Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) remains one of the leading causes of admission to the intensive care unit, thus consuming a large share of resources and is associated with high mortality rates worldwide. The evidence generated by clinical studies in the last decade was translated into recommendations according to the first published guidelines focusing on severe community-acquired pneumonia. Despite the advances proposed by the present guidelines, several challenges preclude the prompt implementation of these diagnostic and therapeutic measures. The present article discusses the challenges for the broad implementation of the sCAP guidelines and proposes solutions when applicable.

Objective This consensus aims to provide evidence-based recommendations on common questions in the diagnosis and treatment of acute respiratory failure (ARF) for critically ill cancer patients.Methods We developed six clinical questions using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) principle in diagnosis and treatment for critical ill cancer patients with ARF. Based on literature searching and meta-analyses, recommendations were devised. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method was applied to each question to reach consensus in the expert panel. Results The panel makes strong recommendations in favor of (1) metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) tests may aid clinicians in rapid diagnosis in critically ill cancer patients suspected of pulmonary infections; (2) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy should not be used as a routine rescue therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome in critically ill cancer patients but may benefit highly selected patients after multi-disciplinary consultations; (3) cancer patients who have received immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy have an increased incidence of pneumonitis compared with standard chemotherapy; (4) critically ill cancer patients who are on invasive mechanical ventilation and estimated to be extubated after 14 days may benefit from early tracheotomy; and (5) high-flow nasal oxygen and noninvasive ventilation therapy can be used as a first-line oxygen strategy for critically ill cancer patients with ARFs. A weak recommendation is: (6) for critically ill cancer patients with ARF caused by tumor compression, urgent chemotherapy may be considered as a rescue therapy only in patients determined to be potentially sensitive to the anticancer therapy after multidisciplinary consultations. Conclusions The recommendations based on the available evidence can guide diagnosis and treatment in critically ill cancer patients with acute respiratory failure and improve outcomes.

暂无摘要。

Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is defined by acute and progressive hypoxemia caused by various cardiorespiratory or systemic diseases in previously healthy patients. Among ARF, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a serious condition with bilateral lung infiltration, which develops secondary to a variety of underlying conditions, diseases, or injuries. This review summarizes the current standard of care for ARF and ARDS based on current major guidelines in this field. When administering fluid in patients with ARF, particularly ARDS, restrictive strategies need to be considered in patients without shock or multiple organ dysfunction. Regarding oxygenation targets, avoiding excessive hyperoxemia and hypoxemia is probably a reasonable choice. As a result of the rapid spread and accumulation of evidence for high-flow nasal cannula oxygenation, it is now weakly recommended for the respiratory management of ARF in general and even for initial management of ARDS. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation is also weakly recommended for the management of certain ARF conditions and as initial management of ARDS. Low tidal volume ventilation is now weakly recommended for all patients with ARF and strongly recommended for patients with ARDS. Limiting plateau pressure and high-level PEEP are weakly recommended for moderate-to-severe ARDS. Prone position ventilation with prolonged hours is weakly to strongly recommended for moderate-to-severe ARDS. In patients with COVID-19, ventilatory management is essentially the same as for ARF and ARDS, but awake prone positioning may be considered. In addition to standard care, treatment optimization and individualization, as well as the introduction of exploratory treatment, should be considered as appropriate. As a single pathogen, such as SARS-CoV-2, exhibits a wide variety of pathologies and lung dysfunction, ventilatory management for ARF and ARDS may be better tailored according to the respiratory physiologic status of individual patients rather than the causal or underlying diseases and conditions.

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) in adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) comprises two treatment modalities, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy. However, experts from different specialties disagree on the benefit of these techniques in different clinical settings. The objective of this consensus was to develop a series of good clinical practice recommendations for the application of non-invasive support in patients with ARF, endorsed by all scientific societies involved in the management of adult and pediatric/neonatal patients with ARF. To this end, the different societies involved were contacted, and they in turn appointed a group of 26 professionals with sufficient experience in the use of these techniques. Three face-to-face meetings were held to agree on recommendations (up to a total of 71) based on a literature review and the latest evidence associated with 3 categories: indications, monitoring and follow-up of NIRS. Finally, the experts from each scientific society involved voted telematically on each of the recommendations. To classify the degree of agreement, an analog classification system was chosen that was easy and intuitive to use and that clearly stated whether the each NIRS intervention should be applied, could be applied, or should not be applied.

