Background: This document updates previously published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), incorporating new evidence addressing the use of corticosteroids, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, neuromuscular blocking agents, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Methods: We summarized evidence addressing four “PICO questions” (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in ARDS used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to develop clinical recommendations. Results: We suggest the use of: 1) corticosteroids for patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence), 2) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in selected patients with severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), 3) neuromuscular blockers in patients with early severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and 4) higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuvers as opposed to lower PEEP in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low to moderate certainty), and 5) we recommend against using prolonged lung recruitment maneuvers in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Conclusions: We provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the management of ARDS. Individual patient and illness characteristics should be factored into clinical decision making and implementation of these recommendations while additional evidence is generated from much-needed clinical trials.

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.

Fifty years ago, Ashbaugh and colleagues defined for the first time the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), one among the most challenging clinical condition of the critical care medicine. The scientific community worked over the years to generate a unified definition of ARDS, which saw its revisited version in the Berlin definition, in 2014. Epidemiologic information about ARDS is limited in the era of the new Berlin definition, and wide differences are reported among countries all over the world. Despite decades of study in the field of lung injury, ARDS is still so far under-recognized, with 2 out of 5 cases missed by clinicians. Furthermore, although advances of ventilator strategies in the management of ARDS associated with outcome improvements—such as protective mechanical ventilation, lower driving pressure, higher PEEP levels and prone positioning—ARDS appears to be undertreated and mortality remains elevated up to 40%. In this review, we cover the history that led to the current worldwide accepted Berlin definition of ARDS and we summarize the recent data regarding ARDS epidemiology.

To better understand the epidemiology and patterns of tracheostomy practice for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we investigated the current usage of tracheostomy in patients with ARDS recruited into the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG-SAFE) study. This is a secondary analysis of LUNG-SAFE, an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients receiving invasive or noninvasive ventilation in 50 countries spanning 5 continents. The study was carried out over 4 weeks consecutively in the winter of 2014, and 459 ICUs participated. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, management and outcomes of patients that received tracheostomy, in the cohort of patients that developed ARDS on day 1–2 of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, and in a subsequent propensity-matched cohort. Of the 2377 patients with ARDS that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 309 (13.0%) underwent tracheostomy during their ICU stay. Patients from high-income European countries (n = 198/1263) more frequently underwent tracheostomy compared to patients from non-European high-income countries (n = 63/649) or patients from middle-income countries (n = 48/465). Only 86/309 (27.8%) underwent tracheostomy on or before day 7, while the median timing of tracheostomy was 14 (Q1–Q3, 7–21) days after onset of ARDS. In the subsample matched by propensity score, ICU and hospital stay were longer in patients with tracheostomy. While patients with tracheostomy had the highest survival probability, there was no difference in 60-day or 90-day mortality in either the patient subgroup that survived for at least 5 days in ICU, or in the propensity-matched subsample. Most patients that receive tracheostomy do so after the first week of critical illness. Tracheostomy may prolong patient survival but does not reduce 60-day or 90-day mortality. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073 . Registered on 12 December 2013.

Rationale: Cardiovascular instability/collapse is a common peri-intubation event in patients who are critically ill. Objectives: To identify potentially modifiable variables associated with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse (i.e., systolic arterial pressure <65 mm Hg [once] or 30 minutes; new/increased vasopressor requirement; fluid bolus >15 ml/kg, or cardiac arrest). Methods: INTUBE (International Observational Study to Understand the Impact and Best Practices of Airway Management In Critically Ill Patients) was a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients who were critically ill and undergoing tracheal intubation in a convenience sample of 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents from October 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 2,760 patients were included in this analysis. Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse occurred in 1,199 out of 2,760 patients (43.4%). Variables associated with this event were older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.03), higher heart rate (OR, 1.008; 95% CI, 1.004–1.012), lower systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98–0.99), lower oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi O₂ before induction (OR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997–0.999), and the use of propofol as an induction agent (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05–1.57). Patients with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse were at a higher risk of ICU mortality with an adjusted OR of 2.47 (95% CI, 1.72–3.55), P < 0.001. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method identified the use of propofol as the only factor independently associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02–1.49). When administered before induction, vasopressors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84–2.11) or fluid boluses (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96–1.44) did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular instability/collapse. Conclusions: Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse was associated with an increased risk of both ICU and 28-day mortality. The use of propofol for induction was identified as a modifiable intervention significantly associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03616054).