Acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 pneumonia often requires a comprehensive approach that includes non-pharmacological strategies such as non-invasive support (including positive pressure modes, high flow therapy or awake proning) in addition to oxygen therapy, with the primary goal of avoiding endotracheal intubation. Clinical issues such as determining the optimal time to initiate non-invasive support, choosing the most appropriate modality (based not only on the acute clinical picture but also on comorbidities), establishing criteria for recognition of treatment failure and strategies to follow in this setting (including palliative care), or implementing de-escalation procedures when improvement occurs are of paramount importance in the ongoing management of severe COVID-19 cases. Organizational issues, such as the most appropriate setting for management and monitoring of the severe COVID-19 patient or protective measures to prevent virus spread to healthcare workers in the presence of aerosol-generating procedures, should also be considered. While many early clinical guidelines during the pandemic were based on previous experience with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the landscape has evolved since then. Today, we have a wealth of high-quality studies that support evidence-based recommendations to address these complex issues. This document, the result of a collaborative effort between four leading scientific societies (SEDAR, SEMES, SEMICYUC, SEPAR), draws on the experience of 25 experts in the field to synthesize knowledge to address pertinent clinical questions and refine the approach to patient care in the face of the challenges posed by severe COVID-19 infection.

暂无摘要。

The guideline update outlines the advantages as well as the limitations of NIV in the treatment of acute respiratory failure in daily clinical practice and in different indications.Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has a high value in therapy of hypercapnic acute respiratory failure, as it significantly reduces the length of ICU stay and hospitalization as well as mortality.Patients with cardiopulmonary edema and acute respiratory failure should be treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and oxygen in addition to necessary cardiological interventions. This should be done already prehospital and in the emergency department.In case of other forms of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure with only mild or moderately disturbed gas exchange (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg) there is no significant advantage or disadvantage compared to high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). In severe forms of ARDS NIV is associated with high rates of treatment failure and mortality, especially in cases with NIV-failure and delayed intubation.NIV should be used for preoxygenation before intubation. In patients at risk, NIV is recommended to reduce extubation failure. In the weaning process from invasive ventilation NIV essentially reduces the risk of reintubation in hypercapnic patients. NIV is regarded useful within palliative care for reduction of dyspnea and improving quality of life, but here in concurrence to HFNO, which is regarded as more comfortable. Meanwhile NIV is also recommended in prehospital setting, especially in hypercapnic respiratory failure and pulmonary edema.With appropriate monitoring in an intensive care unit NIV can also be successfully applied in pediatric patients with acute respiratory insufficiency.
Die Leitlinienaktualisierung zeigt die Vorteile sowie die Grenzen der NIV bei der Behandlung von akutem Atemversagen im klinischen Alltag und bei unterschiedlichen Indikationen auf.Die nichtinvasive Beatmung (NIV) hat einen hohen Stellenwert bei der Therapie des hyperkapnischen akuten Atemversagens, da sie die Aufenthaltsdauer und den Krankenhausaufenthalt auf der Intensivstation sowie die Mortalität deutlich reduziert.Patienten mit kardiopulmonalem Ödem und akutem Atemversagen sollten zusätzlich zu notwendigen kardiologischen Eingriffen mit kontinuierlichem positivem Atemwegsdruck (CPAP) und Sauerstoff behandelt werden. Dies sollte bereits präklinisch und in der Notaufnahme erfolgen.Bei anderen Formen des akuten hypoxämischen Atemversagens mit nur leicht bis mäßig gestörtem Gasaustausch (PaO2/FiO2 > 150 mmHg) ergibt sich kein signifikanter Vor- oder Nachteil gegenüber nasaler Sauerstoff-High-Flow-Therapie (HFNO). Bei schweren Formen des ARDS ist die NIV mit einer hohen Rate an Behandlungsversagen und Mortalität verbunden, insbesondere in Fällen mit NIV-Versagen und verzögerter Intubation.Zur Präoxygenierung vor der Intubation sollte NIV verwendet werden. Bei Risikopatienten wird eine NIV empfohlen, um Extubationsversagen zu reduzieren. Im Entwöhnungsprozess von der invasiven Beatmung reduziert NIV das Risiko einer Reintubation bei hyperkapnischen Patienten wesentlich. NIV gilt in der Palliativversorgung als nützlich zur Reduzierung von Dyspnoe und zur Verbesserung der Lebensqualität, hier aber in Konkurrenz zur HFNO, das als komfortabler gilt. Mittlerweile wird die NIV auch im präklinischen Bereich empfohlen, insbesondere bei hyperkapnischem Atemversagen und beim Lungenödem.Bei entsprechender Überwachung auf einer Intensivstation kann NIV auch bei pädiatrischen Patienten mit akuter Ateminsuffizienz erfolgreich eingesetzt werden.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy. Symptoms may vary greatly in presentation and severity. Besides weakness and sensory disturbances, patients may have cranial nerve involvement, respiratory insufficiency, autonomic dysfunction and pain. