Wang et al. Accuracy of Ultrasound Jugular Venous Pressure Height in Predicting Central Venous Congestion. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2022

Question: Does ultrasound assessment of jugular venous pressure height (uJVP) in the semi-upright and upright positions predict elevated right atrial pressure (RAP) measured during right heart catheterization (RHC)?

Why ask it: Visual inspection of the height of the JVP is often used to estimate RAP. Patient anatomy and variation in the distance between the sternal angle and right atrium may limit the accuracy of this measurement. While ultrasound assessment of inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter and collapsibility is commonly used to estimate RAP, there are many patient and operator-specific limitations to this technique.

Intervention: Convenience sample of 100 patients undergoing RHC at the University of Utah. Two POCUS-trained cardiology fellows and 1 attending physician obtained the following values using a handheld ultrasound (Butterfly Network):

1. Quantitative uJVP: measured with HOB at 30-45° and defined as the point at which the internal jugular (IJ) vein tapered to smaller than the adjacent carotid artery throughout the respiratory cycle (vertical height of this taper above sternal angle + 5 cm = uJVP).

2. Qualitative uJVP based on neck zone where the IJ collapse point was identified: zone 1 (below clavicle), zone 2 (lower 3^rd of neck), zone 3 (middle 3^rd of neck), zone 4 (upper 3^rd of neck), and zone 5 (above mandible).

3. Qualitative uJVP with HOB 90°: If IJ distended to at least the size of the adjacent carotid artery, this test was considered positive

Results:

• ROC of uJVP as a continuous variable to predict RAP > 10 mmHg:
  • AUC 0.84 (95% CI, 0.76 – 0.92)
• Test characteristics of uJVP > 8 cm to predict RAP > 10 mmHg:
  • Sensitivity: 72.7% (95% CI, 57.2% – 85.0%), Specificity: 78.6% (95% CI, 65.5% – 88.4%), likelihood ratio: 3.4 (95% CI, 2.0 – 5.8)
• Test characteristics of qualitative uJVP with HOB 90° to predict RAP > 10 mmHg:
  • Sensitivity 54.5% (95% CI, 38.8% – 69.6%), Specificity: 94.6% (85.1% – 98.9%)
• Evaluating correlation between 5 neck zones and uJVP showed a linear relationship with increasing RAP (figure pasted below)

Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasound assessment of JVP can identify patients with an elevated RAP on RHC with a reasonable degree of accuracy

Comment:

• Important to emphasize this study looked at the relationship between JVP and RAP, not JVP and fluid responsiveness (i.e., will this patient increase their stroke volume in response to a fluid challenge). Two very different questions.

• Study cohort:
  • LVEF < 50%: 44%
  • Male: 64%
  • White: 76%
  • Presenting for evaluation of heart failure: 67%
  • Outpatients: 40%
  • Mean RAP: 10.3 mmHg
  • Mean PCWP: 17 mmHh

• Limitations: Single-center study, convenience sample of 100 patients out of a potential 4,436 patients presenting for RHC during study period (possible selection bias), largely white and male population, not necessarily representative of MICU population, unclear generalizability of study findings to less experienced ultrasonographers

• Visual assessment of JVP had similar test characteristics to uJVP (supporting use of traditional method of JVP assessment for those who like this technique). However, uJVP was possible in 100% of patients while visual estimation was possible in only 60% of assessed patients.

• I like this study because it asks a simple question and gives helpful test characteristics to inform an individual clinician’s decision on whether to incorporate this technique into their clinical practice.

• All measured values in the ICU (e.g., Pplt, Pes, P0.1, CVP, PCWP, IVC collapsibility index, PPV, etc) are imperfect surrogates for complex physiology. In my view, the utility of any of these tests depends on the clinical question being asked, a clinician’s awareness of a specific test’s characteristics and limitations, and how thoughtfully a given value is combined with other data. Based on this study, if your clinical question is,“does my patient have an elevated RAP?,” ultrasound assessment of the IJ may be helpful.

