Background: High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has become a frequently used noninvasive form of respiratory support in acute settings; however, evidence supporting its use has only recently emerged. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside other noninvasive forms of respiratory support in adults with acute respiratory failure (ARF). Materials and methodology: The European Respiratory Society task force panel included expert clinicians and methodologists in pulmonology and intensive care medicine. The task force used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to summarise evidence and develop clinical recommendations for the use of HFNC alongside conventional oxygen therapy (COT) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the management of adults in acute settings with ARF. Results: The task force developed eight conditional recommendations, suggesting the use of 1) HFNC over COT in hypoxaemic ARF; 2) HFNC over NIV in hypoxaemic ARF; 3) HFNC over COT during breaks from NIV; 4) either HFNC or COT in post-operative patients at low risk of pulmonary complications; 5) either HFNC or NIV in post-operative patients at high risk of pulmonary complications; 6) HFNC over COT in nonsurgical patients at low risk of extubation failure; 7) NIV over HFNC for patients at high risk of extubation failure unless there are relative or absolute contraindications to NIV; and 8) trialling NIV prior to use of HFNC in patients with COPD and hypercapnic ARF. Conclusions: HFNC is a valuable intervention in adults with ARF. These conditional recommendations can assist clinicians in choosing the most appropriate form of noninvasive respiratory support to provide to patients in different acute settings.

Evaluating the physiologic effects of varying depths of propofol sedation on patient-ventilator interaction and synchrony during pressure support ventilation and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. Prospective crossover randomized controlled trial. University hospital ICU. Fourteen intubated patients mechanically ventilated for acute respiratory failure. Six 25-minute trials randomly performed applying both pressure support ventilation and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist during wakefulness and with two doses of propofol, administered by Target Control Infusion, determining light (1.26 ± 0.35 μg/mL) and deep (2.52 ± 0.71 μg/mL) sedation, as defined by the bispectral index and Ramsay Sedation Scale. We measured electrical activity of the diaphragm to assess neural drive and calculated its integral over time during 1 minute (∫electrical activity of the diaphragm/min) to estimate diaphragm energy expenditure (effort), arterial blood gases, airway pressure, tidal volume and its coefficient of variation, respiratory rate, neural timing components, and calculated the ineffective triggering index. Increasing the depth of sedation did not cause significant modifications of respiratory timing, while determined a progressive significant decrease in neural drive (with both modes) and effort (in pressure support ventilation only). In pressure support ventilation, the difference in ineffective triggering index between wakefulness and light sedation was negligible (from 5.9% to 7.6%, p = 0.97); with deep sedation, however, ineffective triggering index increased up to 21.8% (p < 0.0001, compared to both wakefulness and light sedation). With neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, ineffective triggering index fell to 0%, regardless of the depth of sedation. With both modes, deep sedation caused a significant increase in PaCO2, which resulted, however, from different breathing patterns and patient-ventilator interactions. In pressure support ventilation, deep propofol sedation increased asynchronies, while light sedation did not. Propofol reduced the respiratory drive, while breathing timing was not significantly affected. Gas exchange and breathing pattern were also influenced by propofol infusion to an extent that varied with the depth of sedation and the mode of ventilation.

Background: The efficacy and safety of high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) in patients with acute hypercapnic exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the short-term effect of HFNT versus NIV in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, with the hypothesis that HFNT is non-inferior to NIV on CO₂ clearance after 2 h of treatment. Methods: We performed a multicenter, non-inferiority randomized trial comparing HFNT and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in nine centers in Italy. Patients were eligible if presented with mild-to-moderate AECOPD (arterial pH 7.25–7.35, PaCO₂ ≥ 55 mmHg before ventilator support). Primary endpoint was the mean difference of PaCO₂ from baseline to 2 h (non-inferiority margin 10 mmHg) in the per-protocol analysis. Main secondary endpoints were non-inferiority of HFNT to NIV in reducing PaCO₂ at 6 h in the per-protocol and intention-to-treat analysis and rate of treatment changes. Results: Seventy-nine patients were analyzed (80 patients randomized). Mean differences for PaCO₂ reduction from baseline to 2 h were − 6.8 mmHg (± 8.7) in the HFNT and − 9.5 mmHg (± 8.5) in the NIV group (p = 0.404). By 6 h, 32% of patients (13 out of 40) in the HFNT group switched to NIV and one to invasive ventilation. HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV since the 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of absolute difference in mean PaCO₂ reduction did not reach the non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg (absolute difference 2.7 mmHg; 1-sided 95% CI 6.1; p = 0.0003). Both treatments had a significant effect on PaCO₂ reductions over time, and trends were similar between groups. Similar results were found in both per-protocol at 6 h and intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions: HFNT was statistically non-inferior to NIV as initial ventilatory support in decreasing PaCO₂ after 2 h of treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate AECOPD, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10 mmHg. However, 32% of patients receiving HFNT required NIV by 6 h. Further trials with superiority design should evaluate efficacy toward stronger patient-related outcomes and safety of HFNT in AECOPD. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered on December 12, 2017, in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03370666).

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) in patients hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs) is an important and challenging complication, including in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Considering the poor lung penetration of most antibiotics, including intravenous colistin due to the poor pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics at the infection site, the choice of the best antibiotic regimen is still being debated. This single-centre, observational study was conducted from March 2020 to August 2022, and included all patients hospitalized consecutively with VAP and concomitant bloodstream infection due to CRAB in the COVID-ICU. The main goal of the study was to evaluate risk factors associated with survival or death at 30 days from VAP onset. A propensity score for receiving therapy was added to the model. During the study period, 73 patients who developed VAP and concomitant positive blood cultures caused by CRAB were enrolled in the COVID-ICU. Of these patients, 67 (91.7%) developed septic shock, 42 (57.5%) had died at 14 days and 59 (80.8%) had died at 30 days. Overall, 54 (74%) patients were treated with a colistin-containing regimen and 19 (26%) were treated with a cefiderocol-containing regimen. Cox regression analysis showed that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and age were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Conversely, cefiderocol-containing regimens and cefiderocol + fosfomycin in combination were independently associated with 30-day survival, as confirmed by propensity score analysis. This real-life study in patients with bacteraemic VAP caused by CRAB provides useful suggestions for clinicians, showing a possible benefit of cefiderocol and its association with fosfomycin.

To measure the ability of a new bioscore to diagnose sepsis in a general critical care population. The study was done at an intensive care unit (ICU) from April to December 2012. Demographic and clinical patient information were recorded on admission to the ICU with blood samples taken for C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin (PCT), interleukin-6, white blood cell count, as well as body temperature, age and the sepsis-related organ failure (SOFA) score. These parameters were used to create a scoring system. The scoring system then underwent analysis by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify which of these clinical parameters were statistically different in septic versus non-septic patients. The bioscore was then tested in a receiver operator characteristic curve to determine statistical significance of the scoring systems ability to predict sepsis. Finally, a bioscore cutoff value was defined to provide a level for sepsis diagnosis. Three hundred patients were enrolled, of which 107 patients were septic and 193 patients were non-septic. Univariate logistic regression showed that age, gender, CRP, PCT and SOFA were risk factors for occurrence of sepsis. Multivariate analysis revealed CRP (AUC 0.729, 95 % CI 0.671–0.787, P < 0.001), PCT (AUC 0.711, 95 % CI 0.652–0.770, P < 0.001) and SOFA (AUC 0.670, 95 % CI 0.607–0.733, P < 0.001) to be statistically significant. The combination of these values in the bioscore had an AUC of 0.790 (95 % CI 0.739–0.834, P < 0.001). A bioscore of ≥2.65 was considered to be statistically significant in making a positive diagnosis of sepsis. This bioscore using CRP, PCT and SOFA score may potentially be used in the future to help identify septic patients earlier, improving their access to timely treatment modalities.