Background: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. Research question: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? Study design and methods: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. Results: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .342) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. Interpretation: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Sigh in Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial / T. Mauri, G. Foti, C. Fornari, G. Grasselli, R. Pinciroli, F. Lovisari, D. Tubiolo, C.A. Volta, S. Spadaro, R. Rona, E. Rondelli, P. Navalesi, E. Garofalo, R. Knafelj, V. Gorjup, R. Colombo, A. Cortegiani, J. Zhou, R. D'Andrea, I. Calamai, Á. Vidal González, O. Roca, D.L. Grieco, T. Jovaisa, D. Bampalis, T. Becher, D. Battaglini, H. Ge, M. Luz, J. Constantin, M. Ranieri, C. Guerin, J. Mancebo, P. Pelosi, R. Fumagalli, L. Brochard, A. Pesenti. - In: CHEST. - ISSN 0012-3692. - 159:4(2021 Apr), pp. 1426-1436. [10.1016/j.chest.2020.10.079]

Sigh in Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: The PROTECTION Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

T. Mauri
Primo
;
G. Grasselli;A. Pesenti
Ultimo
2021

Abstract

Background: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. Research question: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? Study design and methods: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. Results: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .342) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. Interpretation: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.
ARDS; feasibility; pressure support; sigh; ventilation;
Settore MED/41 - Anestesiologia
apr-2021
13-nov-2020
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
506_mauri_chest_2020.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Post-print, accepted manuscript ecc. (versione accettata dall'editore)
Dimensione 493.41 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
493.41 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
1-s2.0-S0012369220351382-main.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 230.45 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
230.45 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/808878
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 11
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact