Background Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak.Methods PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). FindingsBetween March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6•3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5•7-7•1), PEEP was 14•0 cm H 2 O (IQR 11•0-15•0), and driving pressure was 14•0 cm H 2 O (11•2-16•0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31•9 mL/cm H 2 O (26•0-39•9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0-15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. Interpretation In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. Funding Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center.

Background Ischemic myocardial damage accompanying coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains a clinical challenge. We investigated whether xenon anesthesia could limit myocardial damage in coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients, as has been reported for animal ischemia models. Methods In 17 university hospitals in France, Germany, Italy, and The Netherlands, low-risk elective, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients were randomized to receive xenon, sevoflurane, or propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia for anesthesia maintenance. The primary outcome was the cardiac troponin I concentration in the blood 24 h postsurgery. The noninferiority margin for the mean difference in cardiac troponin I release between the xenon and sevoflurane groups was less than 0.15 ng/ml. Secondary outcomes were the safety and feasibility of xenon anesthesia. Results The first patient included at each center received xenon anesthesia for practical reasons. For all other patients, anesthesia maintenance was randomized (intention-to-treat: n = 492; per-protocol/without major protocol deviation: n = 446). Median 24-h postoperative cardiac troponin I concentrations (ng/ml [interquartile range]) were 1.14 [0.76 to 2.10] with xenon, 1.30 [0.78 to 2.67] with sevoflurane, and 1.48 [0.94 to 2.78] with total intravenous anesthesia [per-protocol]). The mean difference in cardiac troponin I release between xenon and sevoflurane was −0.09 ng/ml (95% CI, −0.30 to 0.11; per-protocol: P = 0.02). Postoperative cardiac troponin I release was significantly less with xenon than with total intravenous anesthesia (intention-to-treat: P = 0.05; per-protocol: P = 0.02). Perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were comparable across all groups, with no safety concerns. Conclusions In postoperative cardiac troponin I release, xenon was noninferior to sevoflurane in low-risk, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients. Only with xenon was cardiac troponin I release less than with total intravenous anesthesia. Xenon anesthesia appeared safe and feasible.

Due to the increased survival of patients with pulmonary hypertension, even non-cardiac anesthesiologists will see these patients more frequently for anesthesia. The hemodynamic goal in the perioperative period is to avoid an increase in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and to reduce a possibly pre-existing elevated PVR. Acute increases of chronically elevated PVR may result from hypoxia, hypercapnia, acidosis, hypothermia, elevated sympathetic output and also release of endogenous or application of exogenous pulmonary vasoconstrictors. Early recognition and treatment of these changes might be life saving in these patients. Drug interventions to perioperatively reduce PVR include administration of pulmonary vasodilators, such as oxygen, prostacyclines (epoprostenol, iloprost), phosphodiesterase III (milrinone) and V (sildenafil) inhibitors, as well as nitrates and nitric oxide. Along with the concept of selective pulmonary vasodilation inhalative administration of pulmonary vasodilators has benefits compared to intravenous administration. New therapeutic strategies, such as inhalational iloprost, inhalational milrinone and intravenous sildenafil can be introduced without significant technical support even in smaller departments.

Our results indicate that NMBA-related anaphylaxis requires not only IgE NMBA reactivity, but also altered cellular reactivity in the patient. The latter may be demonstrable by testing basophils from the patient, a skin test with (steroidal) NMBA, or both.

Background Increasing evidence indicates the potential benefits of restricted fluid management in critically ill patients. Evidence lacks on the optimal fluid management strategy for invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients. We hypothesized that the cumulative fluid balance would affect the successful liberation of invasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods We analyzed data from the multicenter observational ‘PRactice of VENTilation in COVID-19 patients’ study. Patients with confirmed COVID-19 and ARDS who required invasive ventilation during the first 3 months of the international outbreak (March 1, 2020, to June 2020) across 22 hospitals in the Netherlands were included. The primary outcome was successful liberation of invasive ventilation, modeled as a function of day 3 cumulative fluid balance using Cox proportional hazards models, using the crude and the adjusted association. Sensitivity analyses without missing data and modeling ARDS severity were performed. Results Among 650 patients, three groups were identified. Patients in the higher, intermediate, and lower groups had a median cumulative fluid balance of 1.98 L (1.27–7.72 L), 0.78 L (0.26–1.27 L), and − 0.35 L (− 6.52–0.26 L), respectively. Higher day 3 cumulative fluid balance was significantly associated with a lower probability of successful ventilation liberation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.95, P = 0.0047). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Conclusions In a cohort of invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 and ARDS, a higher cumulative fluid balance was associated with a longer ventilation duration, indicating that restricted fluid management in these patients may be beneficial. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04346342); Date of registration: April 15, 2020. Graphical abstract