiratory support in hypoxic respiratory failure: stay safe and know your limits

Luigi Camporota (London, UK) opened the session conceptualising the assessment of severity of respiratory failure as a triangle: gas exchange, radiology and biomarkers and respiratory effort, all connected with a fourth dimension corresponding to the disease evolution in time. The gas exchange reflects two separate phenomena: the alveolar integrity and the functional abnormalities such as dysregulated pulmonary perfusion. The COVID-19 pandemic was used throughout the presentation as a model for the different assessment methods, both invasive and noninvasive. L. Camporota reflected on a commonly used tool, the PaO2/FIO2, and its limitation being dependent on the FIO2, making it difficult to assess its evolution in case of change in the denominator. In a recent study, the ROX index (ratio of oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/FIO2 to respiratory rate) has greater predictive validity than NEWS2 for deterioration in COVID-19 [12].

Stefano Nava (Bologna, Italy) reported pros and cons of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) during the COVID-19 pandemic, since NRS was used outside the intensive care setting, where no previous recommendations existed. On the one hand, studies showed that HFT, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and NIV had similar adjusted mortality rate. Helmet NIV and CPAP had a significantly reduced intubation rate compared to HFT [13]. S. Nava challenged the audience with a provocative question: did we kill HFT? The answer is probably not. HFT must be used in specific situations for its already known indications. On the other hand, NRS depends on the severity of hypoxaemia. PaO2 /FIO2 is dependent on work of breathing. Therefore, it does not predict alone lung recruitment and mechanics. Patient effort is important and can contribute to ventilator-induced lung injury. A last consideration is staff contamination due to aerosol generation by NRS (figure 2).

FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2

Noninvasive ventilation and high-flow therapy is associated with aerosol generation. Appropriate precautions must be taken by healthcare workers to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission. A range of face masks are available for use in the healthcare environment and should be selected based on the type and level of exposure to aerosol-generating procedures. The mask shown in the image is an example of a filtering facepiece 3 (FFP3). This type of mask provides a high level of particle filtering with little leak and is commonly donned in the critical care setting. Surgical face masks are made of non-woven fabric, worn loosely over the nose and mouth. They provide a lower level of protection from airborne disease and should therefore be used in environments where no aerosol-generating procedures are performed. Image: Elduendesuarez via Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Marieke Duiverman (Groningen, the Netherlands) reflected on the role of NRS in refractory breathlessness. A limitation within this area is that most studies include small patient numbers and short-term end-points. A 2015 systematic review concluded that opioids improved breathlessness in patients with severe COPD [14], although the benefit was lower than the later described minimal clinically important difference [15]. Another systematic review demonstrated a slight benefit of NIV in relieving dyspnoea in COPD stable patients [16], but whether it is clinically relevant remains uncertain. In the acute setting, it is essential to define the goals of life support versus symptom relief, and the side-effects patients (and physicians) tolerate depend on these goals. A randomised crossover study showed that HFT was superior to conventional oxygen therapy in reducing the severity of dyspnoea in the first hour of treatment in patients with do-not-intubate status and hypoxaemic respiratory failure [17].

In her presentation, Maria Vega (Bologna, Italy) illustrated the physiological background in NRS based on a recent review [18], showing lower intubation rate and mortality with NRS compared to standard oxygenation in hypoxaemic respiratory failure. Patient self-inflicted lung injury and ventilator-induced lung injury are influenced by dynamic transpulmonary pressure (transpulmonary pressure (PL)=airway pressure (Paw)+pleural pressure (Ppl)), which in turn depends on patient effort. NIV decreases work of breathing, thus personalised pressure titration reduces risk of lung injury. Effect of applied pressure support is determined by oesophageal swing (figure 3). A strategy of respiratory support should consider patient inspiratory effort to avoid increase in dynamic stress.

FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3

Oesophageal pressure swing may be used as an indicator of work of breathing. a) The oesophageal pressure; b) the patient's air flow measured at the mouth.

Take-home messages

  • The PaO2 /FIO2 and the ROX index may be used to classify severity of hypoxic respiratory failure.

  • Aerosol generation and use of appropriate personal protective equipment must be considered when implementing NRS.

  • There are limited data on the use of NRS in breathlessness management, and the burdens of treatment must be weighed up against physiological benefits.

