Journal: Critical Care Explorations
PMID: 36895888

Journal: BMJ Open
PMID: 36639210

What we need to learn

When a patient needs a breathing machine, a breathing tube is placed through the mouth and into the windpipe. Difficulty placing the breathing tube may cause serious problems with low oxygen levels, low blood pressure, or injury to the windpipe or lungs. To place the breathing tube, doctors use a tool called a “scope” to see past the tongue for placement of the breathing tube in the windpipe. Two types of “scope” are commonly used. One is called a “video laryngoscope” and another is called a “direct laryngoscope”. The DEVICE trial compared use of a video laryngoscope with use of a direct laryngoscope in 1,417 patients in 7 emergency departments and 10 intensive care units across the United States. The study showed that use of a video laryngoscope increased the probability of successful breathing tube placement on the first attempt.

Importance

For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in up to 20% of cases and is associated with severe hypoxemia and cardiac arrest. Before the DEVICE trial it remained unknown whether use of a video laryngoscope or use of a direct laryngoscopes was better for patients.’

Objective

To compare the effect of use of a video laryngoscope versus a direct laryngoscope on successful intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in the acute care setting. Design, setting, and participants: The DirEct Versus Video LaryngosCopE (DEVICE) trial was a multi-center, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomized clinical trial among 1,417 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation in 7 emergency departments and 10 ICUs in 11 medical centers across the United States.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to the video laryngoscope group (n =705) or the direct laryngoscope group (n = 712).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the incidence of severe complications.

Results

Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis, successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct- laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference,

0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups.

Conclusions and relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05239195
Manuscript Title: Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of
Critically Ill Adults.
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine
PMID: 37326325

More information

This study is called “Direct Versus Video Laryngoscope (DEVICE)” and is funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. Our goal is to learn whether a “scope” with a video screen or a “scope” without a video screen is better for placing a breathing tube and preventing problems with oxygen levels and blood pressure. Participating in this study will not impact the quality of care patients receive. For each patient:

• When the doctors feel a “scope” with a video screen would be best for a patient, the team will use a “scope” with a video screen.
• When the doctors feel that a “scope” without a video screen would be best for a patient, the team will use a “scope” without a video screen.
• When the doctors do not have a preference, the patient will be assessed against the inclusion / exclusion criteria and when appropriate, enrolled in DEVICE. Once the patient is enrolled in DEVICE, the type of “scope” is assigned randomly, meaning that every patient will have a fair and equal chance of getting either type of “scope.”

Questions

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Jonathan Casey. He will be glad to answer any study-related questions. Dr. Casey’s phone number is (615) 208-6139. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or complaints about the research, you may also contact the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program at (615)- 322-2918.

Participating Sites

Vanderbilt; Denver Health; Ochsner; University of Washington; Duke University; University of Alabama, Birmingham; Baylor, Scott &White; University of Colorado, Denver; Hennepin County Medical Center; Wake Forest; Brooke Army Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess,

Trial Update

On November 17^th 2022, the investigators were notified by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board that the DEVICE trial had met the prespecified stopping criteria at the time of the single interim analysis.  Enrollment in the trial was stopped and investigators and clinicians at participating sites were notified.

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35882061

Journal: NEJM
PMID: 36278971

Journal: Nutrition in Clinical Practice
PMID: 35801708

People who survive critical illness frequently suffer from problems with their strength, thinking, and mental health for months after returning home from the hospital.  To test whether a structured program with specific follow-up visits and resources could prevent the need to be readmitted to the hospital for patients who had previously been treated for critical illness in the ICU, we conducted this pilot study. The study found that patients enrolled in the recovery program received more interventions than those not in the program and went a slightly longer time without hospital readmission. Patients in the ICU recovery program also appeared to experience a lower frequency of death or hospital readmission within 30 days.  Although uncertain because this was only a pilot study, these findings suggest that future research is needed to determine whether programs to help patients recovering from critical illness can prevent death and readmission and improve patients physical, mental, and social function.

Objectives: To examine the effect of an interdisciplinary ICU recovery program on process measures and clinical outcomes.

Design: A prospective, single-center, randomized pilot trial.

Setting: Academic, tertiary-care medical center.

Patients: Adult patients admitted to the medical ICU for at least 48 hours with a predicted risk of 30-day same-hospital readmission of at least 15%.

Interventions: Patients randomized to the ICU recovery program group were offered a structured 10-intervention program, including an inpatient visit by a nurse practitioner, an informational pamphlet, a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week phone number for the recovery team, and an outpatient ICU recovery clinic visit with a critical care physician, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, psychologist, and case manager. For patients randomized to the usual care group, all aspects of care were determined by treating clinicians.

Measurements and main results: Among the primary analysis of enrolled patients who survived to hospital discharge, patients randomized to the ICU recovery program (n = 111) and usual care (n = 121) were similar at baseline. Patients in the ICU recovery program group received a median of two interventions compared with one intervention in the usual care group (p < 0.001). A total of 16 patients (14.4%) in the ICU recovery program group and 26 patients (21.5%) in the usual care group were readmitted to the study hospital within 30 days of discharge (p = 0.16). For these patients, the median time to readmission was 21.5 days (interquartile range, 11.5-26.2 d) in the ICU recovery program group and 7 days (interquartile range, 4-21.2 d) in the usual care group (p = 0.03). Four patients (3.6%) in the ICU recovery program and 14 patients (11.6%) in the usual care group were readmitted within 7 days of hospital discharge (p = 0.02). The composite outcome of death or readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge occurred in 20 patients (18%) in the ICU recovery program group and 36 patients (29.8%) in usual care group (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: This randomized pilot trial found that a multidisciplinary ICU recovery program could deliver more interventions for post ICU recovery than usual care. The finding of longer time-to-readmission with an ICU recovery program should be examined in future trials.

Manuscript Title: “Randomized Clinical Trial of an ICU Recovery Pilot Program for Survivors of Critical Illness.”

Journal: Critical Care Medicine

PMID: 31385881

Many patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) receive oxygen through a breathing machine. Doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapist adjust the amount of oxygen given through the breathing machine to target oxygen levels, but the ideal oxygen level to target is unknown. To understand which oxygen level is best for patients, we conducted a research study called the PILOT study. A total of 2,541 patients on breathing machines in the Vanderbilt intensive care unit participated in the study and had their clinicians target an oxygen level of 90%, 94%, or 98%. The results of the study suggested that patients did equally well when their clinicians targeted an oxygen level of 90%, 94%, or 98%.

Background: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen- saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown.

Methods

In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge.

Results

A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups.

Conclusions

Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo2 target was used.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT03537937.
Manuscript Title: Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving
Mechanical Ventilation
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine

PMID: 36278971

Wake Forest School of Medicine

University of Alabama at Birmingham Medical Center
Dr. Sheetal Gandotra is a pulmonary physician who began her work at UAB in 2018. She received her medical degree from Saba University School of Medicine.

Brian E Driver, MD
Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 

Dr. Driver is board certified in both Emergency Medicine and Internal Medicine. He has expertise in caring for all acute illness and injuries, with particular interests in emergency airway management and metabolic disorders.

Matthew E Prekker, MD MPH
Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN 

Through specialization in both Emergency Medicine and Pulmonary & Critical Care Medicine, Dr. Prekker provides acute care for patients in the Emergency Department and Medical ICU as well as maintaining a practice as a pulmonary consultant and clinic physician. He has special expertise in resuscitation from critical illness, including airway management, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Stacy Trent, MD
Emergency Physician, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA

Stacy A. Trent, MD, MPH is an emergency physician and Associate Director of Research in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Denver Health Medical Center.  Dr. Trent’s is a federally-funded researcher whose work focuses on examining and mitigating variation in evidence-based care for airway management, sepsis, and acute coronary syndrome.  Dr. Trent is a member of the executive committee for the Pragmatic Critical Care Research Group, is member of the NHLBI PETAL network serving as a site investigator for the CLOVERS study and is also a member of the NIH SIREN network. 

Twitter:  @drstrent

Journal: Journal of Neurotrauma
PMID: 35443809

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35549663

Patients in the intensive care unit who require treatment with a breathing machine may develop serious problems with blood pressure or heart rhythm while the breathing tube is being placed.  To learn whether problems with blood pressure or heart rhythms could be prevented by giving patients fluid through an IV, we led a research study called PREPARE.  The PREPARE trial included 337 patients from 8 intensive care units and one emergency department. The trial found that giving fluid through an IV did not prevent seriously low blood pressure, but that the fluid might have been helpful for some patients receiving oxygen through a mask before the procedure (called “non-invasive ventilation”).  These results suggested that IV fluid might prevent low blood pressure among patients on non-invasive ventilation prior to placement of a breathing tube And were the basis for the PREPAREII trial (described above).

Background: Tracheal intubation is common in the care of critically ill adults and is frequently complicated by hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death. We aimed to evaluate administration of an intravenous fluid bolus to prevent cardiovascular collapse during intubation of critically ill adults.

Methods: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, unblinded, randomised trial in nine sites (eight ICUs and one emergency department) around the USA. Critically ill adults (≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation were randomly assigned (1:1, block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, stratified by study site) to either an intravenous infusion of 500 mL of crystalloid solution or no fluid bolus. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was cardiovascular collapse, defined as a new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg; new or increased vasopressor receipt between induction and 2 min after tracheal intubation; or cardiac arrest or death within 1 h of tracheal intubation. Adverse events were assessed in the as-treated population. This trial, which is now complete, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03026777.

Findings: Patients were enrolled from Feb 6, 2017, to Jan 9, 2018, when the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial on the basis of futility. By trial termination, 337 (63%) of 537 screened adults had been randomly assigned. Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 33 (20%) of 168 patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 31 (18%) of 169 patients in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -7·1% to 9·7%]; p=0·76). The individual components of the cardiovascular collapse composite outcome did not differ between groups (new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg 11 [7%] in the bolus group vs ten [6%] in the no-bolus group, new or increased vasopressor 32 [19%] vs 31 [18%], cardiac arrest within 1 h seven [4%] vs two [1%], death within 1 h of intubation two [1%] vs one [1%]). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different in the fluid bolus group (48 [29%]) compared with no fluid bolus (59 [35%]).

Interpretation: Administration of an intravenous fluid bolus did not decrease the overall incidence of cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults compared with no fluid bolus in this trial.

Funding: US National Institutes of Health.

Manuscript Title: “Effect of a fluid bolus on cardiovascular collapse among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation (PrePARE): a randomised controlled trial.”

Journal: Lancet Respiratory Medicine

PMID: 31585796

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35579619

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
PMID: 35212255

Journal: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
PMID: 34898310

Journal: JAMA
PMID: 35707974