Part 5: Specific Etiologies, Special Populations, and Quality Metrics
COVID-19 ARDS phenotypes and management, transfusion-related acute lung injury, aspiration-related ARDS, immunocompromised patients, obesity and ARDS, pediatric considerations, long-term outcomes, and ICU quality benchmarks for ventilator management.
17. COVID-19 ARDS
17.1 Overview
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (2020–2023) generated an unprecedented volume of experience with ARDS management and raised important questions about whether COVID-19-associated ARDS represents a distinct phenotype requiring modified ventilatory strategies. The weight of evidence supports that standard lung-protective ventilation principles remain the foundation of management, with some etiology-specific considerations.12
17.2 Proposed COVID-19 ARDS Phenotypes
Early in the pandemic, investigators observed that some COVID-19 ARDS patients had preserved lung compliance (relatively easy to ventilate) despite profound hypoxemia. This led to the proposed distinction between two phenotypes:3
| Feature | Type L (“Low” Elastance) | Type H (“High” Elastance) |
|---|---|---|
| Lung compliance | Near-normal (>50 mL/cmH2O) | Low (<40 mL/cmH2O) — classic ARDS |
| Lung weight on CT | Low; ground-glass opacities predominate | High; consolidation, dependent atelectasis |
| Recruitability | Low (lung is already aerated; hypoxemia is from V/Q mismatch, not shunt from collapse) | High (classic recruitable atelectasis) |
| Proposed mechanism | Pulmonary vascular dysregulation (microvascular thrombosis, loss of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction) | Diffuse alveolar damage (similar to classic ARDS) |
| Response to PEEP | Minimal improvement in oxygenation; may cause overdistension | Standard ARDS response; higher PEEP may recruit |
| Proposed VT tolerance | Some argued for higher VT (7–8 mL/kg) if compliance is preserved | Standard 6 mL/kg IBW |
17.3 Current Position on COVID-19 ARDS Phenotypes
The phenotype distinction, while physiologically interesting, is now viewed with important caveats:12
- The distinction was not validated in large clinical trials. No randomized trial has compared different ventilatory strategies based on the L/H phenotype classification.
- Most patients evolve from Type L to Type H over the course of the disease as inflammation progresses, making the classification a snapshot rather than a stable feature.
- Standard lung-protective ventilation (VT 6 mL/kg IBW, Pplat ≤30, driving pressure <15) remains the recommended approach for all COVID-19 ARDS patients regardless of phenotype.
- Higher tidal volumes are NOT recommended even if compliance is preserved, as the risk of VILI remains and driving pressure-guided management inherently accounts for compliance differences.
17.4 COVID-19 ARDS: Specific Management Considerations
| Domain | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Ventilator settings | Standard lung-protective ventilation: VT 6 mL/kg IBW, Pplat ≤30, driving pressure <15 |
| PEEP | Individualize based on driving pressure and oxygenation response; avoid empiric high PEEP if compliance is preserved and driving pressure rises with PEEP escalation |
| Prone positioning | Same indications as non-COVID ARDS: P/F <150 with FiO2 ≥0.6; extremely effective in COVID-19 ARDS with high response rates reported4 |
| Awake prone positioning | Consider for non-intubated COVID-19 patients on HFNC with P/F <300; multiple trials showed reduced intubation rates5 |
| Dexamethasone | 6 mg daily for up to 10 days — established standard of care based on the large recovery platform trial; 36% relative mortality reduction in ventilated patients6 |
| Tocilizumab | Consider for patients requiring supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support with elevated inflammatory markers (CRP ≥75 mg/L); platform trials showed mortality reduction when added to corticosteroids7 |
| Anticoagulation | Therapeutic-dose heparin for non-critically ill hospitalized COVID-19 patients with elevated D-dimer improved organ support-free days; NOT beneficial (and potentially harmful) in critically ill ICU patients per the multiplatform trials8 |
| ECMO | Same indications as non-COVID ARDS; outcomes of ECMO in COVID-19 ARDS were generally consistent with non-COVID ARDS when performed at experienced centers, though mortality was higher during surge periods9 |
| Remdesivir, baricitinib | Antiviral and JAK inhibitor therapies are adjunctive to standard ARDS management; not ventilator-specific |
17.5 Awake Prone Positioning in COVID-19
Awake prone positioning (self-proning for non-intubated patients) gained widespread use during the pandemic:5
| Parameter | Detail |
|---|---|
| Candidates | Non-intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and PaO2/FiO2 <300 on HFNC or NIV; cooperative, able to reposition independently or with minimal assistance |
| Duration | As tolerated; encourage ≥8 hours/day including during sleep |
| Monitoring | SpO2 continuously; respiratory rate; comfort assessment; ROX index |
| Evidence | Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs (>2,000 patients): awake prone positioning reduced intubation risk (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73–0.95) but did not significantly reduce mortality; greatest benefit in patients receiving HFNC5 |
| Standard-of-care status | Reasonable to implement given low cost and minimal harm; not a substitute for intubation when indicated |
18. Transfusion-Related Acute Lung Injury (TRALI)
18.1 Definition and Pathophysiology
Transfusion-related acute lung injury is an immune-mediated form of ARDS that occurs within 6 hours of transfusion of a blood product containing plasma (including packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate).10
| Diagnostic Criterion | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Timing | Acute onset within 6 hours of transfusion |
| Hypoxemia | PaO2/FiO2 <300 or SpO2 <90% on room air |
| Bilateral infiltrates | On chest radiograph |
| No pre-existing ALI/ARDS | Lung injury was not present before transfusion |
| No circulatory overload | Differentiate from transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO) |
Possible TRALI: When a clear alternative risk factor for ARDS exists (e.g., sepsis, aspiration, pneumonia) but transfusion is temporally related.
