Articles: mechanical-ventilation.
-
Journal of critical care · Oct 2021
Randomized Controlled TrialEvolution of practice patterns in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome: A secondary analysis of two successive randomized controlled trials.
We sought to examine changes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) management over a 12-year period of two successive randomized trials. ⋯ Clear trends were apparent in tidal volume, airway pressures, ventilator modes, adjuncts and rescue therapies. With the exception of prone positioning, and outside the context of rescue therapy, these trends appear consistent with the evolving literature on ARDS management.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Effectiveness of anisodamine for the treatment of critically ill patients with septic shock: a multicentre randomized controlled trial.
Septic shock is characterized by an uncontrolled inflammatory response and microcirculatory dysfunction. There is currently no specific agent for treating septic shock. Anisodamine is an agent extracted from traditional Chinese medicine with potent anti-inflammatory effects. However, its clinical effectiveness remains largely unknown. ⋯ There is no evidence that anisodamine can reduce hospital mortality among critically ill adults with septic shock treated in the intensive care unit. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02442440 ; Registered on 13 April 2015).
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Effects of Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation on Sputum Volume in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Subjects.
Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is a noninvasive technique performed to simulate cough and remove sputum from proximal airways. To date, the effects of MI-E on critically ill patients on invasive mechanical ventilation are not fully elucidated. In this randomized crossover trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of MI-E combined to expiratory rib cage compressions (ERCC). ⋯ In mechanically ventilated subjects, MI-E combined with ERCC increased the sputum volume cleared without causing clinically important hemodynamic changes or adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03316079.).
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A randomized controlled trial to determine whether beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate and/or eicosapentaenoic acid improves diaphragm and quadriceps strength in critically Ill mechanically ventilated patients.
Intensive care unit acquired weakness is a serious problem, contributing to respiratory failure and reductions in ambulation. Currently, there is no pharmacological therapy for this condition. Studies indicate, however, that both beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) increase muscle function in patients with cancer and in older adults. The purpose of this study was to determine whether HMB and/or EPA administration would increase diaphragm and quadriceps strength in mechanically ventilated patients. ⋯ These results indicate that a 10-day course of HMB and/or EPA does not improve skeletal muscle strength in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. These findings also confirm previous reports that diaphragm and leg strength in these patients are profoundly low. Additional studies will be needed to examine the effects of other anabolic agents and innovative forms of physical therapy.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial.
Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. ⋯ There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam.