Although previous studies have suggested the potential advantages of albumin administration in patients with severe sepsis, its efficacy has not been fully established. In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 1818 patients with severe sepsis, in 100 intensive care units (ICUs), to receive either 20% albumin and crystalloid solution or crystalloid solution alone. In the albumin group, the target serum albumin concentration was 30 g per liter or more until discharge from the ICU or 28 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause at 90 days, the number of patients with organ dysfunction and the degree of dysfunction, and length of stay in the ICU and the hospital. During the first 7 days, patients in the albumin group, as compared with those in the crystalloid group, had a higher mean arterial pressure (P=0.03) and lower net fluid balance (P<0.001). The total daily amount of administered fluid did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.10). At 28 days, 285 of 895 patients (31.8%) in the albumin group and 288 of 900 (32.0%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk in the albumin group, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.14; P=0.94). At 90 days, 365 of 888 patients (41.1%) in the albumin group and 389 of 893 (43.6%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; P=0.29). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed between the two groups. In patients with severe sepsis, albumin replacement in addition to crystalloids, as compared with crystalloids alone, did not improve the rate of survival at 28 and 90 days. (Funded by the Italian Medicines Agency; ALBIOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00707122.)

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients’ representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

Rationale: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) improves the clinical outcomes of nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Objectives: To assess the effects of HFNC on gas exchange, inspiratory effort, minute ventilation, end-expiratory lung volume, dynamic compliance, and ventilation homogeneity in patients with AHRF. Methods: This was a prospective randomized crossover study in nonintubated patients with AHRF with PaO₂/setFi O₂ less than or equal to 300 mm Hg admitted to the intensive care unit. We randomly applied HFNC set at 40 L/min compared with a standard nonocclusive facial mask at the same clinically set Fi O₂ (20 min/step). Measurements and Main Results: Toward the end of each phase, we measured arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort, and work of breathing by esophageal pressure swings (ΔPes) and pressure time product, and we estimated changes in lung volumes and ventilation homogeneity by electrical impedance tomography. We enrolled 15 patients aged 60 ± 14 years old with PaO₂/setFi O₂ 130 ± 35 mm Hg. Seven (47%) had bilateral lung infiltrates. Compared with the facial mask, HFNC significantly improved oxygenation (P < 0.001) and lowered respiratory rate (P < 0.01), ΔPes (P < 0.01), and pressure time product (P < 0.001). During HFNC, minute ventilation was reduced (P < 0.001) at constant arterial CO₂ tension and pH (P = 0.27 and P = 0.23, respectively); end-expiratory lung volume increased (P < 0.001), and tidal volume did not change (P = 0.44); the ratio of tidal volume to ΔPes (an estimate of dynamic lung compliance) increased (P < 0.05); finally, ventilation distribution was more homogeneous (P < 0.01). Conclusions: In patients with AHRF, HFNC exerts multiple physiologic effects including less inspiratory effort and improved lung volume and compliance. These benefits might underlie the clinical efficacy of HFNC.

Mechanical ventilation can cause acute diaphragm atrophy and injury, and this is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Although the importance and impact of lung-protective ventilation is widely appreciated and well established, the concept of diaphragm-protective ventilation has recently emerged as a potential complementary therapeutic strategy. This Perspective, developed from discussions at a meeting of international experts convened by PLUG (the Pleural Pressure Working Group) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, outlines a conceptual framework for an integrated lung- and diaphragm-protective approach to mechanical ventilation on the basis of growing evidence about mechanisms of injury. We propose targets for diaphragm protection based on respiratory effort and patient–ventilator synchrony. The potential for conflict between diaphragm protection and lung protection under certain conditions is discussed; we emphasize that when conflicts arise, lung protection must be prioritized over diaphragm protection. Monitoring respiratory effort is essential to concomitantly protect both the diaphragm and the lung during mechanical ventilation. To implement lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation, new approaches to monitoring, to setting the ventilator, and to titrating sedation will be required. Adjunctive interventions, including extracorporeal life support techniques, phrenic nerve stimulation, and clinical decision-support systems, may also play an important role in selected patients in the future. Evaluating the clinical impact of this new paradigm will be challenging, owing to the complexity of the intervention. The concept of lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation presents a new opportunity to potentially improve clinical outcomes for critically ill patients.

Background: Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. Methods: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position. Results: Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively). Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670