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of GBS, using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) constructed 14 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome questions (PICOs) covering diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of GBS, which guided the literature search. Data were extracted and summarised in GRADE Summaries of Findings (for treatment PICOs) or Evidence Tables (for diagnostic and prognostic PICOs). Statements were prepared according to GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. For the six intervention PICOs, evidence-based recommendations are made. For other PICOs, good practice points (GPPs) are formulated. For diagnosis, the principal GPPs are: GBS is more likely if there is a history of recent diarrhoea or respiratory infection; CSF examination is valuable, particularly when the diagnosis is less certain; electrodiagnostic testing is advised to support the diagnosis; testing for anti-ganglioside antibodies is of limited clinical value in most patients with typical motor-sensory GBS, but anti-GQ1b antibody testing should be considered when Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) is suspected; nodal-paranodal antibodies should be tested when autoimmune nodopathy is suspected; MRI or ultrasound imaging should be considered in atypical cases; and changing the diagnosis to acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (A-CIDP) should be considered if progression continues after 8 weeks from onset, which occurs in around 5% of patients initially diagnosed with GBS. For treatment, the TF recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) 0.4 g/kg for 5 days, in patients within 2 weeks (GPP also within 2-4 weeks) after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided, or a course of plasma exchange (PE) 12-15 L in four to five exchanges over 1-2 weeks, in patients within 4 weeks after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided. The TF recommends against a second IVIg course in GBS patients with a poor prognosis; recommends against using oral corticosteroids, and weakly recommends against using IV corticosteroids; does not recommend PE followed immediately by IVIg; weakly recommends gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants or carbamazepine for treatment of pain; does not recommend a specific treatment for fatigue. To estimate the prognosis of individual patients, the TF advises using the modified Erasmus GBS outcome score (mEGOS) to assess outcome, and the modified Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score (mEGRIS) to assess the risk of requiring artificial ventilation. Based on the PICOs, available literature and additional discussions, we provide flow charts to assist making clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and the need for intensive care unit admission.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy. Symptoms may vary greatly in presentation and severity. Besides weakness and sensory disturbances, patients may have cranial nerve involvement, respiratory insufficiency, autonomic dysfunction and pain. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of GBS, using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a Task Force (TF) of the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) constructed 14 Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome questions (PICOs) covering diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of GBS, which guided the literature search. Data were extracted and summarised in GRADE Summaries of Findings (for treatment PICOs) or Evidence Tables (for diagnostic and prognostic PICOs). Statements were prepared according to GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. For the six intervention PICOs, evidence-based recommendations are made. For other PICOs, good practice points (GPPs) are formulated. For diagnosis, the principal GPPs are: GBS is more likely if there is a history of recent diarrhoea or respiratory infection; CSF examination is valuable, particularly when the diagnosis is less certain; electrodiagnostic testing is advised to support the diagnosis; testing for anti-ganglioside antibodies is of limited clinical value in most patients with typical motor-sensory GBS, but anti-GQ1b antibody testing should be considered when Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS) is suspected; nodal-paranodal antibodies should be tested when autoimmune nodopathy is suspected; MRI or ultrasound imaging should be considered in atypical cases; and changing the diagnosis to acute-onset chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (A-CIDP) should be considered if progression continues after 8 weeks from onset, which occurs in around 5% of patients initially diagnosed with GBS. For treatment, the TF recommends intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) 0.4 g/kg for 5 days, in patients within 2 weeks (GPP also within 2-4 weeks) after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided, or a course of plasma exchange (PE) 12-15 L in four to five exchanges over 1-2 weeks, in patients within 4 weeks after onset of weakness if unable to walk unaided. The TF recommends against a second IVIg course in GBS patients with a poor prognosis; recommends against using oral corticosteroids, and weakly recommends against using IV corticosteroids; does not recommend PE followed immediately by IVIg; weakly recommends gabapentinoids, tricyclic antidepressants or carbamazepine for treatment of pain; does not recommend a specific treatment for fatigue. To estimate the prognosis of individual patients, the TF advises using the modified Erasmus GBS outcome score (mEGOS) to assess outcome, and the modified Erasmus GBS Respiratory Insufficiency Score (mEGRIS) to assess the risk of requiring artificial ventilation. Based on the PICOs, available literature and additional discussions, we provide flow charts to assist making clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and the need for intensive care unit admission.

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.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy, which is important in noninvasive respiratory support, is increasingly being used in critically ill neonates with respiratory failure because it is comfortable, easy to setup, and has a low incidence of nasal trauma. The advantages, indications, and risks of HFNC have been the focus of research in recent years, resulting in the development of the application. Based on current evidence, we developed guidelines for HFNC in neonates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The guidelines were formulated after extensive consultations with neonatologists, respiratory therapists, nurse specialists, and evidence-based medicine experts. We have proposed 24 recommendations for 9 key questions. The guidelines aim to be a source of evidence and reference of HFNC oxygen therapy in clinical practice, and so that more neonates and their families will benefit from HFNC.

Digital twin technology is a virtual depiction of a physical product and has been utilized in many fields. Digital twin patient model in healthcare is a virtual patient that provides opportunities to test the outcomes of various interventions virtually without subjecting an actual patient to possible harm. This can serve as a decision aid in the complex environment of the intensive care unit (ICU). Our objective is to develop consensus among a multidisciplinary expert panel on statements regarding respiratory pathophysiology contributing to respiratory failure in the medical ICU. We convened a panel of 34 international critical care experts. Our group modeled elements of respiratory failure pathophysiology using directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and derived expert statements describing associated ICU clinical practices. The experts participated in three rounds of modified Delphi to gauge agreement on 78 final questions (13 statements with 6 substatements for each) using a Likert scale. A modified Delphi process achieved agreement for 62 of the final expert rule statements. Statements with the highest degree of agreement included the physiology, and management of airway obstruction decreasing alveolar ventilation and ventilation-perfusion matching. The lowest agreement statements involved the relationship between shock and hypoxemic respiratory failure due to heightened oxygen consumption and dead space. Our study proves the utility of a modified Delphi method to generate consensus to create expert rule statements for further development of a digital twin-patient model with acute respiratory failure. A substantial majority of expert rule statements used in the digital twin design align with expert knowledge of respiratory failure in critically ill patients.

暂无摘要。

Diagnostic guidelines for pediatric ARDS (PARDS) were developed at the 2015 Pediatric Acute Lung Injury Consensus Conference (PALICC). Although this was an improvement in creating pediatric-specific diagnostic criteria, there remains potential for variability in identification of PARDS.
What is the interrater reliability of the 2015 PALICC criteria for diagnosing moderate to severe PARDS? What clinical criteria and patient factors are associated with diagnostic disagreements?
Patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure admitted from 2016 to 2021 who received invasive mechanical ventilation were retrospectively reviewed by two pediatric ICU physicians. Reviewers evaluated whether the patient met the 2015 PALICC definition of moderate to severe PARDS and rated their diagnostic confidence. Interrater reliability was measured using Gwet\'s agreement coefficient.
Thirty-seven of 191 encounters had a diagnostic disagreement. Interrater reliability was substantial (Gwet\'s agreement coefficient, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.83). Disagreements were caused by different interpretations of chest radiographs (56.8%), ambiguity in origin of pulmonary edema (37.8%), or lack of clarity if patient\'s current condition was significantly different from baseline (27.0%). Disagreement was more likely in patients who were chronically ventilated (OR, 4.66; 95% CI, 2.16-10.08; P < .001), had a primary cardiac admission diagnosis (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.18-9.53; P = .02), or underwent cardiothoracic surgery during the admission (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.60-15.00; P = .005). Reviewers were at least moderately confident in their decision 73% of the time; however, they were less likely to be confident if the patient had cardiac disease or chronic respiratory failure.
The interrater reliability of the 2015 PALICC criteria for diagnosing moderate to severe PARDS in this cohort was substantial, with diagnostic disagreements commonly caused by differences in chest radiograph interpretations. Patients with cardiac disease or chronic respiratory failure were more vulnerable to diagnostic disagreements. More guidance is needed on interpreting chest radiographs and diagnosing PARDS in these subgroups.