18.2 Mechanism
| Mechanism | Detail |
|---|---|
| Antibody-mediated | Donor plasma contains anti-HLA or anti-HNA antibodies that bind recipient neutrophils and pulmonary endothelium, triggering an acute inflammatory response |
| Two-hit model | First hit: patient has a proinflammatory condition (sepsis, surgery, trauma) that primes neutrophils. Second hit: transfusion of biologically active lipids or cytokines from stored blood products activates the primed neutrophils |
18.3 Management of TRALI
| Aspect | Management |
|---|---|
| Ventilation | Standard lung-protective ventilation (VT 6 mL/kg IBW, Pplat ≤30); TRALI-ARDS is managed identically to ARDS from other causes |
| Fluid management | Conservative; avoid excessive fluid administration (differentiate from TACO, which requires diuresis) |
| Specific treatment | Supportive only; no targeted pharmacotherapy; corticosteroids not proven beneficial |
| Blood bank notification | Mandatory; the implicated donor must be investigated for anti-HLA/HNA antibodies |
| Prognosis | Generally better than other ARDS etiologies; mortality 5–10% (lower than sepsis-associated ARDS); most patients recover within 48–96 hours |
| Prevention | Male-only plasma policies (female donors with prior pregnancies are more likely to have anti-HLA antibodies); leukoreduction; pathogen-reduced platelets |
19. Aspiration-Related ARDS
19.1 Pathophysiology
Aspiration of gastric contents causes acute chemical pneumonitis (Mendelson syndrome) that can rapidly progress to ARDS through:11
- Direct chemical injury from gastric acid (pH <2.5 is most damaging)
- Surfactant inactivation and destruction
- Inflammatory cascade activation (neutrophil infiltration, cytokine release)
- Secondary bacterial pneumonia (follows chemical injury in 20–30% of cases)
- Particulate matter obstruction of airways
19.2 Management Considerations
| Aspect | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Airway management | Immediate intubation if witnessed massive aspiration with respiratory distress; suction visible material from the airway; do NOT lavage with saline (no benefit, may spread material distally) |
| Ventilation | Standard lung-protective ventilation; no aspiration-specific ventilator settings |
| Antibiotics | NOT indicated for aspiration pneumonitis alone (sterile chemical injury); initiate antibiotics only if: (a) aspiration of known contaminated material (bowel obstruction, feculent material), (b) clinical signs of bacterial pneumonia develop (fever, leukocytosis, purulent sputum after 48–72 hours), or (c) the patient is immunocompromised |
| Corticosteroids | NOT recommended for aspiration pneumonitis (no benefit demonstrated; may increase infection risk) |
| Proton pump inhibitors | No role in treating established aspiration injury; used for prophylaxis in high-risk patients |
| Bronchoscopy | Indicated only for removal of large particulate matter causing airway obstruction; not useful for acid aspiration |
| Prone positioning | Same indications as other ARDS etiologies if severe |
| Prognosis | Variable; isolated aspiration pneumonitis without secondary infection often resolves within 48–72 hours; aspiration with secondary pneumonia or large-volume aspiration in the setting of bowel obstruction carries higher mortality |
19.3 Prevention of Aspiration in the ICU
| Measure | Detail |
|---|---|
| Head of bed elevation | 30–45 degrees at all times for intubated patients |
| Subglottic suctioning | Endotracheal tubes with subglottic suction ports reduce microaspiration of oropharyngeal secretions |
| Cuff pressure management | Maintain ETT cuff pressure 20–30 cmH2O; continuous cuff pressure monitoring preferred |
| Enteral feeding management | Monitor gastric residuals (threshold varies by institution; >500 mL is concerning); prokinetic agents (metoclopramide, erythromycin) for gastroparesis; post-pyloric feeding for patients with recurrent high residuals |
| Oral care | Chlorhexidine oral care every 6–12 hours (note: guidelines vary on chlorhexidine use; some have moved away due to concerns about mucosal damage) |
| Pre-intubation NPO | Standard fasting guidelines for elective procedures; for emergency intubation: rapid sequence induction with cricoid pressure (controversial but still practiced) |
20. ARDS in Immunocompromised Patients
20.1 Special Considerations
Immunocompromised patients (hematologic malignancy, solid organ transplant recipients, HIV/AIDS, autoimmune disease on immunosuppressants, neutropenia) have unique features that influence ARDS management:1213
| Feature | Implication |
|---|---|
