An estimated 310 million patients undergo surgery worldwide each year.¹ The International Surgical Outcomes Study reported that, globally, 26.8% of patients who underwent major surgery had postoperative complications, and 24.3% of those who underwent low abdominal surgery developed complications.² These findings are similar to those of a previous study.³ Postoperative complications after major surgery have been shown to increase the length of stay (LOS), cost, and mortality.^4-6 Moreover, the presence of postoperative complications after colorectal surgery was associated with decreased long-term survival, independent of patient, disease, and treatment factors.³

Purpose The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Results A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3–7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11–14) cmH₂O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27–45) ml/cmH₂O, plateau pressure 25 (22–29) cmH₂O, and driving pressure 12 (10–16) cmH₂O were similar cto values from non-COVID-19 ARDS observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33–0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47–0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Conclusions In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.

The open lung approach is a mechanical ventilation strategy involving lung recruitment and a decremental positive end-expiratory pressure trial. We compared the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol using low levels of positive end-expiratory pressure with open lung approach resulting in moderate to high levels of positive end-expiratory pressure for the management of established moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. A prospective, multicenter, pilot, randomized controlled trial. A network of 20 multidisciplinary ICUs. Patients meeting the American-European Consensus Conference definition for acute respiratory distress syndrome were considered for the study. At 12-36 hours after acute respiratory distress syndrome onset, patients were assessed under standardized ventilator settings (FIO2≥0.5, positive end-expiratory pressure ≥10 cm H2O). If Pao2/FIO2 ratio remained less than or equal to 200 mm Hg, patients were randomized to open lung approach or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol. All patients were ventilated with a tidal volume of 4 to 8 ml/kg predicted body weight. From 1,874 screened patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, 200 were randomized: 99 to open lung approach and 101 to Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol. Main outcome measures were 60-day and ICU mortalities, and ventilator-free days. Mortality at day-60 (29% open lung approach vs. 33% Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network protocol, p = 0.18, log rank test), ICU mortality (25% open lung approach vs. 30% Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol, p = 0.53 Fisher's exact test), and ventilator-free days (8 [0-20] open lung approach vs. 7 [0-20] d Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol, p = 0.53 Wilcoxon rank test) were not significantly different. Airway driving pressure (plateau pressure - positive end-expiratory pressure) and PaO2/FIO2 improved significantly at 24, 48 and 72 hours in patients in open lung approach compared with patients in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome network protocol. Barotrauma rate was similar in both groups. In patients with established acute respiratory distress syndrome, open lung approach improved oxygenation and driving pressure, without detrimental effects on mortality, ventilator-free days, or barotrauma. This pilot study supports the need for a large, multicenter trial using recruitment maneuvers and a decremental positive end-expiratory pressure trial in persistent acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Background: Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. Results: A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53–1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0–2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0–3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40–2.72), p = 0.92]. Conclusion: In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.