BACKGROUND: Lung protective ventilation is considered standard of care in the intensive care unit. However, modifying the ventilator settings can be challenging and is time consuming. Closed loop modes of ventilation are increasingly attractive for use in critically ill patients. With closed loop ventilation, settings that are typically managed by the ICU professionals are under control of the ventilator\'s algorithms.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the effectiveness, safety, efficacy and workload with currently available closed loop ventilation modes.
METHODS: Systematic review of randomised clinical trials.
METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials search was performed in January 2023.
METHODS: Randomised clinical trials that compared closed loop ventilation with conventional ventilation modes and reported on effectiveness, safety, efficacy or workload.
RESULTS: The search identified 51 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Closed loop ventilation, when compared with conventional ventilation, demonstrates enhanced management of crucial ventilator variables and parameters essential for lung protection across diverse patient cohorts. Adverse events were seldom reported. Several studies indicate potential improvements in patient outcomes with closed loop ventilation; however, it is worth noting that these studies might have been underpowered to conclusively demonstrate such benefits. Closed loop ventilation resulted in a reduction of various aspects associated with the workload of ICU professionals but there have been no studies that studied workload in sufficient detail.
CONCLUSIONS: Closed loop ventilation modes are at least as effective in choosing correct ventilator settings as ventilation performed by ICU professionals and have the potential to reduce the workload related to ventilation. Nevertheless, there is a lack of sufficient research to comprehensively assess the overall impact of these modes on patient outcomes, and on the workload of ICU staff.

This study summarizes the application of automatic recognition technologies for patient-ventilator asynchrony (PVA) during mechanical ventilation. In the early stages, the method of setting rules and thresholds relied on manual interpretation of ventilator parameters and waveforms. While these methods were intuitive and easy to operate, they were relatively sensitive in threshold setting and rule selection and could not adapt well to minor changes in patient status. Subsequently, machine learning and deep learning technologies began to emerge and develop. These technologies automatically extract and learn data characteristics through algorithms, making PVA detection more robust and universal. Among them, logistic regression, support vector machines, random forest, hidden Markov models, convolutional autoencoders, long short-term memory networks, one-dimensional convolutional neural networks, etc., have all been successfully used for PVA recognition. Despite the significant advancements in feature extraction through deep learning methods, their demand for labelled data is high, potentially consuming significant medical resources. Therefore, the combination of reinforcement learning and self-supervised learning may be a viable solution. In addition, most algorithm validations are based on a single dataset, so the need for cross-dataset validation in the future will be an important and challenging direction for development.
该研究总结了患者与呼吸机非同步性（patient-ventilator asynchrony，PVA）自动识别技术在机械通气过程中的应用。在早期阶段，规则及阈值的设定方法依赖于呼吸机参数及波形的人为解析，虽然这类方法直观并易于操作，但在阈值设定和规则选择上相对敏感，不能很好地适应患者状态的微小变动。随后，机器学习和深度学习的技术开始出现并发展。这些技术通过算法自动提炼和学习数据特性，使PVA的检测更具鲁棒性和通用性。其中，逻辑回归、支持向量机、随机森林、隐马尔可夫模型、卷积自编码器、长短期记忆网络、一维卷积神经网络等方法都被成功地用于PVA的识别。尽管深度学习方法在特性提取上取得了显著进步，但是它们对标签数据的需求较大，可能会消耗大量医疗资源。因此，强化学习与自监督学习的结合可能是一个实际可行的解决方案。此外，算法的验证大多基于单一的数据集，未来对于跨数据集验证的需求将是一个重要且充满挑战性的发展方向。.

Ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction is gaining increased recognition. Evidence of diaphragm weakness can manifest within 12 h to a few days after the initiation of mechanical ventilation. Various noninvasive and invasive methods have been developed to assess diaphragm function. The implementation of diaphragm-protective ventilation strategies is crucial for preventing diaphragm injuries. Furthermore, diaphragm neurostimulation emerges as a promising and novel treatment option. In this rapid review, our objective is to discuss the current understanding of ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction, diagnostic approaches, and updates on strategies for prevention and management.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a lifesaving procedure for critically ill patients. Diaphragm activation and stimulation may counteract side effects, such as ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD). The effects of stimulation on diaphragm atrophy and patient outcomes are reported in this systematic review.
METHODS: Studies investigating diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients and evaluating clinical outcomes were extracted from a Medline database last on January 23, 2023, after registration in Prospero (CRD42021259353). Selected studies included the investigation of diaphragmatic stimulation versus standard of care in critically ill patients, an evaluation of the clinical outcomes. These included muscle atrophy, VIDD, weaning failure, mortality, quality of life, ventilation time, diaphragmatic function, length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and length of hospital stay. All articles were independently evaluated by two reviewers according to their abstract and title and, secondly, a full texts evaluation by two independent reviewers was performed. To resolve diverging evaluations, a third reviewer was consulted to reach a final decision. Data were extracted by the reviewers following the Oxford 2011 levels of evidence guidelines and summarized accordingly.
RESULTS: Seven studies were extracted and descriptively synthesized, since a metanalysis was not feasible. Patients undergoing diaphragm stimulation had moderate evidence of higher maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP), less atrophy, less mitochondrial respiratory dysfunction, less oxidative stress, less molecular atrophy, shorter MV time, shorter ICU length of stay, longer survival, and better SF-36 scores than control.
CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of the molecular and histological benefits of diaphragmatic stimulation is limited. The results indicate positive clinical effects of diaphragm activation with a moderate level of evidence for MIP and a low level of evidence for other outcomes. Diaphragm activation could be a therapeutic solution to avoid diaphragm atrophy, accelerate weaning, shorten MV time, and counteract VIDD; however, better-powered studies are needed to increase the level of evidence.

The effectiveness of remdesivir treatment in reducing mortality and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV) remains uncertain, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have produced conflicting results.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other data resources to find RCTs published prior to April 10, 2023. The selection of studies, assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need to initiate MV.
A total of 5,068 articles were screened, from eight RCTs comprising 11,945 patients. The meta-analysis found that, compared to standard care or placebo, remdesivir treatment provided no significant all-cause mortality benefit (pooled risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.02; 8 studies; high certainty evidence), while subgroup analyses revealed a trend towards reduced mortality among patients requiring oxygen but not MV (pooled RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; 6 studies; I2 = 4%). The need to initiate MV (pooled RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94; 7 studies; moderate certainty evidence) in remdesivir-treated patients was also reduced compared to controls. Remdesivir significantly increased clinical improvement and discharge and significantly reduced serious adverse events.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, it was found that remdesivir treatment did not show a substantial decrease in the risk of mortality. However, it was linked to a reduction in the necessity for additional ventilatory support, suggesting remdesivir could be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, particularly those who are not on MV.

BACKGROUND: It is important to clarify the secretion clearance and lung-related effects of the PEEP-ZEEP maneuver in adults undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV). There is no published comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of PEEP-ZEEP in adults receiving MV.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze published randomized controlled trials, investigating the effects of the PEEP-ZEEP maneuver in adults undergoing mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from the date of inception of the databases until 6 May 2023. Quality assessment was using the Cochrane Systematic Assessment Handbook. The GRADE system was used to grade the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS: A total of 12 trials were included, and the results of the meta-analysis showed that PEEP-ZEEP was not superior to bag squeezing for the removal of bronchial secretions. One study showed a significant increase in the amount of secretion retrieved with the PEEP-ZEEP when compared with tracheal suctioning. Additionally, PEEP-ZEEP was more effective than bag squeezing at improving oxygen saturation. However, one trial showed that bag squeezing was better at improving dynamic compliance. No other differences were found between PEEP-ZEEP and other techniques, except for one study showing more frequent changes in diastolic blood pressure with PEEP-ZEEP compared with ventilator hyperinflation.
CONCLUSIONS: PEEP-ZEEP was not superior to bag squeezing in removing bronchial secretions. However, it improves oxygen saturation when compared to bag squeezing, and no adverse effects on patients\' respiratory systems have yet been observed.

