Monitoring plays an important role in the current management of patients with acute respiratory failure but sometimes lacks definition regarding which 'signals' and 'derived variables' should be prioritized as well as specifics related to timing (continuous versus intermittent) and modality (static versus dynamic). Many new techniques of respiratory monitoring have been made available for clinical use recently, but their place is not always well defined. Appropriate use of available monitoring techniques and correct interpretation of the data provided can help improve our understanding of the disease processes involved and the effects of clinical interventions. In this consensus paper, we provide an overview of the important parameters that can and should be monitored in the critically ill patient with respiratory failure and discuss how the data provided can impact on clinical management.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the type and incidence of complications during insertion, maintenance, and withdrawal of central arterial catheters used for transpulmonary thermodilution haemodynamic monitoring (PiCCO™). We conducted a prospective, observational, multicentre study in 14 European intensive care units (six countries). A total of 514 consecutive patients in whom haemodynamic monitoring by PiCCO™ was indicated were studied. Five hundred and fourteen PiCCO catheters (475 in femoral, 26 in radial, nine in axillary, and four in brachial arteries) were inserted. Arterial access was obtained on the first attempt in 86.4% of the patients. Minor problems such as oozing after insertion (3.3%) or removal of the catheter (3.5%) were observed, but no episodes of serious bleeding (more than 50 ml) were recorded. Small local haematomas were observed after insertion (4.5%) and after removal (1.2%) of the catheter. These complications were not more frequent in patients with coagulation abnormalities. The incidence of site inflammation and catheter-related infection was 2% and 0.78%, respectively. Other complications such as ischaemia (0.4%), pulse loss (0.4%), or femoral artery thrombosis (0.2%) were rare, transient, and all resolved with catheter removal or embolectomy, respectively. In this series of patients, central arterial catheters used for PiCCO™ monitoring were demonstrated to be a safe alternative for advanced haemodynamic monitoring.

Postoperative pulmonary and non-pulmonary complications are common problems that increase morbidity and mortality in surgical patients, even though the incidence has decreased with the increased use of protective lung ventilation strategies. Previous trials have focused on standard strategies in the intraoperative or postoperative period, but without personalizing these strategies to suit the needs of each individual patient and without considering both these periods as a global perioperative lung-protective approach. The trial presented here aims at comparing postoperative complications when using an individualized ventilatory management strategy in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods with those when using a standard protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. This is a comparative, prospective, multicenter, randomized, and controlled, four-arm trial that will include 1012 patients with an intermediate or high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The patients will be divided into four groups: (1) individualized perioperative group: intra- and postoperative individualized strategy; (2) intraoperative individualized strategy + postoperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); (3) intraoperative standard ventilation + postoperative CPAP; (4) intra- and postoperative standard strategy (conventional strategy). The primary outcome is a composite analysis of postoperative complications. The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy (iPROVE) is the first multicenter, randomized, and controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents postoperative pulmonary complications. Registered on 5 June 2014 with identification no. NCT02158923 .

Background: SARS‐CoV‐2 virus requires host proteases to cleave its spike protein to bind to its ACE2 target through a two‐step furin‐mediated entry mechanism. Aprotinin is a broad‐spectrum protease inhibitor that has been employed as antiviral drug for other human respiratory viruses. Also, it has important anti‐inflammatory properties for inhibiting the innate immunity contact system.Methods: This was a multicentre, double‐blind, randomized trial performed in four Spanish hospitals comparing standard treatment versus standard treatment + aprotinin for patients with COVID‐19 between 20 May 2020 and 20 October 2021. The primary efficacy outcomes were length of hospital stay and ICU admission. The secondary endpoints were each of the primary efficacy outcomes and a composite of oxygen therapy, analytical parameters and death. Safety outcomes included adverse reactions to treatment during a 30‐day follow‐up period. Treatment was given for 11 days or till discharge.Results: With almost identical analytical profiles, significant differences were observed in treatment time, which was 2 days lower in the aprotinin group (p = .002), and length of hospital admission, which was 5 days shorter in the aprotinin group (p = .003). The incidence of discharge was 2.19 times higher (HR: 2.188 [1.182–4.047]) in the aprotinin group than in the placebo group (p = .013). In addition, the aprotinin‐treated group required less oxygen therapy and had no adverse reactions or side effects.Conclusion: Inhaled aprotinin may improve standard treatment and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, resulting in a shorter treatment time and hospitalization compared with the placebo group. The administration of aprotinin was safe.