Epidemiology, ventilator management, and outcome in patients receiving invasive ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) in middle-income countries are largely unknown. PRactice of VENTilation in Middle-income Countries is an international multicenter 4-week observational study of invasively ventilated adult patients in 54 ICUs from 10 Asian countries conducted in 2017/18. Study outcomes included major ventilator settings (including tidal volume [V_T] and positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]); the proportion of patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), according to the lung injury prediction score (LIPS), or with ARDS; the incidence of pulmonary complications; and ICU mortality. In 1,315 patients included, median V_T was similar in patients with LIPS < 4 and patients with LIPS ≥ 4, but lower in patients with ARDS (7.90 [6.8–8.9], 8.0 [6.8–9.2], and 7.0 [5.8–8.4] mL/kg Predicted body weight; P = 0.0001). Median PEEP was similar in patients with LIPS < 4 and LIPS ≥ 4, but higher in patients with ARDS (five [5–7], five [5–8], and 10 [5–12] cmH₂O; P < 0.0001). The proportions of patients with LIPS ≥ 4 or with ARDS were 68% (95% CI: 66–71) and 7% (95% CI: 6–8), respectively. Pulmonary complications increased stepwise from patients with LIPS < 4 to patients with LIPS ≥ 4 and patients with ARDS (19%, 21%, and 38% respectively; P = 0.0002), with a similar trend in ICU mortality (17%, 34%, and 45% respectively; P < 0.0001). The capacity of the LIPS to predict development of ARDS was poor (receiver operating characteristic [ROC] area under the curve [AUC] of 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54–0.70). In Asian middle-income countries, where two-thirds of ventilated patients are at risk for ARDS according to the LIPS and pulmonary complications are frequent, setting of V_T is globally in line with current recommendations.

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6–12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.

We describe the incidence and practice of prone positioning and determined the association of use of prone positioning with outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. Patients were categorized into 4 groups, based on indication for and actual use of prone positioning. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were 90-day mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay. In 734 patients, prone positioning was indicated in 60%—the incidence of prone positioning was higher in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (77 vs. 48%, p = 0.001). Patients were left in the prone position for median 15.0 (10.5–21.0) hours per full calendar day—the duration was longer in patients with an indication than in patients without an indication for prone positioning (16.0 (11.0–23.0) vs. 14.0 (10.0–19.0) hours, p < 0.001). Ventilator settings and ventilation parameters were not different between the four groups, except for FiO₂ which was higher in patients having an indication for and actually receiving prone positioning. Our data showed no difference in mortality at day 28 between the 4 groups (HR no indication, no prone vs. no indication, prone vs. indication, no prone vs. indication, prone: 1.05 (0.76–1.45) vs. 0.88 (0.62–1.26) vs. 1.15 (0.80–1.54) vs. 0.96 (0.73–1.26) (p = 0.08)). Factors associated with the use of prone positioning were ARDS severity and FiO₂. The findings of this study are that prone positioning is often used in COVID-19 patients, even in patients that have no indication for this intervention. Sessions of prone positioning lasted long. Use of prone positioning may affect outcomes.

Driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) are associated with outcomes in critically ill patients, irrespective of the presence of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). INTELLiVENT-ASV, a fully automated ventilatory mode, controls the settings that affect ΔP and MP. This study compared the intensity of ventilation (ΔP and MP) with INTELLiVENT-ASV versus conventional ventilation in a cohort of COVID-19 ARDS patients in two intensive care units in the Netherlands. The coprimary endpoints were ΔP and MP before and after converting from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV. Compared to conventional ventilation, INTELLiVENT-ASV delivered ventilation with a lower ΔP and less MP. With conventional ventilation, ΔP was 13 cmH₂O, and MP was 21.5 and 24.8 J/min, whereas with INTELLiVENT-ASV, ΔP was 11 and 10 cmH₂O (mean difference –2 cm H2O (95 %CI –2.5 to –1.2 cm H₂O), p < 0.001) and MP was 18.8 and 17.5 J/min (mean difference –7.3 J/Min (95% CI –8.8 to –5.8 J/min), p < 0.001). Conversion from conventional ventilation to INTELLiVENT-ASV resulted in a lower intensity of ventilation. These findings may favor the use of INTELLiVENT-ASV in COVID-19 ARDS patients, but future studies remain needed to see if the reduction in the intensity of ventilation translates into clinical benefits.

Airway care interventions may prevent accumulation of airway secretions and promote their evacuation, but evidence is scarce. Interventions include heated humidification, nebulization of mucolytics and/or bronchodilators, manual hyperinflation and use of mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E). Our aim is to identify current airway care practices for invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU) in the Netherlands. A self–administered web-based survey was sent to a single pre–appointed representative of all ICUs in the Netherlands. Response rate was 85% (72 ICUs). We found substantial heterogeneity in the intensity and combinations of airway care interventions used. Most (81%) ICUs reported using heated humidification as a routine prophylactic intervention. All (100%) responding ICUs used nebulized mucolytics and/or bronchodilators; however, only 43% ICUs reported nebulization as a routine prophylactic intervention. Most (81%) ICUs used manual hyperinflation, although only initiated with a clinical indication like difficult oxygenation. Few (22%) ICUs used MI-E for invasively ventilated patients. Use was always based on the indication of insufficient cough strength or as a continuation of home use. In the Netherlands, use of routine prophylactic airway care interventions is common despite evidence of no benefit. There is an urgent need for evidence of the benefit of these interventions to inform evidence-based guidelines.

We describe the practice of ventilation and mortality rates in invasively ventilated normal-weight (18.5 ≤ BMI ≤ 24.9 kg/m²), overweight (25.0 ≤ BMI ≤ 29.9 kg/m²), and obese (BMI > 30 kg/m²) COVID-19 ARDS patients in a national, multicenter observational study, performed at 22 intensive care units in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilation variables and parameters over the first four calendar days of ventilation, including tidal volume, positive end–expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure in normal–weight, overweight, and obese patients. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and mortality rates. Between 1 March 2020 and 1 June 2020, 1122 patients were included in the study: 244 (21.3%) normal-weight patients, 531 (47.3%) overweight patients, and 324 (28.8%) obese patients. Most patients received a tidal volume < 8 mL/kg PBW; only on the first day was the tidal volume higher in obese patients. PEEP and driving pressure were higher, and compliance of the respiratory system was lower in obese patients on all four days. Adjunctive therapies for refractory hypoxemia were used equally in the three BMI groups. Adjusted mortality rates were not different between BMI categories. The findings of this study suggest that lung-protective ventilation with a lower tidal volume and prone positioning is similarly feasible in normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients with ARDS related to COVID-19. A patient’s BMI should not be used in decisions to forgo or proceed with invasive ventilation.