| Higher ARDS incidence | Increased susceptibility to respiratory infections (fungal, viral, bacterial, PJP) |
| Higher mortality | Historically 50–80%; improved in recent years with better diagnostic tools and earlier intervention |
| Atypical etiologies | Consider Pneumocystis jirovecii, CMV, invasive aspergillosis, respiratory viruses, drug-induced pneumonitis, DAH, engraftment syndrome |
| Diagnostic approach | Early bronchoscopy with BAL for microbiological diagnosis; CT chest for morphological assessment; beta-D-glucan, galactomannan, CMV PCR |
20.2 Respiratory Support Strategy
| Step | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Initial support | HFNC preferred over NIV as first-line non-invasive support (based on evolving evidence that HFNC is better tolerated and may reduce intubation rates)12 |
| NIV | Previously considered first-line in immunocompromised patients based on earlier trials showing reduced intubation and mortality; more recent data (the multicenter randomized trial of early NIV vs. oxygen in immunocompromised patients, 2015) showed no benefit of NIV over standard oxygen13 |
| Intubation | Do not delay intubation if non-invasive support fails; early intubation (rather than prolonged HFNC/NIV attempts) may improve outcomes in this population |
| Ventilation | Standard lung-protective ventilation; no immunocompromised-specific modifications |
| Prone positioning | Same indications; effectively used in immunocompromised patients with severe ARDS |
| ECMO | May be considered in highly selected patients; however, severe neutropenia, uncontrolled infection, and progressive malignancy are relative contraindications |
| Corticosteroids | Decision depends on underlying diagnosis; PJP pneumonia requires corticosteroids if PaO2 <70; consider for drug-induced pneumonitis and DAH; balance against infection risk |
21. Obesity and ARDS
21.1 Pathophysiological Considerations
Obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) significantly alters respiratory mechanics and influences ARDS management:14
| Factor | Effect |
|---|---|
| Reduced FRC | Increased abdominal pressure reduces functional residual capacity, increasing atelectasis |
| Increased chest wall elastance | Adipose tissue on the chest wall and abdomen increases the pressure needed to expand the thorax; higher airway pressures may be needed for the same transpulmonary pressure |
| Higher plateau pressures | A plateau pressure of 35 cmH2O in an obese patient may correspond to a safe transpulmonary pressure, while the same plateau pressure in a lean patient indicates lung overdistension |
| Increased work of breathing | Baseline oxygen consumption is higher; diaphragm is mechanically disadvantaged |
| Positional desaturation | Supine positioning causes rapid and profound desaturation due to abdominal compression of the diaphragm |
| Paradoxical “obesity paradox” | Some observational data suggest that moderately obese ICU patients may have lower mortality than normal-weight patients, possibly due to metabolic reserve or higher PEEP use |
21.2 Ventilation Strategy in Obese ARDS Patients
| Parameter | Modification |
|---|---|
| Tidal volume | Always calculate from IBW, NOT actual body weight; IBW is based on height, which is independent of weight |
| PEEP | Higher PEEP levels (often 12–20 cmH2O) may be needed to overcome the increased chest wall elastance and maintain recruitment; esophageal manometry is particularly useful in this population to distinguish chest wall pressure from lung distending pressure |
| Plateau pressure | A higher plateau pressure ceiling (up to 35 cmH2O) may be acceptable if transpulmonary pressure remains safe (<20–25 cmH2O); the standard ≤30 cmH2O target may be unnecessarily restrictive in morbid obesity |
| Driving pressure | Remains the most reliable guide; <15 cmH2O regardless of BMI |
| Positioning | Reverse Trendelenburg (head-up 30–45 degrees) or beach-chair position to unload the diaphragm |
| Prone positioning | Safe and effective in obese patients; may require additional team members for turning; ensure adequate bed weight capacity |
| Recruitment maneuvers | Obese patients may be more recruitable due to compressive atelectasis; however, the ART trial results apply and routine aggressive RMs are still not recommended |
| Liberation | Spontaneous breathing trials should be performed in the upright or semi-upright position; post-extubation NIV or HFNC is strongly recommended given the high risk of post-extubation respiratory failure |
22. Long-Term Outcomes After ARDS
22.1 Physical Outcomes
ARDS survivors experience significant long-term morbidity:1516