• My take-home: I have always liked scanning the IJ (seems like a logical extension of scanning the heart and IVC + our MICU population seems enriched for patients in whom visual assessment of JVP is challenging). I prefer qualitative “big picture” patterns over quantitative bedside assessments as I worry about accuracy and over-interpretation with the latter. What I will consider using in practice:
  • Seeing a zone 4 or 5 uJVP seems to be a reasonable surrogate for a RAP > 10 mmHg
  • Visualization of the uJVP with the patient at 90° (not feasible in some MICU pts) has a high specificity for a RAP > 10 mmHg

Kentish-Barnes et al. A Three-step Strategy for Relatives of Patients Dying in the Intensive Care Unit. The COSMIC-EOL Cluster Randomized Trial. Lancet 2022

Question: Does a proactive intervention involving repeated meetings with relatives of ICU patients dying after a decision to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining therapies decrease the presence of prolonged grief disorder at 6 months?

Why ask it: Effective and empathic communication with family members is an essential component of high-quality end-of-life care in the ICU. Poor communication has been linked to increased rates of PTSD and complicated grief for family members in the months that follow a patient’s death.

Intervention: 875 patient relatives in 34 French ICUs randomized to standard end-of-life communication or a three-step, physician-driven, nurse-aided support strategy after the decision was made to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining therapies. For relatives in the intervention arm, meetings with the treating physician and nurse were scheduled at 3 distinct time points: An initial end-of-life preparatory conference to plan end-of-life care and discuss the needs of both the patient and the family, a meeting during the dying process to show non-abandonment and detect unmet needs, and finally a meeting after death to answer questions about the ICU stay and acknowledge emotions.

Results:

• Median prolonged-grief 13 questionnaire score during a telephone interview at 6 months (primary endpoint): 19 (IQR 14 – 26) in the intervention group vs 21 (15 – 29) in the control group [mean difference 2.5 (95% CI, 1.04 – 3.95)
• Proportion of relatives with a score > 30 indicating complicated grief: 15% intervention arm vs 21% control arm, p=0.035
• At 3 months, relatives in the intervention arm had statistically lower hospital anxiety and depression scale assessment scores as well as less PTSD-related symptoms.

Conclusion: A three-step proactive communication intervention involving the treating clinician and nurse reduced the burden of prolonged grief in relatives of dying patients following the decision to withhold or withdrawal life-sustaining therapies.

Comment:

• A well-done trial with a simple intervention on an important topic. 90% of relatives in the intervention arm had all 3 steps completed and 79% completed 6-month follow-up.
• The majority of relatives were either a spouse/partner or a child of the patient. Most had very strong social support
• 68% of relatives in control arm received meetings at the first 2 time points suggesting perhaps a unique impact of the scheduled meeting after a patient’s death
• The authors rightly point out that symptom scores are imperfect surrogates for the complex emotional and physical burden family members shoulder after the death of a loved one. Additionally, there is no clear minimally important difference in the PG-13 score used in the primary outcome
• I really like the emphasis on shared clinician and nurse communication. Aligned clinician + RN communication and clear shared support for families I think an important model to emulate
• This trial will make me more deliberately consider empathic clinician + RN communication at these 3 distinct phases in the care of our dying patients. I will make a more concerted effort to partner with nursing during these time points. The communication model outlined in the intervention may be worth trying to replicate in our ICU.

Ely et al. Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib Plus Standard Care for the Treatment of Critically Ill Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation or Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Exploratory, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2022

Question: Does the use of the oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor baricitinib improve mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or ECMO?

Why ask it: While several randomized controlled trials have studied the use of baricitinib in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there is minimal data on the safety and efficacy of baricitinib when used in patients who require IMV or ECMO.