  • Patient effort must be considered when selecting an appropriate ventilatory strategy.

New developments in mechanical ventilation and ventilator weaning

Patient's perspective

Olivia Fulton, a former ICU asthma patient and a volunteer for a charity for post-intensive care patients and their family, discussed her experience in the ICU. She highlighted that patience, communication and awareness about the patients’ ability to hear or feel are the key parameters that ICU personnel need to embrace in order to make the patient's stay in the ICU less traumatic.

Epidemiology and geographical variation in ventilator weaning

John Laffey (Galway, Ireland) highlighted that prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation and extubation failure are associated with multiple complications and higher mortality [19]. Several types of spontaneous breathing trial have been described, but a T-piece trial seems to better reflect work of breathing after extubation compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV) [20]. In terms of the epidemiology of weaning, J. Laffey summarised some preliminary results of the WEAN SAFE Study (WorldwidE AssessmeNt of Separation of pAtients From ventilatory assistancE), which addresses key issues regarding weaning from mechanical ventilation (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03255109). We eagerly await publication of the full results. The study by Burns et al. [21] found significant differences between participating countries regarding the methods and personnel involved in weaning, highlighting the worldwide variation in practices.

Personalised mechanical ventilation and weaning in patients with COPD

Lise Piquilloud (Lausanne, Switzerland) emphasised that the goal of mechanical ventilation in COPD patients is to reduce hyperinflation. Regarding controlled ventilation, the usual approach is controlled hypoventilation with permissive hypercapnia. During assisted ventilation, the presence of intrinsic PEEP (PEEPi) leads to increased work of breathing and asynchronies, which may be mitigated by carefully titrating PEEP. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) ventilates the patient based on the electrical activity of the diaphragm and reduces asynchrony compared with PSV [22, 23]. Moreover, NAVA has been associated with reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with PSV in patients at risk for prolonged mechanical ventilation [24]. L. Piquilloud stressed the importance of daily screening for weaning readiness and early extubation. In COPD patients at risk for extubation failure, we must consider the early use of NIV or HFT. When high PEEPi persists despite appropriate ventilation, we may use extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R), which allows us to further decrease minute ventilation with beneficial effects on hyperinflation and mitigation of the deleterious consequences of hypercapnia and acidosis [25]. Moreover, ECCO2R may be used to facilitate weaning, since it may improve work of breathing [26]. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to prove its efficacy and safety before it can be used as a general treatment strategy in routine clinical practice.

Lung and diaphragm protective ventilation

Katerina Vaporidi (Heraklion, Greece) discussed lung injury and protective mechanical ventilation strategies that include optimisation of tidal volume (VT) and PEEP, prone positioning and allowing diaphragmatic contraction with early spontaneous breathing. The measurement of transpulmonary end-expiratory pressure by an oesophageal catheter and EIT may aid in PEEP titration. Global tidal lung stress may be monitored by measuring airway driving pressure. However, regional lung stress can be more accurately estimated by the transpulmonary driving pressure. High tidal stress may be mitigated by improving lung homogeneity, avoiding high VT and decreasing ventilatory demands [27, 28]. Passive ventilation as well as assisted ventilation can induce diaphragm disuse atrophy. Protective ventilation involves avoiding prolonged diaphragmatic rest, over- or under-assistance and dysynchrony. Titration of inspiratory effort can be achieved with measurement of the pressure time product of oesophageal pressure (PTPoes), while simpler bedside methods include measurement of airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) and oesophageal pressure swing. Modulating the respiratory drive can help in manipulating the patient's effort [27–29].

The impact of machine learning on mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients

Lucas Fleuren (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) started his lecture by emphasising the need for processing information. This need may be met by machine learning, which includes supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning [30]. L. Fleuren focused on supervised learning, which enables the prediction of outcome based on the input data. Machine learning is increasingly reported in the intensive care literature. Nonetheless, the vast majority of studies involve model prototyping and development, while there is a paucity of data regarding their implementation into clinical practice [31]. An application of the use of machine learning is described in the study by Fleuren et al. [32]. They used the Dutch Data Warehouse, a multicentre electronic health record database, to determine the most important predictors for extubation failure. L. Fleuren argues that the next step is the determination of the appropriate parameters that will be used in research so that machine learning can assist clinicians in their everyday practice.

Take-home messages

  • Measures should be taken to minimise the short- and long-term psychological impact of a critical care admission for patients, including clear and appropriate methods of communication.

  • Readiness to wean should be assessed daily and may involve spontaneous breathing trials, T-piece ventilation and PSV, and results from the WEAN SAFE study are awaited.

  • In COPD, hyperinflation may be managed with controlled hypoventilation and permissive hypercapnia, and patients may benefit from post-extubation NIV or HFT.

  • Protective ventilation strategies should be implemented to avoid lung injury and diaphragm atrophy.

  • Advances in machine learning may be a valuable adjunct to clinical evaluation to support critical care management.

High-flow nasal cannula in adults with acute respiratory failure

There is a strong physiological rationale for the use of HFT in hypoxaemic respiratory failure, and justification for its application in hypercapnic respiratory failure [33–37] (figure 4).

FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4

Schematic of high-flow therapy (HFT) setup. HFT may deliver flow rates up to 60–100 L·min−1 and facilitate delivery of a stable inspiratory oxygen fraction (FIO2) up to 100%. Heating, humidification and a high flow rate confers a range of physiological benefits. Reproduced from [38] with permission.

Recent meta-analyses have reported its superiority compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in terms of endotracheal intubation and mortality reduction [18, 39–41]. Moreover, when compared with other therapies such as helmet NIV, the risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury is lower with HFT [42]. Considering the beneficial effects of both HFT and NIV, it is plausible that the combination of therapies might achieve better outcomes than a single treatment approach [43–45]. Regarding the applicability of HFT for COVID-19 patients, it has been widely used throughout the pandemic, with observational data indicating favourable results [46, 47], which also apply in the prone position [48], and might be more useful than other noninvasive strategies in the early stages of the disease [49]. Given that it is possible that HFT failure could delay intubation and increase mortality [50], it is mandatory for these patients to be monitored in specifically designed physical spaces such as Respiratory Intermediate Care Units or the ICU, where healthcare personnel safety can also be optimised. A practical tool is the ROX index, which has been validated in patients with ARDS on HFT, with an index >4.88 after initiation consistently associated with a lower risk for intubation [51]. This index may be useful for COVID-19 patients as well [52].

After a thorough systematic review and consensus of experts, the summary of guideline recommendations is as follows. 1) For acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, it is suggested to use HFT over COT and NIV. As well, guideline authors suggest using HFT over COT during breaks from NIV. 2) In a post-operative scenario, either COT or HFT may be used in patients with lower risk of respiratory complications, and either HFT or NIV should be applied for patients at higher risk of respiratory complications. 3) Following extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation in non-surgical patients, guideline authors recommend use of HFT in preference to COT in patients at low or moderate risk of extubation failure, and the use of NIV over HFT in those at high risk of failure, unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV. 4) For hypercapnic respiratory failure, the guideline suggests a trial of NIV prior to use of HFT in patients with COPD.

Take-home messages

  • HFT is an effective treatment in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

  • HFT is associated with better clinical outcomes when used post-extubation compared to conventional oxygen in those at low risk of post-extubation respiratory failure.

  • HFT is a safe intervention that is tolerated well by patients and is associated with a lower incidence of interface-related skin damage and lung injury compared to NIV.

  • NIV is first-line therapy in COPD patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure after a period of medical management.

  • HFT may be used effectively in COVID-19 pneumonitis; however, patients should be monitored closely for deterioration and invasive mechanical ventilation initiated early if necessary.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Commissioned article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Ribeiro reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Vitalaire Portugal outside the submitted work; payment for expert testimony received from Nippon Gases outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings and/or travel received from Nippon Gases, Vitalaire Portugal and Linde Saude, outside the submitted work. F. Chatzivasiloglou reports receiving payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Boehringer Ingelheim outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Chiesi and Pfizer, outside the submitted work; and is chair of the Pleural Diseases Assembly (unpaid) for the Hellenic Thoracic Society, outside the submitted work. M. Patout reports receiving grants or contracts from Fisher & Paykel and Resmed outside the submitted work; consulting fees received from Philips Respironics and Resmed outside the submitted work; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events received from Philips Respironics, Resmed, Fisher & Paykel, SOS, Oxygène, Asten Santé, Air Liquide Médical and Antadir, outside the submitted work; support for attending meetings and/or travel received from Asten Santé outside the submitted work; participation on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for Resmed and Philips Respironics outside the submitted work; stock or stock options owned in Kernel Biomedical outside the submitted work; and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services received from Philips Respironics and Resmed outside the submitted work. R.F. D'Cruz reports receiving a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (funds managed by Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust) outside the submitted work; speaker's fees received from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare outside the submitted work; and support for attending meetings and/or travel received from Fisher & Paykel Healthcare outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

  • Received January 18, 2022.
  • Accepted March 10, 2022.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Withers A,
    2. Ching Man TC,
    3. D'Cruz R, et al.
    Highlights from the Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation 2020 Conference. ERJ Open Res 2021; 7: 00752-2020. doi:10.1183/23120541.00752-2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Matthay MA,
    2. Zemans RL,
    3. Zimmerman GA, et al.
    Acute respiratory distress syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2019; 5: 18. doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0069-0
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Juss J,
    2. Herre J,
    3. Begg M, et al.
    Genome-wide transcription profiling in neutrophils in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Lancet 2015; 385: Suppl. 1, S55. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60370-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Lefrancais E,
    2. Mallavia B,
    3. Zhuo H, et al.
    Maladaptive role of neutrophil extracellular traps in pathogen-induced lung injury. JCI Insight 2018; 3: e98178. doi:10.1172/jci.insight.98178
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Faust H,
    2. Mangalmurti NS
    . Collateral damage: necroptosis in the development of lung injury. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2020; 318: L215–L225. doi:10.1152/ajplung.00065.2019
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Mrozek S,
    2. Jabaudon M,
    3. Jaber S, et al.
    Elevated plasma levels of sRAGE are associated with nonfocal CT-based lung imaging in patients with ARDS: a prospective multicenter study. Chest 2016; 150: 998–1007. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.016
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Constantin JM,
    2. Jabaudon M,
    3. Lefrant JY, et al.
    Personalised mechanical ventilation tailored to lung morphology versus low positive end-expiratory pressure for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in France (the LIVE study): a multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2019; 7: 870–880. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30138-9
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Calfee CS,
    2. Delucchi K,
    3. Parsons PE, et al.
    Subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome: latent class analysis of data from two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir Med 2014; 2: 611–620. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70097-9
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Famous KR,
    2. Delucchi K,
    3. Ware LB, et al.
    Acute respiratory distress syndrome subphenotypes respond differently to randomized fluid management strategy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 331–338. doi:10.1164/rccm.201603-0645OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Madotto F,
    2. Pham T,
    3. Bellani G, et al.
    Resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24 h: insights from the LUNG SAFE study. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44: 564–577. doi:10.1007/s00134-018-5152-6
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Patel BV,
    2. Haar S,
    3. Handslip R, et al.
    Natural history, trajectory, and management of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47: 549–565. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06389-z
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Prower E,
    2. Grant D,
    3. Bisquera A, et al.
    The ROX index has greater predictive validity than NEWS2 for deterioration in Covid-19. EClinicalMedicine 2021; 35: 100828. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.100828
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Tassopoulos NC,
    2. Kuhns MC,
    3. Koutelou MG, et al.
    Quantitative detection of hepatitis B virus DNA in sera from patients with acute hepatitis B. Dig Dis Sci 1993; 38: 2156–2162. doi:10.1007/BF01299889
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Ekstrom M,
    2. Nilsson F,
    3. Abernethy AA, et al.
    Effects of opioids on breathlessness and exercise capacity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2015; 12: 1079–1092. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201501-034OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Ekstrom M,
    2. Johnson MJ,
    3. Huang C, et al.
    Minimal clinically important differences in average, best, worst and current intensity and unpleasantness of chronic breathlessness. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 1902202. doi:10.1183/13993003.02202-2019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Raveling T,
    2. Vonk J,
    3. Struik FM, et al.
    Chronic non-invasive ventilation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 8: CD002878.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Ruangsomboon O,
    2. Dorongthom T,
    3. Chakorn T, et al.
    High-flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy in relieving dyspnea in emergency palliative patients with do-not-intubate status: a randomized crossover study. Ann Emerg Med 2020; 75: 615–626. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.09.009
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Ferreyro BL,
    2. Angriman F,
    3. Munshi L, et al.