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) in adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) comprises two treatment modalities, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy. However, experts from different specialties disagree on the benefit of these techniques in different clinical settings. The objective of this consensus was to develop a series of good clinical practice recommendations for the application of non-invasive support in patients with ARF, endorsed by all scientific societies involved in the management of adult and pediatric/neonatal patients with ARF. To this end, the different societies involved were contacted, and they in turn appointed a group of 26 professionals with sufficient experience in the use of these techniques. Three face-to-face meetings were held to agree on recommendations (up to a total of 71) based on a literature review and the latest evidence associated with 3 categories: indications, monitoring and follow-up of NIRS. Finally, the experts from each scientific society involved voted telematically on each of the recommendations. To classify the degree of agreement, an analogue classification system was chosen that was easy and intuitive to use and that clearly stated whether the each NIRS intervention should be applied, could be applied, or should not be applied.

Non-invasive respiratory support (NIRS) in adult, pediatric, and neonatal patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) comprises two treatment modalities, non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy. However, experts from different specialties disagree on the benefit of these techniques in different clinical settings. The objective of this consensus was to develop a series of good clinical practice recommendations for the application of non-invasive support in patients with ARF, endorsed by all scientific societies involved in the management of adult and pediatric/neonatal patients with ARF. To this end, the different societies involved were contacted, and they in turn appointed a group of 26 professionals with sufficient experience in the use of these techniques. Three face-to-face meetings were held to agree on recommendations (up to a total of 71) based on a literature review and the latest evidence associated with 3 categories: indications, monitoring and follow-up of NIRS. Finally, the experts from each scientific society involved voted telematically on each of the recommendations. To classify the degree of agreement, an analogue classification system was chosen that was easy and intuitive to use and that clearly stated whether the each NIRS intervention should be applied, could be applied, or should not be applied.

A. ACUTE HYPERCAPNIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE A1. Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Recommendations: NIV should be used in management of acute exacerbation of COPD in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory acidosis (pH = 7.25-7.35). (1A) NIV should be attempted in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (pH <7.25 & PaCO2 ≥ 45) before initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) except in patients requiring immediate intubation. (2A). Lower the pH higher the chance of failure of NIV. (2B) NIV should not to be used routinely in normo- or mildly hyper-capneic patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, without acidosis (pH > 7.35). (2B) A2. NIV in ARF due to Chest wall deformities/Neuromuscular diseases: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients of ARF due to chest wall deformity/Neuromuscular diseases. (PaCO2 ≥ 45) (UPP) A3. NIV in ARF due to Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS): Recommendations: NIV may be used in AHRF in OHS patients when they present with acute hypercapnic or acute on chronic respiratory failure (pH 45). (3B) NIV/CPAP may be used in obese, hypercapnic patients with OHS and/or right heart failure in the absence of acidosis. (UPP) B.
UNASSIGNED: B1. NIV in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema: Recommendations: NIV is recommended in hospital patients with ARF, due to Cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). NIV should be used in patients with acute heart failure/ cardiogenic pulmonary edema, right from emergency department itself. (1B) Both CPAP and BiPAP modes are safe and effective in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). However, BPAP (NIV-PS) should be preferred in cardiogenic pulmonary edema with hypercapnia. (3A) B2. NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Recommendations: NIV may be used over conventional oxygen therapy in mild early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (P/F ratio <300 and >200 mmHg), under close supervision. (2B) We strongly recommend against a trial of NIV in patients with acute hypoxemic failure with P/F ratio <150. (2A) B3. NIV in ARF due to Chest Trauma: Recommendations: NIV may be used in traumatic flail chest along with adequate pain relief. (3B) B4. NIV in Immunocompromised Host: Recommendations: In Immunocompromised patients with early ARF, we may consider NIV over conventional oxygen. (2B). B5. NIV in Palliative Care: Recommendations: We strongly recommend use of NIV for reducing dyspnea in palliative care setting. (2A) B6. NIV in post-operative cases: Recommendations: NIV should be used in patients with post-operative acute respiratory failure. (2A) B6a. NIV in abdominal surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients with ARF following abdominal surgeries. (2A) B6b. NIV in bariatric surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in post-bariatric surgery patients with pre-existent OSA or OHS. (3A) B6c. NIV in Thoracic surgery: Recommendations: In cardiothoracic surgeries, use of NIV is recommended post operatively for acute respiratory failure to improve oxygenation and reduce chance of reintubation. (2A) NIV should not be used in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. (UPP) B6d. NIV in post lung transplant: Recommendations: NIV may be used for shortening weaning time and to avoid re-intubation following lung transplantation. (2B) B7. NIV during Procedures (ETI/Bronchoscopy/TEE/Endoscopy): Recommendations: NIV may be used for pre-oxygenation before intubation. (2B) NIV with appropriate interface may be used in patients of ARF during Bronchoscopy/Endoscopy to improve oxygenation. (3B) B8. NIV in Viral Pneumonitis ARDS: Recommendations: NIV cannot be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with acute respiratory failure with H1N1 pneumonia. However, it may be reasonable to use NIV in selected patients with single organ involvement, in a strictly controlled environment with close monitoring. (2B) B9. NIV and Acute exacerbation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Recommendations: Careful use of NIV in patients with acute Tuberculosis may be considered, with effective infection control precautions to prevent air-borne transmission. (3B) B10. NIV after planned extubation in high risk patients: Recommendation: We recommend that NIV may be used to wean high risk patients from invasive mechanical ventilation as it reduces re-intubation rate. (2B) B11. NIV for respiratory distress post extubation: Recommendations: We recommend that NIV therapy should not be used to manage respiratory distress post-extubation in high risk patients. (2B) C.
UNASSIGNED: Recommendation: Choice of mode should be mainly decided by factors like disease etiology and severity, the breathing effort by the patient and the operator familiarity and experience. (UPP) We suggest using flow trigger over pressure triggering in assisted modes, as it provides better patient ventilator synchrony. Especially in COPD patients, flow triggering has been found to benefit auto PEEP. (3B) D.
UNASSIGNED: D1. Sedation: Recommendations: A non-pharmacological approach to calm the patient (Reassuring the patient, proper environment) should always be tried before administrating sedatives. (UPP) In patients on NIV, sedation may be used with extremely close monitoring and only in an ICU setting with lookout for signs of NIV failure. (UPP) E.
METHODS: Recommendations: We recommend that portable bilevel ventilators or specifically designed ICU ventilators with non-invasive mode should be used for delivering Non-invasive ventilation in critically ill patients. (UPP) Both critical care ventilators with leak compensation and bi-level ventilators have been equally effective in decreasing the WOB, RR, and PaCO2. (3B) Currently, Oronasal mask is the most preferred interface for non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. (3B) F.
UNASSIGNED: Recommendations: We recommend that weaning from NIV may be done by a standardized protocol driven approach of the unit. (2B) How to cite this article: Chawla R, Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Chaudhry D, Khilnani GC, Mehta Y, et al. ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 1):S61-S81.

For patients with acute respiratory insufficiency, mechanical (\"invasive\") ventilation is a fundamental therapeutic measure to ensure sufficient gas exchange. Despite decades of strong research efforts, central questions on mechanical ventilation therapy are still answered incompletely. Therefore, many different ventilation modes and settings have been used in daily clinical practice without scientifically sound bases. At the same time, implementation of the few evidence-based therapeutic concepts (e.g., \"lung protective ventilation\") into clinical practice is still insufficient. The aim of our guideline project \"Mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal gas exchange in acute respiratory insufficiency\" was to develop an evidence-based decision aid for treating patients with and on mechanical ventilation. It covers the whole pathway of invasively ventilated patients (including indications of mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, additional and rescue therapies, and liberation from mechanical ventilation). To assess the quality of scientific evidence and subsequently derive recommendations, we applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. For the first time, using this globally accepted methodological standard, our guideline contains recommendations on mechanical ventilation therapy not only for acute respiratory distress syndrome patients but also for all types of acute respiratory insufficiency. This review presents the two main chapters of the guideline on choosing the mode of mechanical ventilation and setting its parameters. The guideline group aimed that - by thorough implementation of the recommendations - critical care teams may further improve the quality of care for patients suffering from acute respiratory insufficiency. By identifying relevant gaps of scientific evidence, the guideline group intended to support the development of important research projects.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinical outcomes according to ventilatory support indication in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation in a \"real-life\" Emergency Department and to analyze potential predictors of successful noninvasive positive pressure ventilation.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort performed over an 18-month period, comparing the following patient groups with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: Group A composed of patients initially selected to receive noninvasive positive pressure ventilation without the subsequent need for invasive mechanical ventilation (successful-noninvasive positive pressure ventilation); Group B composed of patients transitioning from noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to invasive mechanical ventilation (failed-noninvasive positive pressure ventilation); and Group C composed of patients who presented with immediate need for invasive mechanical ventilation (without prior noninvasive positive pressure ventilation).
RESULTS: 117 consecutive chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation admissions (Group A=96; Group B=13; Group C=8) of candidates for ventilatory support were reviewed. No differences in baseline disease severity and physiological parameters were found between the groups at Emergency Department admission. Nevertheless, Group B had higher intensive care unit admission, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, and higher in-hospital mortality compared to Group A. Group C also had worse outcomes when compared to Group A. The only independent variable associated with the successful use of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation were improvement in arterial carbon dioxide pressure after 1h of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation use and its tolerance.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirmed in a \"real life\" Emergency Department cohort that successful management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation with noninvasive positive pressure ventilation showed lower in-hospital mortality and Intensive Care Unit stay when compared to patients transitioning from noninvasive positive pressure ventilation to invasive mechanical ventilation or patients who presented an immediate need for invasive mechanical ventilation. noninvasive positive pressure ventilation tolerance and higher arterial carbon dioxide pressure reduction after 1-h of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation were predictors of successful treatment. These results should be confirmed in a prospective randomized controlled trial.