Intervention: 101 patients in 4 countries with COVID-19 and at least one elevated inflammatory marker (CRP, D-dimer, LDH, ferritin) requiring IMV or ECMO randomized to baricitinib 4mg daily or placebo for up to 14 days (baricitinib dose-reduced based on eGFR). All other aspects of care were left to the treating team.

Results (written as baricitinib vs placebo):

• All-cause mortality at day 28
  • 39% vs 58% (HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.31 – 0.96]), p=0.03
• All-cause mortality at day 60
  • 45% vs 62% (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.33 – 0.97]), p=0.027
• No significant difference between study groups in ventilator free days, overall improvement based on NIAID-OS, and duration of hospitalization

Conclusion: In patients with severe COVID-19 requiring IMV or ECMO, the use of baricitinib was associated with a reduction in both 28-day and 60-day mortality.

Comment:

• This trial is an exploratory extension of the COV-BARRIER trial (Lancet Resp Med, 2021) a multinational, phase-3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of baricitinib in ~1,500 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 not requiring IMV or ECMO. While there was no significant difference in the primary outcome (a composite endpoint of the proportion of patients who progressed to HFNC, NIV, IMV, or death by day 28), there was a significant reduction in a secondary endpoint of 28-day mortality (8% with baricitinib vs 13% with placebo (HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 – 0.78]).

• The other large trial of baricitinib to know is ACTT-2 (NEJM, 2021) which compared baricitinib + remdesivir to remdesivir alone in ~1,000 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and found a significant improvement in the primary outcome of time to recovery. Only 11% of patients in ACTT-2 were on IMV or ECMO so very little was known prior to this new study about the utility of baricitinib in our sickest patients.

• As with the COV-BARRIER trial, most immunosuppressed patients were excluded. Exclusion criteria included the use of > 20mg prednisone daily, immunosuppressants, biologics, T-cell or B-cell targeted therapies, suspected serious active bacterial or fungal infection, or untreated TB. In my view, the use of baricitinib in immunosuppressed patients with COVID-19 (including patients with solid organ transplant) is a data-free zone. Use of baricitinib in this patient population should be on a case-by-case basis and should acknowledge that therapy might be harmful.

• Other important details about the study cohort
  • Only 3 patients in this trial were on ECMO. There is still much to learn about use of baricitinib in this setting
  • 86% of patients received steroids while only 2% received remdesivir.
  • Patients were hospitalized for a median of 4 days prior to randomization. Unfortunately, no information is provided on time from IMV or ECMO to enrollment.
• There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two arms including rates of infection and VTE.

• The RECOVERY Baricitinib trial just came out today in pre-print. It includes ~8K patients and also shows a reduction in 28-day mortality (12% vs 14%). Perhaps I will summarize this one in a later review.

• My take-away: I think the totality of evidence suggests that in non-immunosuppressed hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (including the critically ill) who have laboratory evidence of inflammation, the addition of baricitinib to dexamethasone likely improves mortality and does not seem to significantly increase rates of infection or VTE. While I don’t think this trial definitively proves that baricitinib improves mortality in patients on IMV or ECMO (the N is small, very few patients were on ECMO, and important details on timing of therapy are missing), it suggests we should not view IMV or ECMO as absolute contraindications to therapy.

Perkins et al. Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality among Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2022

Question: Does the use of CPAP or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) compared to conventional oxygen therapy reduce the risk of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or mortality at 30 days in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) due to COVID-19?

Why ask it: The optimal mode and duration of non-invasive respiratory support in patients with AHRF due to COVID-19 is unknown.

Intervention: 1,273 patients with AHRF due to COVID-19 (defined as an SpO₂ £ 94% on ³ 0.4 FiO₂) hospitalized at 48 hospitals across the UK randomized to CPAP, HFNO, or conventional O₂ therapy with randomization informed by device availability at each trial site. Device interface, initial settings, titration, and need for IMV were left to the discretion of treating clinicians.

