Ultra-low tidal volume ventilation for COVID-19-related ARDS in France (VT4COVID): a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised trial

Background COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with a high mortality rate and longer mechanical ventilation. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of ventilation with ultra-low tidal volume (ULTV) compared with low tidal volume (LTV) in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Methods This study was a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised trial conducted in ten intensive care units in France. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, received invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 (confirmed by RT-PCR), had ARDS according to the Berlin definition, a partial pressure of arterial oxygen to inspiratory oxygen fraction (PaO2/FiO2) ratio of 150 mm Hg or less, a tidal volume (VT) of 6 center dot 0 mL/kg predicted bodyweight or less, and received continuous intravenous sedation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using randomisation blocks to receive ULTV (intervention group) aiming for VT of 4 center dot 0 mL/kg predicted bodyweight or LTV (control group) aiming for VT 6 center dot 0 mL/kg predicted bodyweight. Participants, investigators, and outcome assessors were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a ranked composite score based on all-cause mortality at day 90 as the first criterion and ventilator-free days among patients alive at day 60 as the second criterion. Effect size was computed with the unmatched win ratio, on the basis of pairwise prioritised comparison of primary outcome components between every patient in the ULTV group and every patient in the LTV group. The unmatched win ratio was calculated as the ratio of the number of pairs with more favourable outcome in the ULTV group over the number of pairs with less favourable outcome in the ULTV group. Primary analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all participants who were randomly assigned and not lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04349618. Findings Between April 15, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 220 patients were included and five (2%) were excluded. 215 patients were randomly assigned (106 [49%] to the ULTV group and 109 [51%] to the LTV group). 58 (27%) patients were female and 157 (73%) were male. The median age was 68 years (IQR 60-74). 214 patients completed follow-up (one lost to follow-up in the ULTV group) and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was not significantly different between groups (unmatched win ratio in the ULTV group 0 center dot 85 [95% CI 0 center dot 60 to 1 center dot 19]; p=0 center dot 38). 46 (44%) of 105 patients in the ULTV group and 43 (39%) of 109 in the LTV group died by day 90 (absolute difference 4% [-9 to 18]; p=0 center dot 52). The rate of severe respiratory acidosis in the first 28 days was higher in the ULTV group than in the LTV group (35 [33%] vs 14 [13%]; absolute difference 20% [95% CI 9 to 31]; p=0 center dot 0004). Interpretation In patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19-related ARDS, there was no significant difference with ULTV compared with LTV in the composite score based on mortality and ventilator-free days among patients alive at day 60. These findings do not support the systematic use of ULTV in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.