    Association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with all-cause mortality in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2020; 324: 57–67. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.9524
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Thille AW,
    2. Richard JC,
    3. Brochard L
    . The decision to extubate in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 1294–1302. doi:10.1164/rccm.201208-1523CI
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Sklar MC,
    2. Burns K,
    3. Rittayamai N, et al.
    Effort to breathe with various spontaneous breathing trial techniques. A physiologic meta-analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: 1477–1485. doi:10.1164/rccm.201607-1338OC
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Burns KEA,
    2. Rizvi L,
    3. Cook DJ, et al.
    Ventilator weaning and discontinuation practices for critically ill patients. JAMA 2021; 325: 1173–1184. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.2384
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Piquilloud L,
    2. Vignaux L,
    3. Bialais E, et al.
    Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist improves patient-ventilator interaction. Intensive Care Med 2011; 37: 263–271. doi:10.1007/s00134-010-2052-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Demoule A,
    2. Clavel M,
    3. Rolland-Debord C, et al.
    Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist as an alternative to pressure support ventilation in adults: a French multicentre randomized trial. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42: 1723–1732. doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4447-8
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Hadfield DJ,
    2. Rose L,
    3. Reid F, et al.
    Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus pressure support ventilation: a randomized controlled feasibility trial performed in patients at risk of prolonged mechanical ventilation. Crit Care 2020; 24: 220. doi:10.1186/s13054-020-02923-5
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Giraud R,
    2. Banfi C,
    3. Assouline B, et al.
    The use of extracorporeal CO2 removal in acute respiratory failure. Ann Intensive Care 2021; 11: 43. doi:10.1186/s13613-021-00824-6
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Diehl JL,
    2. Piquilloud L,
    3. Vimpere D, et al.
    Physiological effects of adding ECCO2R to invasive mechanical ventilation for COPD exacerbations. Ann Intensive Care 2020; 10: 126. doi:10.1186/s13613-020-00743-y
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Goligher EC,
    2. Dres M,
    3. Patel BK, et al.
    Lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 950–961. doi:10.1164/rccm.202003-0655CP
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Goligher EC,
    2. Jonkman AH,
    3. Dianti J, et al.
    Clinical strategies for implementing lung and diaphragm-protective ventilation: avoiding insufficient and excessive effort. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46: 2314–2326. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06288-9
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Vaporidi K,
    2. Akoumianaki E,
    3. Telias I, et al.
    Respiratory drive in critically ill patients. Pathophysiology and clinical implications. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201: 20–32. doi:10.1164/rccm.201903-0596SO
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. ↵
    1. Komorowski M
    . Artificial intelligence in intensive care: are we there yet? Intensive Care Med 2019; 45: 1298–1300. doi:10.1007/s00134-019-05662-6
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. van de Sande D,
    2. van Genderen ME,
    3. Huiskens J, et al.
    Moving from bytes to bedside: a systematic review on the use of artificial intelligence in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47: 750–760. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06446-7
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Fleuren LM,
    2. Dam TA,
    3. Tonutti M, et al.
    The Dutch Data Warehouse, a multicenter and full-admission electronic health records database for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Crit Care 2021; 25: 304. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03733-z
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Spoletini G,
    2. Alotaibi M,
    3. Blasi F, et al.
    Heated humidified high-flow nasal oxygen in adults: mechanisms of action and clinical implications. Chest 2015; 148: 253–261. doi:10.1378/chest.14-2871
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hill NS,
    2. Spoletini G,
    3. Schumaker G, et al.
    Noninvasive ventilatory support for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Respir Care 2019; 64: 647–657. doi:10.4187/respcare.06931
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Drake MG
    . High-flow nasal cannula oxygen in adults: an evidence-based assessment. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2018; 15: 145–155. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201707-548FR
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pisani L,
    2. Vega ML
    . Use of nasal high flow in stable COPD: rationale and physiology. COPD 2017; 14: 346–350. doi:10.1080/15412555.2017.1315715
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Frat JP,
    2. Coudroy R,
    3. Marjanovic N, et al.
    High-flow nasal oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Ann Transl Med 2017; 5: 297. doi:10.21037/atm.2017.06.52
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. D'Cruz RF,
    2. Hart N,
    3. Kaltsakas G.
    High-flow therapy: physiological effects and clinical applications. Breathe 2020; 16: 200224. doi:10.1183/20734735.0224-2020
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Ni YN,
    2. Luo J,
    3. Yu H, et al.
    The effect of high-flow nasal cannula in reducing the mortality and the rate of endotracheal intubation when used before mechanical ventilation compared with conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2018; 36: 226–233. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.083
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Ni YN,
    2. Luo J,
    3. Yu H, et al.
    Can high-flow nasal cannula reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation in adult patients with acute respiratory failure compared with conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest 2017; 151: 764–775. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2017.01.004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Lee CC,
    2. Mankodi D,
    3. Shaharyar S, et al.
    High flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review. Respir Med 2016; 121: 100–108. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2016.11.004
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Grieco DL,
    2. Menga LS,
    3. Raggi V, et al.
    Physiological comparison of high-flow nasal cannula and helmet noninvasive ventilation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201: 303–312. doi:10.1164/rccm.201904-0841OC
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Xu SX,
    2. Wu CS,
    3. Liu SY, et al.
    High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy and noninvasive ventilation for preventing extubation failure during weaning from mechanical ventilation assessed by lung ultrasound score: a single-center randomized study. World J Emerg Med 2021; 12: 274–280. doi:10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2021.04.004
    OpenUrl
    1. Jaber S,
    2. Monnin M,
    3. Girard M, et al.
    Apnoeic oxygenation via high-flow nasal cannula oxygen combined with non-invasive ventilation preoxygenation for intubation in hypoxaemic patients in the intensive care unit: the single-centre, blinded, randomised controlled OPTINIV trial. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42: 1877–1887. doi:10.1007/s00134-016-4588-9
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Colaianni-Alfonso N,
    2. Montiel G,
    3. Castro-Sayat M, et al.
    Combined noninvasive respiratory support therapies to treat COVID-19. Respir Care 2021; 66: 1831–1839. doi:10.4187/respcare.09162
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Grieco DL,
    2. Maggiore SM,
    3. Roca O, et al.
    Non-invasive ventilatory support and high-flow nasal oxygen as first-line treatment of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ARDS. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47: 851–866. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06459-2
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Crimi C,
    2. Pierucci P,
    3. Renda T, et al.
    High-flow nasal cannula and COVID-19: a clinical review. Respir Care 2022; 67: 227–240. doi:10.4187/respcare.09056
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Ehrmann S,
    2. Li J,
    3. Ibarra-Estrada M, et al.
    Awake prone positioning for COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a randomised, controlled, multinational, open-label meta-trial. Lancet Respir Med 2021; 12: 1387–1395.
  49. ↵
    1. Tonelli R,
    2. Marchioni A,
    3. Tabbi L, et al.
    Spontaneous breathing and evolving phenotypes of lung damage in patients with COVID-19: review of current evidence and forecast of a new scenario. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 975. doi:10.3390/jcm10050975
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Kang BJ,
    2. Koh Y,
    3. Lim CM, et al.
    Failure of high-flow nasal cannula therapy may delay intubation and increase mortality. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 623–632. doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3693-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Roca O,
    2. Caralt B,
    3. Messika J, et al.
    An index combining respiratory rate and oxygenation to predict outcome of nasal high-flow therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 199: 1368–1376. doi:10.1164/rccm.201803-0589OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Prakash J,
    2. Bhattacharya PK,
    3. Yadav AK, et al.
    ROX index as a good predictor of high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care 2021; 66: 102–108. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.08.012
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Email
Print
Citation Tools
ERS International Congress 2021: highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly
Aileen Kharat, Carla Ribeiro, Berrin Er, Christoph Fisser, Daniel López-Padilla, Foteini Chatzivasiloglou, Leo M.A. Heunks, Maxime Patout, Rebecca F. D'Cruz
ERJ Open Research Apr 2022, 8 (2) 00016-2022; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00016-2022
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

Subjects