Results (absolute differences and 95% CIs not included for secondary outcomes for simplicity):

• Composite outcome of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days of randomization (primary outcome)
  • CPAP vs conventional O₂
    • 36.3% vs 44.4% (absolute difference, -8 [95% CI, -15% to -1%], p=0.03
  • HFNO vs conventional O₂
    • 44.3% vs 45.1% (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], p=0.83
• CPAP with a lower rate of tracheal intubation vs conventional O₂ (33.4% vs 41.3%) but no difference in mortality at 30 days (16.7% vs 19.2%)
• CPAP with a lower frequency of admission to ICU vs conventional O₂ (55.4% vs 62.9%)
• CPAP with increased time to IMV compared to conventional O₂
  • 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 – 4.0) vs 1.0 day (IQR 0 – 4.0).
• No other statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes between groups
• Post hoc comparison of primary outcome between CPAP and HFNO:
  • 34.6% vs 44.3% (absolute difference, -10% [95% CI, -18% to -2%], p=0.02)

Conclusion: In patients with AHRF due to COVID-19, the use of CPAP but not HFNO decreased the risk of a composite outcome of need for IMV or death at 30 days compared to the use of conventional O₂.

Comment:

• A parallel group, open-label, adaptive, 3-group RCT designed as essentially 2 separate RCTs (CPAP vs conventional O₂ and HFNO vs conventional O₂). This trial was not designed to robustly compare CPAP vs HFNO.
• Worth emphasizing that this was a pragmatic trial. Decisions regarding the device interface used, initial device settings, titration, and need for IMV were left to the treating clinician.
• The planned sample size was 4,002. The trial was stopped early due to declining hospitalization rates in the UK. This may have obscured the detection of smaller but still significant differences between study arms.
• Notable patient characteristics
  • Enrolled ~ 9 days from symptom onset
  • Median P/F at enrollment ~113
  • Mean initial CPAP 8.3 cmH₂O
  • Mean initial flow rate on HFNO 52.4 L/min
• Treatment crossover occurred in 17.1% of patients (most notably in 23.6% of patients randomized to conventional O₂). Findings from an inverse probability weighting analysis to account for crossover were consistent with the primary analysis.
• All 8 serious adverse events occurred in the CPAP group
• So, what do we do with this?
  • The idea that NIV may improve outcomes for patients with AHRF is not new. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 25 RCTs with 3,804 patients found that NIV was associated with lower rates of both IMV and mortality (Ferreyro et al. JAMA 2020)
  • However, several large cohort studies have shown that patients with more severe ARDS frequently fail NIV and those that do tend to have worse mortality (Bellani et al, AJRCCM 2016 as an example). Additionally, a post-hoc analysis of the FLORALI trial found that in immunocompromised patients, use of NIV was independently associated with an INCREASED risk of IMV and death (frat et al. Lancet Resp Med 2016).
  • ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines offer no recommendation on the use of NIV in AHRF, stating a “trial of NIV might be offered to patients with AHRF, CAP, or early ARDS if they are managed by an experienced clinical team, carefully selected (no AMS, shock, MOF), are closely monitored in the ICU, reassessed early after starting NIV, and intubated promptly if they are not improving.”
  • It is critical that a decision to use NIV (or increase the frequency of its use in this patient population) needs to be considered in the context of local factors including RT staffing, ICU bed availability, device availability, and local practices. As an example, at NMH the use of CPAP would require an ICU bed outside of the ED (in contrast to the trial where CPAP decreased ICU utilization).
  • When considering all available evidence, I think both NIV and HFNO are reasonable initial support strategies in patients with AHRF. What matters is likely not what device as an absolute, but how well a specific device is paired with a specific patient in a specific care setting and how closely that patient is monitored for evidence of device intolerance or clinical deterioration.  Regardless of the device chosen, patients with a P/F < 150 should be monitored exceptionally closely as roughly 30 – 50% will fail non-invasive strategies and require IMV.