No abstract

Objective To determine whether high-dose dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days (VFD) among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19. Design Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial. Participants Consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19-related ARDS were enrolled from June 17, 2020, to March 27, 2021, in four intensive care units (ICUs) in Argentina Intervention 16 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for five days followed by 8 mg of dexamethasone daily for five days or 6 mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 10 days. Main Outcome and Measures The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days. The secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 and 90 days, infection rate, muscle weakness, and glycemic control in the first 28 days. Results Data from 98 patients who received at least one dose of dexamethasone were analyzed. The trial was prematurely terminated due to low enrollment rate. At 28 days after randomization, there was no difference between high- and low-dose dexamethasone groups in VFD (median, 0 [interquartile range [IQR] 0-14] vs. 0 [IQR 0-1] days; P = .231), or in the mean duration of mechanical ventilation (19 ± 18 vs. 25 ± 22 days; P = .078). The cumulative hazard of successful discontinuation from mechanical ventilation was increased by the high-dose treatment (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.31 to 2.5; P < .001). None of the prespecified secondary and safety outcomes showed a significant difference between treatment arms. Conclusions Among patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, the use of higher doses of dexamethasone compared with the recommended low-dose treatment did not show an increase in VFD. However, the higher dose significantly improved the time required to liberate them from the ventilator

We report the findings from a prospective study determining the magnitude of errors in the visual estimation of weight and height of critically ill patients. Forty-two consecutive patients were weighed by a physician with a calibrated stretcher scale and length measured with a steel measuring tape. The predicted body weight was calculated using the ARDSnet formulae. Attending physicians and nurses were asked to estimate patient's actual weight, predicted weight and height. The average percent errors in estimation of actual and predicted weight were 11.4 and 14.6%, respectively. Errors greater than 20% in patient's actual and predicted weight were observed in 15 and 24% of cases, respectively. The majority of height estimations (86%) had an error <10%. There were non-significant differences between the estimations made by intensive care unit physicians and nurses.Our study shows that estimations of patient's weight made by intensive care unit staff are often inaccurate. In contrast, estimations of height made by intensive care unit staff are usually adequate. Estimated body weight of critically ill patients has implications for drug and respiratory therapy and should be used with caution.

No abstract

During decremental PEEP titration we sequentially observed high inspiratory Ptp that stressed lung tissue and increased VD/VT, and negative Ptp, indicating high risk of alveolar collapse, explaining worse oxygenation. PEEP selection based on Ptp and VD/VT in ARDS may help to avoid these situations.