| Domain | Findings at 1 Year | Findings at 5 Years |
|---|---|---|
| Pulmonary function | Mild restrictive pattern; DLCO reduced; most normalize by 1 year; persistent exercise limitation in some | Generally normalized; residual exercise limitation persists in 20–30% |
| Physical function | 6-minute walk distance reduced to 66% of predicted at 1 year; ICU-acquired weakness persists in 25–35% | 76% of predicted at 5 years; continued improvement but many do not return to baseline |
| Return to work | 49% at 1 year; those who return often work reduced hours | 77% at 5 years, but many with residual limitations |
| Weight loss | Significant muscle wasting during ICU stay; recovery is prolonged | Most regain weight, but body composition may remain altered |
22.2 Cognitive and Psychological Outcomes
| Domain | Prevalence | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive impairment | 25–40% at 1 year | Executive function, memory, attention, processing speed affected; comparable to mild traumatic brain injury; risk factors include prolonged hypoxemia, delirium duration, and sedation depth17 |
| Depression | 25–35% at 1 year | Persistent in many; associated with reduced quality of life and delayed return to function |
| Anxiety | 35–45% at 1 year | Often co-occurs with depression and PTSD |
| Post-traumatic stress disorder | 20–30% at 1 year | Related to ICU experiences, memories of respiratory distress, nightmares, and delusional memories; risk factors include use of benzodiazepines and prolonged sedation |
22.3 Strategies to Improve Long-Term Outcomes
| Strategy | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Early mobilization in the ICU | Reduces duration of delirium, MV days, and ICU LOS; may improve long-term physical function18 |
| Sedation minimization | Light sedation (RASS 0 to −1) reduces delirium, cognitive impairment, and PTSD |
| Delirium prevention | Non-pharmacological measures (sleep hygiene, reorientation, early mobilization, minimizing benzodiazepines); avoid prolonged deep sedation |
| ICU diaries | Written records by nurses and family of the patient’s ICU course; reduce PTSD symptoms |
| Post-ICU follow-up clinics | Multidisciplinary clinics addressing physical, cognitive, and psychological recovery; growing evidence for benefit but not yet universal |
| Pulmonary rehabilitation | Exercise-based rehabilitation programs improve physical function and quality of life in ARDS survivors |
| Family engagement | Family presence, communication, and involvement in care decisions reduce family PTSD and facilitate patient recovery |
23. Quality Metrics and Benchmarks
23.1 Ventilator Management Quality Indicators
| Metric | Target | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Lung-protective VT compliance | ≥95% of ARDS patients on VT ≤6.5 mL/kg IBW | Daily audit of ventilator settings relative to documented height and IBW |
| Plateau pressure monitoring | ≥90% of controlled-ventilation patients have Pplat documented every 4 hours | Chart review |
| Driving pressure documentation | ≥85% of ARDS patients have driving pressure documented every 4 hours | Pplat − PEEP documented |
| Prone positioning rate in severe ARDS | ≥70% of patients with P/F <150 for >12 hours receive prone positioning within 24 hours | Registry/chart review |
| Prone duration | ≥16 hours per prone session in ≥80% of prone sessions | Time documentation |
| Daily SBT screening | ≥90% of intubated patients screened daily for SBT readiness | Nursing/RT documentation |
| SAT + SBT coordination | ≥85% of SBTs preceded by SAT | Protocol adherence audit |
| Ventilator-free days (28-day) | Benchmark: median 0 for severe ARDS, 10–14 for moderate, 18–22 for mild | Calculate for all ARDS patients |
| Head of bed elevation | ≥95% compliance with HOB ≥30 degrees | Nursing documentation/audit |
| Cuff pressure management | ≥90% of measurements within 20–30 cmH2O | Respiratory therapy records |
23.2 ARDS Outcomes Benchmarks
Based on contemporary multicenter data (acknowledging significant variation by center, case mix, and region):1519
| Metric | Mild ARDS | Moderate ARDS | Severe ARDS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital mortality | 20–30% | 30–40% | 40–55% |
| ICU length of stay (survivors) | 8–12 days | 12–18 days | 16–25 days |
| Duration of MV (survivors) | 5–8 days | 8–14 days | 14–21 days |
| Ventilator-free days (28-day) | 18–22 | 10–16 | 0–8 |
| Reintubation rate | <15% | 15–20% | 20–30% |
| Tracheostomy rate | <10% | 15–25% | 25–40% |
23.3 Implementation Checklist for ARDS Management
