Antonio M. Esquinas

Bio: Antonio M. Esquinas is an academic researcher from Lenox Hill Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Mechanical ventilation. The author has an hindex of 17, co-authored 354 publications receiving 3172 citations.

Predictors of failure of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a multi-center study.

Abstract: Context: In patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF), randomized studies have shown noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) to be associated with lower rates of endotracheal intubation. In these patients, predictors of NPPV failure are not well characterized. Objective: To investigate variables predictive of NPPV failure in patients with hypoxemic ARF. Design: Prospective, multicenter cohort study. Setting: Eight Intensive Care Units (ICU) in Europe and USA. Patients: Of 5,847 patients admitted between October 1996 and December 1998, 2,770 met criteria for hypoxemic ARF. Of these, 2,416 were already intubated and 354 were eligible for the study. Results: NPPV failed in 30% (108/354) of patients. The highest intubation rate was observed in patients with ARDS (51%) or community-acquired pneumonia (50%). The lowest intubation rate was observed in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (10%) and pulmonary contusion (18%). Multivariate analysis identified age >40 years (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.92–3.23), a simplified acute physiologic score (SAPS II) ≥35 (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.07–3.06), the presence of ARDS or community-acquired pneumonia (OR 3.75, 95% CI 2.25–6.24), and a PaO2:FiO2 ≤146 after 1 h of NPPV (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.45–4.35) as factors independently associated with failure of NPPV. Patients requiring intubation had a longer duration of ICU stay (P<0.001), higher rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia and septic complications (P<0.001), and a higher ICU mortality (P<0.001). Conclusions: In hypoxemic ARF, NPPV can be successful in selected populations. When patients have a higher severity score, an older age, ARDS or pneumonia, or fail to improve after 1 h of treatment, the risk of failure is higher.

Noninvasive ventilation in severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial.

Abstract: The efficacy of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) to avoid intubation and improve survival was assessed in 105 patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (arterial O2 tension or saturation persistently 60 mm Hg or less or 90% or less, respectively; breathing conventional Venturi oxygen at a maximal concentration [50%]), excluding hypercapnia, admitted into intensive care units of three hospitals. Patients were randomly allocated within 24 hours of fulfilling inclusion criteria to receive NIV (n=51) or high-concentration oxygen therapy (n=54). The primary end-point variable was the decrease in the intubation rate. Both groups had similar characteristics. Compared with oxygen therapy, NIV decreased the need for intubation (13, 25% vs. 28, 52%, p=0.010), the incidence of septic shock (6, 12% vs. 17, 31%, p=0.028), and the intensive care unit mortality (9, 18% vs. 21, 39%, p=0.028) and increased the cumulative 90-day survival (p=0.025). The improvement of arterial hypoxemia and tachypnea was higher in the noninvasive ventilation group with time (p=0.029 each). Multivariate analyses showed NIV to be independently associated with decreased risks of intubation (odds ratio, 0.20; p=0.003) and 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.39; p=0.017). The use of noninvasive ventilation prevented intubation, reduced the incidence of septic shock, and improved survival in these patients compared with high-concentration oxygen therapy.

A multiple-center survey on the use in clinical practice of noninvasive ventilation as a first-line intervention for acute respiratory distress syndrome*

Abstract: Objective: In randomized studies of heterogeneous patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) was associated with a significant reduction in endotracheal intubation. The role of NPPV in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still unclear. The objective was to investigate the application of NPPV as a first-line intervention in patients with early ARDS, describing what happens in everyday clinical practice in centers having expertise with NPPV. Design: Prospective, multiple-center cohort study. Setting: Three European intensive care units having expertise with NPPV. Patients: Between March 2002 and April 2004, 479 patients with ARDS were admitted to the intensive care units. Three hundred and thirty-two ARDS patients were already intubated, so 147 were eligible for the study. Interventions: Application of NPPV. Measurements and Main Results: NPPV improved gas exchange and avoided intubation in 79 patients (54%). Avoidance of intubation was associated with less ventilator-associated pneumonia (2% vs. 20%; p 34 and a PaO2/FIO2 34 and the inability to improve PaO2/FIO2 after 1 hr of NPPV were predictors of failure. (Crit Care Med 2007; 35:18‐25)

Noninvasive ventilation during persistent weaning failure: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract: To assess the efficacy of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with persistent weaning failure, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in 43 mechanically ventilated patients who had failed a weaning trial for 3 consecutive days. This trial was stopped after a planned interim analysis. Patients were randomly extubated, receiving NIV (n 21), or remained intubated following a conventional-weaning approach consisting of daily weaning attempts (n 22). Compared with the conventional-weaning group,

Complications of non-invasive ventilation techniques: a comprehensive qualitative review of randomized trials

Abstract: Summary Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has become a common treatment for acute and chronic respiratory failure. In comparison with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation, NIV has the advantages of reducing patient discomfort, procedural complications, and mortality. However, NIV is associated with frequent uncomfortable or even life-threatening adverse effects, and patients should be thoroughly screened beforehand to reduce potential severe complications. We performed a detailed review of the relevant medical literature for NIV complications. All major NIV complications are potentially life-threatening and can occur in any patient, but are strongly correlated with the degree of pulmonary and cardiovascular involvement. Minor complications can be related to specific structural features of NIV interfaces or to variable airflow patterns. This extensive review of the literature shows that careful selection of patients and interfaces, proper setting of ventilator modalities, and close monitoring of patients from the start can greatly reduce NIV complications.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012.

Abstract: Objective:To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008.Design:A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at ke

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

Abstract: To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao 2/Fio 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao 2/Fi o 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society Consensus Guidelines on the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults

Abstract: Lionel A. Mandell, Richard G. Wunderink, Antonio Anzueto, John G. Bartlett, G. Douglas Campbell, Nathan C. Dean, Scott F. Dowell, Thomas M. File, Jr. Daniel M. Musher, Michael S. Niederman, Antonio Torres, and Cynthia G. Whitney McMaster University Medical School, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; University of Texas Health Science Center and South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, University of Mississippi School of Medicine, Jackson; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, LDS Hospital, and University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia; Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, Rootstown, and Summa Health System, Akron, Ohio; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, and Department of Medicine, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, New York; and Cap de Servei de Pneumologia i Allergia Respiratoria, Institut Clinic del Torax, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Facultat de Medicina, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, CIBER CB06/06/0028, Barcelona, Spain.

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study

Abstract: Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.