During respiratory infection pandemics, masks and respirators are highly sought after, especially for frontline healthcare workers and patients carrying respiratory viruses. The objective of this study was to systematically review fit test pass rates and identify factors influencing the fitting characteristics.
Potentially relevant studies were identified using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct during the COVID-19 pandemic from February 5, 2020, to March 21, 2023. The search strategy using the following keywords was conducted: Quantitative Fit Test, Condensation Nuclei Counter, Controlled Negative Pressure, PortaCount, Sibata, Accufit, Fit, Seal, Mask, Respirator, Respiratory Protective Device, Respiratory Protective Equipment, Protective Device, Personal Protective Equipment, COVID-19, Coronavirus, and SARS-CoV-2. The quality of the included studies was also assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
A total of 137 articles met the eligibility criteria. Fifty articles had a quality score of less than 7 (good quality). A total of 21 studies had a fit test pass rate of less than 50%. 26 studies on disposable respirators and 11 studies on reusable respirators had an FF of less than 50 and less than 200, respectively. The most influential factors include respirator brand/model, style, gender, ethnicity, facial dimensions, facial hair, age, reuse, extensive movement, seal check, comfort and usability assessment, and training.
37.36% of the disposable respirator studies and 43% of the reusable respirator studies did not report fit test results. 67.86% of the disposable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 35.84% of these studies had an FF greater than 100. Also, 85.71% of the reusable respirator studies had a fit test pass rate greater than 50%, and 52.77% of these studies had an FF greater than 1000. Overall, the fit test pass rate was relatively acceptable. Newly developed or modified respirators must undergo reliable testing to ensure the protection of HCWs. Subject and respirator characteristics should be considered when implementing fit testing protocols. An optimal fit test panel should be developed prior to respirator design, certification, procurement decisions, and selection procedures.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator bundles are suggested to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), but significant variations in the effects of the bundle on patient outcomes have been reported.
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence and evaluate the effects of the ventilator bundle on patient outcomes among critically ill adult patients.
METHODS: A broad search was performed in seven databases for relevant articles published from January 2002 to November 2022. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies investigating the effects of implementing ventilator bundles in adult intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. All data for meta-analysis were pooled using the random-effects model.
RESULTS: After screening, 19 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Evidence of low-to-moderate certainty showed that the ventilator bundle reduced the rate of VAP (risk ratio [RR] = 0.64; P = 0.003), length of ICU stay (mean difference [MD] = -2.57; P = 0.03), mechanical ventilation days (MD = -3.38; P < 0.001), and ICU mortality (RR = 0.76; P = 0.02). Ventilator bundle was associated with improved outcomes, except mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: The ventilator bundle, especially the IHI ventilator bundle, was effective in decreasing the incidence of VAP and improving most of the VAP-related outcomes. However, given the low-to-moderate certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity, these results should be interpreted with caution. A future study that adopts hybrid implementation trials with high methodological quality is needed to confirm the effects of the ventilator bundle on patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between use of nebulized heparin and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients.
METHODS: The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published between database inception and May 2022. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days (VFDs) in 28 days, and length of hospitalization. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration No: CRD42022345533).
RESULTS: A total of eight RCTs (651 patients) were included. Nebulized heparin was associated with reduced ICU length of stay (six studies; mean difference [MD] -1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.87, -0.33, I2 = 76%), reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (two studies; MD -2.63, 95% CI -3.68, -1.58, I2 = 92%) and increased VFDs in 28 days (two studies; MD 4.22, 95% CI 1.10, 7.35, I2 = 18%), without increased incidence of adverse events, such as bleeding; but was not associated with a reduction in length of hospitalization (three studies; MD -1.00, 95% CI -2.90, -0.90, I2 = 0%) or in-hospital mortality (five studies; odds ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.69, 1.77, I2 = 0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Nebulized heparin reduces ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients, but has no effect on length of hospitalization or mortality.

BACKGROUND: The risk of acquiring ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) increases with intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS). The objectives here are to estimate, using data derived from randomized concurrent control trials (RCCTs) of non-antimicrobial versus antimicrobial interventions, the relation of LOS with firstly, apparent VAP prevention effect, and secondly, with VAP incidence in control and intervention groups.
METHODS: Control and intervention group data derived from 13 Cochrane reviews of 78 RCCTs of antimicrobial-based interventions versus 111 RCCTs of various non-antimicrobial-based VAP prevention interventions.
RESULTS: In meta-regression models of VAP prevention effect versus group mean LOS, the effect size of non-antimicrobial-based interventions regress towards the null (+0.028; +0.002 to +0.054) whereas antimicrobial-based interventions regress away from the null (-0.043; -0.08 to -0.004). The day 9-10 VAP incidence increase is 1.28 (0.97-1.6) percentage points among the control groups of antimicrobial interventions per day. By contrast, these increases among antimicrobial- (0.45; 0.19-0.71) and non-antimicrobial- (0.58; 0.29-0.87) intervention groups and in control groups of non-antimicrobial- (0.76; 0.46-1.05) interventions are all similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial-based versus non-antimicrobial-based interventions show overall greater apparent VAP prevention which is most apparent with longer group mean LOS. The basis for this surprising relationship with LOS resides, paradoxically, within the control rather than the intervention groups. This discrepancy implicates indirect (spill-over) effects, inapparent within individual antimicrobial-based RCCTs, which could spuriously conflate the appearance of VAP prevention.