The following checklist summarizes the key evidence-based interventions for ARDS management and can serve as a daily bedside cognitive aid:
| Category | Daily Checklist Item | Target |
|---|---|---|
| Ventilation | VT ≤6 mL/kg IBW confirmed | Yes/No |
| Ventilation | Pplat measured and ≤30 cmH2O | Value documented |
| Ventilation | Driving pressure <15 cmH2O | Value documented |
| Ventilation | PEEP/FiO2 appropriate per severity and table | Reviewed |
| Oxygenation | SpO2 92–96%; FiO2 at minimum needed | Confirmed |
| Prone | Severe ARDS (P/F <150): is patient prone or has proning been addressed? | Yes/Not applicable/Contraindicated |
| Sedation | RASS target documented and achieved | RASS 0 to −1 (or deeper if clinically required) |
| SAT | Sedation interruption performed or safety screen documented | Yes/Fail reason |
| SBT | SBT attempted or readiness criteria not met (documented) | Yes/Not ready/Failed |
| Fluid | Fluid balance assessed; diuresis initiated if appropriate | Even to negative balance |
| Steroids | Corticosteroids indicated and administered (or reason for withholding) | Reviewed |
| HOB | Head of bed ≥30 degrees | Confirmed |
| DVT prophylaxis | Pharmacologic prophylaxis ordered | Confirmed |
| Nutrition | Enteral feeding initiated within 24–48 hours | Confirmed or contraindication noted |
| Glucose | Blood glucose 140–180 mg/dL | Confirmed |
| Mobility | Early mobilization assessed; physical therapy consulted | Confirmed |
24. Summary of Key Trial Evidence
The following table provides a rapid-reference summary of the landmark trials that form the evidence base for modern ARDS management:
| Trial | Year | N | Intervention | Key Finding | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARDSNet Low VT | 2000 | 861 | 6 vs. 12 mL/kg IBW | 31% RR in mortality (31% vs. 40%) | Standard of care |
| ALVEOLI | 2004 | 549 | Higher vs. lower PEEP | No overall mortality difference | Standard PEEP table established |
| FACTT | 2006 | 1,000 | Conservative vs. liberal fluid | More VFDs with conservative (no mortality difference) | Standard of care |
| LaSRS | 2006 | 180 | Late steroids in persistent ARDS | More VFDs; no mortality benefit; harm if started >14 days | Avoid late steroids |
| ACURASYS | 2010 | 340 | Cisatracurium 48h vs. placebo | Mortality benefit (HR 0.68) | Superseded by ROSE |
| PROSEVA | 2013 | 466 | Prone ≥16h vs. supine | 50% RR in 28-day mortality (16% vs. 33%) | Standard of care (severe ARDS) |
| OSCAR | 2013 | 795 | HFOV vs. conventional | No difference | HFOV not recommended |
| OSCILLATE | 2013 | 548 | HFOV vs. conventional | HFOV increased mortality | HFOV not recommended |
| FLORALI | 2015 | 310 | HFNC vs. O2 vs. NIV | HFNC reduced 90-day mortality | HFNC preferred for acute HRF |
| ART | 2017 | 1,010 | RM + high PEEP vs. low PEEP | RM strategy increased mortality | RMs not recommended |
| EOLIA | 2018 | 249 | Early ECMO vs. conventional | 11% ARR (NS); Bayesian: 88% probability of benefit | ECMO for refractory severe ARDS |
| ROSE | 2019 | 1,006 | NMB + deep sedation vs. light sedation | No difference | Routine NMB not recommended |
| EPVent-2 | 2019 | 200 | PEEP by esophageal pressure vs. high PEEP table | No difference | Esophageal manometry not routinely needed |
| DEXA-ARDS | 2020 | 277 | Dexamethasone vs. standard care | Reduced mortality (21% vs. 36%) and more VFDs | Early steroids for moderate-severe ARDS |
| RECOVERY (dexa) | 2021 | 6,425 | Dexamethasone 6 mg × 10 days in COVID-19 | 36% RR in mortality for ventilated patients | Standard of care in COVID-19 |
| LOCO2 | 2020 | 205 | Conservative vs. liberal O2 in ARDS | Stopped early; trend to harm with conservative O2 | Avoid SpO2 target <92% |
References
Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, et al. “Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy region, Italy.” JAMA, 323(16), 1574-1581, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.5394. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5394 ↩︎ ↩︎
Ferrando C, Suarez-Sipmann F, Mellado-Artigas R, et al. “Clinical features, ventilatory management, and outcome of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are similar to other causes of ARDS.” Intensive Care Med, 46(12), 2200-2211, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06192-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06192-2 ↩︎ ↩︎
Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, et al. “COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes?” Intensive Care Med, 46(6), 1099-1102, 2020. doi:10.1007/s00134-020-06033-2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06033-2 ↩︎
Langer T, Brioni M, Guzzardella A, et al. “Prone position in intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a multi-centric study of more than 1000 patients.” Crit Care, 25(1), 128, 2021. doi:10.1186/s13054-021-03552-2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03552-2 ↩︎
Fazzini B, Page A, Pearse R, et al. “Prone positioning for non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Br J Anaesth, 128(2), 352-362, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2021.09.042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.09.042 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
RECOVERY Collaborative Group; Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, et al. “Dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with Covid-19.” N Engl J Med, 384(8), 693-704, 2021. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2021436 ↩︎
RECOVERY Collaborative Group. “Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial.” Lancet, 397(10285), 1637-1645, 2021. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00676-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00676-0 ↩︎
REMAP-CAP, ACTIV-4a, and ATTACC Investigators. “Therapeutic anticoagulation with heparin in critically ill patients with Covid-19.” N Engl J Med, 385(9), 777-789, 2021. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2103417. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2103417 ↩︎
Barbaro RP, MacLaren G, Boonstra PS, et al. “Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in COVID-19: an international cohort study of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry.” Lancet, 396(10257), 1071-1078, 2020. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32008-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32008-0 ↩︎
Toy P, Gajic O, Bacchetti P, et al. “Transfusion-related acute lung injury: incidence and risk factors.” Blood, 119(7), 1757-1767, 2012. doi:10.1182/blood-2011-08-370932. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-08-370932 ↩︎
Marik PE. “Aspiration pneumonitis and aspiration pneumonia.” N Engl J Med, 344(9), 665-671, 2001. doi:10.1056/NEJM200103013440908. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200103013440908 ↩︎
Azoulay E, Pickkers P, Soares M, et al. “Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: the Efraim multinational observational study.” Intensive Care Med, 43(12), 1808-1819, 2017. doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4947-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4947-1 ↩︎ ↩︎
Lemiale V, Mokart D, Resche-Rigon M, et al. “Effect of noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen therapy on mortality among immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial.” JAMA, 314(16), 1711-1719, 2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12402. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12402 ↩︎ ↩︎
De Jong A, Molinari N, Sebbane M, et al. “Feasibility and effectiveness of prone position in morbidly obese patients with ARDS: a case-control clinical study.” Chest, 143(6), 1554-1561, 2013. doi:10.1378/chest.12-2115. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.12-2115 ↩︎
Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. “Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries (LUNG SAFE).” JAMA, 315(8), 788-800, 2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0291. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0291 ↩︎ ↩︎
Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matte A, et al. “Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome.” N Engl J Med, 364(14), 1293-1304, 2011. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1011802. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1011802 ↩︎
Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, Jackson JC, et al. “Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness.” N Engl J Med, 369(14), 1306-1316, 2013. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1301372. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1301372 ↩︎
Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. “Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial.” Lancet, 373(9678), 1874-1882, 2009. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60658-9 ↩︎
Fan E, Del Sorbo L, Goligher EC, et al. “An official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine clinical practice guideline: mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.” Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 195(9), 1253-1263, 2017. ATS/ESICM/SCCM. doi:10.1164/rccm.201703-0548ST. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201703-0548ST ↩︎