Heavner, Mojdeh S.

Rationale: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) show potential benefits on mortality and other complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adult patients. Evidence-based decisions and processes ensure appropriate use of neuromuscular blockade in adult patients with ARDS. Objectives: The objective of these guidelines was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the administration of NMBAs in critically ill adult patients with ARDS. Design: The American College of Critical Care Medicine Board convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of experts in critical care medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacology, surgery, neurology, and anesthesiology. The panel included two expert methodologists specialized in developing evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guidelines development including task force selection and voting. Methods: The panel members identified and formulated five Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. We used the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Results: The panel generated two conditional recommendations. One recommendation is to use NMBAs in adults with ARDS with Pa o 2 /F io 2 less than 150. For the other recommendations, there was equipoise in the recommendation for and against using titratable vs. fixed-dose NMBA dosing, a monitoring-based strategy for assessing depth of sedation and analgesia in adults with ARDS before initiating or while receiving neuromuscular blockade, and administration of NMBAs for patients who are proned, due to overall lack of evidence in critically ill patients and due to considerations of patient safety and experience concerns. Conclusions: These guidelines provide additional perspectives on the use of NMBA in patients with ARDS, recognizing that institutional and patient-specific considerations must help to guide the decision-making process.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents as an acute inflammatory lung injury characterized by refractory hypoxemia and non-cardiac pulmonary edema. An estimated 10% of patients in the intensive care unit and 25% of those who are mechanically ventilated are diagnosed with ARDS. Increased awareness is warranted as mortality rates remain high and delays in diagnosing ARDS are common. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of understanding ARDS management. Treatment of ARDS can be challenging due to the complexity of the disease state and conflicting existing evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that pharmacists understand both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies to optimize patient care. This narrative review provides a critical evaluation of current literature describing management practices for ARDS. A review of treatment modalities and supportive care strategies will be presented.

AbstractData regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti‐inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow‐up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS studies. The two non‐COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation‐free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator‐free days in critically ill patients with both COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents. Setting: Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States ( n = 32) and Jordan ( n = 1). Patients: Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851–5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4–18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16–1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.

Objectives: To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Settings: Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan. Patients: Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45−2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19−0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27−2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63−1.18). Conclusions: The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration.