RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to protective mechanical ventilation (MV) parameters in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 with patients with ARDS from other etiologies. DESIGN: Multiple prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two Brazilian cohorts of ARDS patients were evaluated. One with COVID-19 patients admitted to two Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020 and 2021 (C-ARDS, n=282), the other with ARDS-patients from other etiologies admitted to 37 Brazilian ICUs in 2016 (NC-ARDS, n=120). PATIENTS: ARDS patients under MV. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Adherence to protective MV (tidal volume ≤8mL/kg PBW; plateau pressure ≤30cmH2O; and driving pressure ≤15cmH2O), adherence to each individual component of the protective MV, and the association between protective MV and mortality. RESULTS: Adherence to protective MV was higher in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS patients (65.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.005), mainly due to a higher adherence to driving pressure ≤15cmH2O (75.0% vs. 62.4%, p=0.02). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the C-ARDS cohort was independently associated with adherence to protective MV. Among the components of the protective MV, only limiting driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Higher adherence to protective MV in patients with C-ARDS was secondary to higher adherence to limiting driving pressure. Additionally, lower driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality, which suggests that limiting exposure to driving pressure may improve survival in these patients.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria , Humanos , Respiración Artificial/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , COVID-19/complicaciones , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/etiología , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/terapia , Volumen de Ventilación PulmonarRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The main study objectives were to describe the practice of mechanical ventilation over an 18-year period in Mexico, and estimate changes in mortality among critical patients subjected to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). DESIGN: A retrospective subanalysis of a prospective observational study conducted in 1998, 2004, 2010 and 2016 was carried out. SETTING: Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in Mexico. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients consecutively enrolled in the ICU during one month and who underwent IMV for more than 12hours or noninvasive mechanical ventilation for more than one hour. Follow-up was performed up to a maximum of 28 days after inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: None. PRINCIPAL VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Age, sex, severity upon admission as estimated by SAPS II, parameters of daily arterial blood gases, treatment and complication variables, date and status at discharge from the ICU and from hospital. RESULTS: A total of 959 patients were included in 81 ICUs. Tidal volume (vt) decreased significantly both in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) criteria (estimated 8.5ml/kg b.w. in 1998 to 6ml/kg in 2016; P<0.001) and in patients without ARDS (estimated 9ml/kg b.w. in 1998 to 6ml/kg in 2016; P<0.001). The ventilatory protective strategy (defined as vt < 6ml/kg or < 8ml/kg and a plateau pressure < 30cmH2O) was: 19% in 1998, 44% in 2004, 58% in 2010 and 75% in 2016 (P<0.001). The adjusted mortality rate in ICU over the 4 periods was: in 2004, odds ratio (OR) 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 95%CI: 0.73-1.72; P=0.764); in 2010, OR 1.68 (95%CI: 1.13-2.48; P=0.009); in 2016, OR 0.85 (95%CI: 0.60-1.20; P=0.368). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical practice of IMV in Mexican ICUs has been modified over a period of 18 years. The most significant change is the ventilatory strategy based on low vt. These changes have not been associated with significant changes in mortality.