Background Little information is available about the geo-economic variations in demographics, management, and outcomes of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to characterise the effect of these geo-economic variations in patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE). Methods LUNG SAFE was done during 4 consecutive weeks in winter, 2014, in a convenience sample of 459 intensivecare units in 50 countries across six continents. Inclusion criteria were admission to a participating intensive-care unit (including transfers) within the enrolment window and receipt of invasive or non-invasive ventilation. One of the trial's secondary aims was to characterise variations in the demographics, management, and outcome of patients with ARDS. We used the 2016 World Bank countries classification to define three major geo-economic groupings, namely European high-income countries (Europe-High), high-income countries in the rest of the world (rWORLD-High), and middle-income countries (Middle). We compared patient outcomes across these three groupings. LUNG SAFE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02010073. Findings Of the 2813 patients enrolled in LUNG SAFE who fulfilled ARDS criteria on day 1 or 2, 1521 (54%) were recruited from Europe-High, 746 (27%) from rWORLD-High, and 546 (19%) from Middle countries. We noted significant geographical variations in demographics, risk factors for ARDS, and comorbid diseases. The proportion of patients with severe ARDS or with ratios of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2) to the fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (F I O 2) less than 150 was significantly lower in rWORLD-High countries than in the two other regions. Use of prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade was significantly more common in Europe-High countries than in the other two regions. Adjusted duration of invasive mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive-care unit were significantly shorter in patients in rWORLD-High countries than in Europe-High or Middle countries. High gross national income per person was associated with increased survival in ARDS; hospital survival was significantly lower in Middle countries than in Europe-High or rWORLD-High countries. Interpretation Important geo-economic differences exist in the severity, clinician recognition, and management of ARDS, and in patients' outcomes. Income per person and outcomes in ARDS are independently associated.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. MethodsIn this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middleincome countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42•4% vs 44•2%; absolute difference -1•69 [-9•58 to 6•11] p=0•67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5-8] vs 6 [5-8] cm H 2 O; p=0•0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30•5% vs 19•9%; p=0•0004; adjusted effect 16•41% [95% CI 9•52-23•52]; p<0•0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0•80 [95% CI 0•75-0•86]; p<0•0001).Interpretation Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status.

Background: Complexity and functions of automated medical devices used to support life (eg, ventilators, dialysis machines, monitors, insulin pump with continuous blood glucose monitoring system, etc.) increase over time. Until recently, devices were partially automated by very simple feedback loops, with no or few software dependence (such as the simplest home thermostat). For the last two decades, devices have been increasingly driven by complex algorithms devoted to improve patient's treatment and monitoring as well as users experience. Methods: We report the unexpected and inappropriate operation of two recent ventilators, associated to potential harmful consequences. We provide both a description of the clinical situations (five ICU patients, archetypal situations) and a test bench analysis. Results: While set in volume mode, these ventilators activated an algorithm dedicated to limit airway pressure when an increase in airway resistance occurred. In such situations, a pressure-like mode was activated (with decelerating inspiratory flow and set pressure, with target of volume). The main consequences observed were that the tidal volume was no longer guaranteed or delivered and that the pressure limitation operated by the algorithm prevented the airway pressure from reaching the high-pressure alarm threshold. Conclusion: This led to the silent takeover of commands by the ventilator without clinicians or nurses being aware of it and without any warnings or alarms emission adapted to the severity of the event. Generally speaking, such an algorithm questions the place of automation and its limit when users are not aware of its presence as well as the need for regulation and additional tests before its implementation. Intensivists and respiratory care specialists should remain vigilant regarding the risk of rare but critical events related to unexpected functioning or insufficiently tested equipment during the pre-clinical development phases. They should not neglect misunderstood critical events without having performed sufficient investigations.