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.

BACKGROUNDPatients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targets are unclear. We hypothesized that using a lower target for partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao 2 ) would result in lower mortality than using a higher target. METHODSIn this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2928 adult patients who had recently been admitted to the ICU (≤12 hours before randomization) and who were receiving at least 10 liters of oxygen per minute in an open system or had a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.50 in a closed system to receive oxygen therapy targeting a Pao 2 of either 60 mm Hg (lower-oxygenation group) or 90 mm Hg (higheroxygenation group) for a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. RESULTSAt 90 days, 618 of 1441 patients (42.9%) in the lower-oxygenation group and 613 of 1447 patients (42.4%) in the higher-oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.64). At 90 days, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of days that patients were alive without life support or in the percentage of days they were alive after hospital discharge. The percentages of patients who had new episodes of shock, myocardial ischemia, ischemic stroke, or intestinal ischemia were similar in the two groups (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONSAmong adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ICU, a lower oxygenation target did not result in lower mortality than a higher target at 90 days.

No abstract

BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a serious complication of critical illness with both attributed morbidity and mortality at short-term and long-term. The incidence of AKI reported in critically ill patients varies substantially with the population evaluated and the definitions used. We aimed to assess which of the AKI definitions (RIFLE, AKIN or KDIGO) with or without urine output criteria recognizes AKI most frequently and quickest. Additionally, we conducted a review on the comparison of incidence proportions of varying AKI definitions in populations of critically ill patients.MethodsWe included all patients with index admissions to our intensive care unit (ICU) from January 1st, 2014 until June 11th, 2014 to determine the incidence and onset of AKI by RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO during the first 7 days of ICU admission. We conducted a sensitive search using PubMed evaluating the comparison of RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO in critically ill patientsResultsAKI incidence proportions were 15, 21 and 20% respectively using serum creatinine criteria of RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO. Adding urine output criteria increased AKI incidence proportions to 35, 38 and 38% using RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO definitions. Urine output criteria detected AKI in patients without AKI at ICU admission in a median of 13 h (IQR 7–22 h; using RIFLE definition) after admission compared to a median of 24 h using serum creatinine criteria (IQR24-48 h). In the literature a large heterogeneity exists in patients included, AKI definition used, reference or baseline serum creatinine used, and whether urine output in the staging of AKI is used.ConclusionAKIN and KDIGO criteria detect more patients with AKI compared to RIFLE criteria. Addition of urine output criteria detect patients with AKI 11 h earlier than serum creatinine criteria and may double AKI incidences in critically ill patients. This could explain the large heterogeneity observed in literature.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-017-0487-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.